Mayor Csordas called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Csordas, Mayor Pro Tem Landry, Council Members Capello, Gatt, Lorenzo, Nagy and Paul – absent/excused

ALSO PRESENT: Rick Helwig – City Manager

Gerald Fisher – City Attorney

Kathy Smith-Roy – Finance Director

Don Saven – Chief Building Official

Barb McBeth – Interim Planning Director

Marina Neumaier – Assistant Finance Director

Nancy McClain – City Engineer

Member Lorenzo wished to add Item #3 to Mayor and Council Issues, "Fuerst Farm Picnic Request."

Mayor Csordas asked to place the letter from a homeowner regarding the raccoon video as Mayor and Council Issues Item #4.

1. Tom Bosch, Hooters of Novi General Manager, presents proceeds from VIP opening

to Novi Community Goodfellows, represented by Mark Pehrson.

Mayor Csordas noted that Mr. Pehrson is a member of the Planning Commission, but is also a member of the Novi Goodfellows. Hooters of Novi held a grand opening party a few weeks earlier. Prior to that party, the restaurant contacted the Mayor to ask what charity the proceeds from that grand opening should go to.

Mr. Bosch noted that Hooters of Novi had a great opening, and presented a check for the amount of $1,215 that was collected to the Novi Goodfellows.

Mr. Pehrson thanked Hooters of Novi, as well as the Mayor for his continued support of the Novi Goodfellows. The donation will go towards supporting the organization’s motto of "No child without a Christmas." In trying to do so, the organization will try to bring some cheer to some people who may not be able to afford it during the Christmas season.

1. SPECIAL/COMMITTEE - Mayor Csordas: Discussion of proposal to amend the City Charter to provide that, in the event the City Council does not adopt the budget by the third Monday in May, as currently required by Charter, the City Manager’s recommended budget will become the approved budget.

Mayor Csordas said the issue that evening would be whether or not to place the matter on a ballot for the City’s voters to decide. Between section 8.5 of the City Charter, which refers to the adoption of the budget, and 8.6, the budget controls and amendments, there is no failsafe or "relief valve." The Charter requires that a budget be adopted by the third week in May. If not submitted by July 1, many different things could happen in the City. He said the question was what would stay the same with this proposal for voters to decide. What would stay would be the same process. The City Manager would get with his staff, develop a balanced budget, and the rainy day fund would remain essentially the same. City Council would continue to review, discuss, revise, and deliberate on the budget, which would not be a change. Currently, Council has no recourse between articles 8.5 and 8.6. The City Manager is accountable to the City Council, and it is not in his or her best interest to propose a budget that does not reflect City Council’s philosophy. By reverting to the original budget proposal, which would be required to be balanced and have a surplus for the foreseeable future, if a budget was not approved as required by Charter, Council would continue to retain control, the budget would be approved, the City would continue to function and residents would be protected.

Member Nagy said she had thought a lot about the proposal and had actually called the Michigan Department of Treasury. As she sees the matter, it does not require an amendment. She does not see any crisis with regards to the budget. There was a three-week hiatus between the first and second budget meetings because Council accommodated two members of Council that wished to go on vacation. Those three weeks made a difference. According to the Michigan Department of Treasury, the City would not have shut down if the budget were not passed. The City has until June 30^th to make the decision, anyhow. There are ways of passing the budget by withholding certain items for a period of time and then revisiting them. She personally believes that there never was a budget crisis. She has watched budget meetings in the past, and going through the budget department by department is the way that the discussions have always been done. She has spoken with former mayors and Council members, none of whom agreed that the Charter needs to be amended. The proposal would almost be like taxation without representation, and per the Charter Council must come to the budget resolution.

Member Lorenzo said she feels that it is Council’s responsibility to perhaps actually hold more meetings than what had been done, if needed. If she were to change anything in the Charter, it would be the date that the budget must be passed by. She does not feel that it is necessary to change the Charter, as the document is fine as is. Should there ever be another stalemate, there are a number of alternatives. She did not view the situation as a crisis; the crisis would have been not to have passed the budget by June 30^th. The Charter indicates that Council passes the budget resolution that is proposed by the City Manager. She agrees with Mayor Csordas that the budget is supposed to reflect what Council’s intentions are. However, Council has not held a goal-setting session before the budget meetings or since the current Council has formed. She stated that she does not feel that changing the City Charter would be a good idea.

Mayor Csordas thanked Member Nagy, and noted that he was only asking Council whether to put the matter to the vote of the people. He asked Mr. Fisher what the consequence would be for the City, should a budget not be passed by July 1^st.

Mr. Fisher replied that there are a couple of things at work. The Michigan Department of Treasury’s rules and regulations, without regard to the City Charter, seem to allow the budget to go on and be adopted prior to the next fiscal year. If the analysis is stopped at that point, all is well and good. However, the analysis cannot be stopped at that point because, number one, the City does have a Charter provision that could call into question the validity of the action after that date. In other words, assuming that the budget is adopted in the fourth week of the month, and the City levies the taxes and tax bills, and someone files an action at the Tax Tribunal, the City would not have a case that it could rely upon to say that the taxes would be lawful. The Department of Treasury believes that the taxes would be lawful, and the City has some tangential cases that it believes could be argued in favor of saying those taxes are lawful, but this is a lot of money to gamble with, as well as the lives of employees and other considerations that could be jeopardized. The second thing is that the only way the City can legitimately levy a tax is to have the budget in place so that a tax would be levied based upon a budget. Tax bills need to be printed, and those need to go out well in advance of the end of the fiscal year. For that practical reason, as well as the technical reason identified, he feels that the City could have some jeopardy if the budget was not approved at an earlier date. He was sure this was why the sequential arrangement is set forth in the budget in that manner.

Member Gatt said that he agreed with a lot of what Member Nagy had said, including what she had said about possibly needing more meetings. His good friend Joe Toth wrote a letter, and in that letter suggested that for every million dollars proposed for the budget, Council meets at least one time. He agreed that at the last budget process, which was his first, Council did not meet nearly enough. Having said that, he did not agree with Member Nagy’s comment that there was not a budget crisis. If any employee of the City of Novi were asked if they felt there was a crisis, they would have said there was. Many of those employees went to bed sometime in May wondering if they would get paid on July 1^st, or if they would be sent home and told to stand by their phones. Some residents asked him what would happen to the police, and what would happen if they needed a police officer or a fire fighter. He did not have the answer to that question, and did not know if Council had an accurate answer yet. Mr. Fisher had just said that not approving the budget on time is a big gamble. He does not want to gamble on that happening. This Council would never force the hand of the City to do something like that, but this is not known about Councils in the future.

Every time Council interviews applicants for the Planning Commission, the question is asked of whether the master plan is a living, breathing document, to which the answer is yes, as it changes with the times and needs. He feels that the City Charter is a living, breathing document as well. Perhaps when that Charter was written many years ago, the City did not need an amendment such as the one being talked about that evening. Times have changed, and he feels that it is time to at least put the matter to a vote. This Council will not change the Charter, as it does not have the power to do so. The election this November will draw a great number of people, as it is a presidential election, and most of the voters in Novi will come out. He asked why the matter could not be proposed to Novi voters with that election. Council was elected to represent those residents, and he feels that Council should see what they want. It is Council’s duty to bring forth and vote on a budget, but it almost failed on that duty a few months earlier. None of the triggers would have been pulled until July 1, but he questioned what would have come had the budget been passed by that date. Member Nagy had suggested possibly just moving that date back, which is a great idea. However, if the date is moved back to June 15^th and that date comes without a passed budget, then the City would be in the same predicament that it was in a few months earlier. He sees the proposed Charter amendment as an insurance policy, or a failsafe. If Council fails to do its job, the citizens and the employees would still be protected.

Member Gatt said he does not see the amendment as selling out Council’s power. Rather, he sees it as an insurance policy for the City’s citizens. If this Council, or any Council, fails to meet the deadline and would trigger that Charter amendment if it was passed, he would hope that some group would look at the trouble spot on Council, and get them off of Council, as they would no longer be serving the citizens at that point. He does not believe that the current Council would ever come to that level, but no one knows the future. By implementing an amendment like the one proposed, this would be a cheap insurance policy for the citizens and the employees of this great city. The people should have the choice with this matter. Council was elected to represent the people. There was what some people might consider a crisis this year, and had the problem gone further it would have become more and more of a crisis. Had the budget gone past July 1^st, it would have been a tremendous crisis. He asked why Council would not let the people decide if they want to change the living, breathing document called the City Charter, and see if it is time to implement an amendment like the one proposed. The United States Constitution has been amended many times, always for the better of the people. Every amendment that was proposed for the United States Constitution was debated and argued about, but those that passed made this a better country. The City’s Charter, if changed by the vote of the people, would make this City and this Council better. The people should be given the choice and be allowed to vote on the proposal.

Member Lorenzo said she agreed with Member Nagy’s point of view, but some of the things that Member Gatt had mentioned were some of the things concerning her. The United States Constitution talks about taxation with representation. The State of Michigan Constitution talks about taxation with representation. This has never been changed in either of those constitutions. Her first concern would be that without the City Council, the elected representatives of the taxpayers, there would be no accountability or representation. The role of the City Manager is to prepare the budget. He or she then presents the budget to the City Council, at which point it is the Council’s responsibility and duty to deliberate and scrutinize the budget, determining if there are things to be added or deleted based upon what Council feels is the best interest of the City’s taxpayers. If the elected representatives do not vote on or approve a budget at a meeting on the record, then this would be taxation without representation, as the representatives would not have approved the tax rate or the way in which tax dollars would be spent. The City Manager is an at-will employee of the City who can leave the City’s employment voluntarily at any time he or she wants to, or can be dismissed at the Council’s pleasure; the City Manager is not an elected official. For that reason she is very concerned that this would be taxation without representation, and that in fact the City might be violating the United States and State of Michigan constitutions. Like Member Nagy, she does not believe that there was a budget crisis in this city. Council approved a budget nine days after the Charter provision, and yes, technically Council was in violation of the Charter. However, there was no harm done, no consequence, and the State of Michigan thinks of the City’s approval of a budget as before the next fiscal year. Furthermore, the process that is in place has worked, including this year, for 27 years. Except for the heated remarks that were made, the discussion, the debate, the dissention, and the eventual compromise were healthy parts of the democratic process. The process was democracy at work, and a win for the taxpayers. Each Council member probably wound up supporting items that they did not originally support, including her self. She still believes that it was the taxpayers that benefited.

It is not only Council’s prerogative, but also its duty, to scrutinize the budget and ensure that the taxpayers are safe and are getting the most for their money. For those reasons, she would not support placing the proposed amendment on a ballot issue. Council received some letters, but she did not recall an overwhelming outcry from the public with regard to this item. Perhaps some overreacted to the issue, which caused others to overreact. She has worked with two city managers, three different mayors, 14 different Council members, and this was her seventh budget. This budget, in terms of the debate, discussions, and eventual compromise, was really no different than any of the previous six that she has worked on. Ed Kriewall never thought that Council would automatically approve a budget as presented by him. He, in this 30-plus years in Novi had obviously been experienced with different Councils and the budget process, and realized that it was Council’s prerogative to scrutinize the budget and make its own decisions, as Council members are the elected officials in this City. She asked Ms. Smith-Roy what the State had said would happen in the event of an emergency after July 1^st.

Ms. Smith-Roy replied that when she contacted the Michigan Department of Treasury, officials stated that there are a couple of different consequences. There are a few different approaches that municipalities have taken, in that they could adopt a temporary budget, or other mechanisms for getting through a short period of time. The State was not in a position, unless the community was financially destitute, to take over that community. The requirement would be that this would have to be reported by the auditors on a separate form to the Michigan Department of Treasury. The Department of Treasury would not step in and take over the community at that point.

Member Lorenzo said she was very calm throughout the budget process, as she knew that under the leadership of Mayor Csordas and Mayor Pro Tem Landry that Council would work out the budget, just as every previous Council had done. In those times, Council members do look to the leadership of the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem for guidance, direction, and consensus building. She never felt there was a crisis and was always confident that the budget would be passed in time, which it was. Though Council was technically nine days after the Charter, it was certainly well ahead of the July 1^st deadline.

Mayor Csordas asked Mr. Fisher for a brief overview of Member Lorenzo’s good point about taxation without representation.

Mr. Fisher said his sense was that the notion of taxation without representation really served as one of the grounds for the actions leading to the Declaration of Independence. The notion of taxation without representation essentially means that the people have not been consulted with regard to taxation. He noted that he had not prepared anything for this question, but said his sense would be that if the people approved a Charter amendment, it would really be the people authorizing taxation based upon budget approval in this manner, so that it would not be a taxation being derived out of action without representation, as it would really be the peoples’ rule.

Member Capello commented that he did not believe that Council had truly been in a crisis situation, but felt that it had headed in that direction. Council had headed close enough in that direction so that administration had to take some action. The City wasted valuable administrative resources to try to come up with a solution to this Council’s inability to pass a budget in a timely fashion. Whether or not the budget situation was a crisis or not, Council was originally in a position where it did have reasonable debate. Motions were made, motions were passed, and Council worked toward a budget that not everybody liked, but everybody could at least accept it. It was at the point where reasonable debate ceased and gamesmanship began that he became concerned with whether or not Council was going to pass the budget. He did not believe Mayor Csordas brought the proposal forward because of a concern with whether or not Council could debate issues in the budget; he brought it forward in anticipation of gamesmanship again in future years, creating a situation where Council would not be able to pass the budget on time. He does not agree one hundred percent with how Mayor Csordas is attempting this proposal, but feels the Mayor is going in the right direction. He does not know if approving the administrative budget in and of itself is the answer, as by doing this, three members of Council could stalemate a budget if they wanted the administrative budget. If Council moves forward to passing some kind of Charter amendment, this would give administration’s proposed budget a temporary holdover for the immediately needed services, such as payroll, fire, and safety, limited for a short extended period of time, that would cover concerns that the City would move forward. This would avoid putting Council in a crisis position, and would still give Council the ability to work toward a budget that five Council members can approve. Like everyone else, he feels that this choice should go to the people.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said that he certainly respects the opinions of all of his colleagues. Under the current process, the City Manager proposes a budget, and the City Council approves it, denies it, or makes changes to it. If the City Council cannot muster five votes to do one of those things, then he believes that the City ceases to operate. Council had just heard that the City could not levy taxes without the budget. If it cannot levy taxes, then it cannot pay for anything. In his opinion, under the current process, if five members of Council cannot agree, there is a definite risk involved. What happened this year was that Council had been at a critical stage. When the Building Official stands at the podium and says that he will not issue any building permits because he is not sure he will have the employees to follow up on the permits, then this is a crisis to him. City administration was extremely concerned with the budget; he has never seen City officials so concerned as they were this year during the budget at the final stages where it was not passed. That is a risk that is present with the current process. The proposal in his opinion simply takes that risk away. The critics of the proposal charge two things: those that are critical say that the proposal would take away City Council’s authority, and it would vest that authority with the City Manager, who is an unelected official. Under the proposal, City Council still, with five votes, could pass, reject, or change the budget. Thus, any authority that Council has would not be reduced. The City budget is about $25 million. Realistically, City Council argues over about $1 million of that money. The other $24 million is unassailable; police officers must be paid, City employees must be paid, vehicles must be purchased, and other expenses must be dealt with. In reality for every year, ninety-six percent of the budget is the City Manager’s budget that City Council rubber stamps. The other $1 million is usually what City Council argues over. This year, the budget came down at the last minute so that Council was debating over about $200,000. What held the budget up this year was about eight-tenths of one percent. The question is if City Council should have the ability to hold up the City over one percent or eight-tenths of one percent of the budget. The City Manager consults every head of every department in the City and has the assistance of all the department heads, people with certificates and degrees in municipal finance. In his opinion, those are the people that are the most qualified in municipal finance. City Council’s role is oversight and policy setting. What is proposed might sound very drastic, but in reality is not very drastic at all. It is a very small part of the budget that is argued about every year. Clearly, this decision is not Council’s to make. Clearly, whether or not Council should keep or get rid of this risk is something that residents should vote on. Council has no business deciding that and cannot decide it. The question that evening was whether to give the residents the option of removing the risk or keeping it. He said he would support putting the issue on a ballot and letting residents decide.

Mayor Csordas thanked everyone on Council for their direct and honest responses to his request.

Member Lorenzo asked if the proposal should have been included under Matters for Council Action if Council wanted to take an actual vote on the matter.

Mr. Fisher replied that that is the way that action is normally taken. Council always has the right to procedurally amend the agenda and place an item on the agenda at some point to discuss it.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked for an amendment to the motion to place the Charter amendment item as Item #1 on Matters for Council Action, "bumping" everything else down one spot.

Member Gatt accepted the friendly amendment. He said he did not understand why any member of Council would not be in support of an issue to allow the people of the City to decide such an important matter.

2. CITY MANAGER

Mr. Helwig said that since the last Council meeting, the State of Michigan, through its Michigan Economic Development Corporation, has approved the High Technology Single Business Tax credit for the Incat Company, located and headquartered here in Novi. Coupled with the City Council approved incentives, this will mean the potential of 300 additional jobs in the community, an investment upwards of $7 million. That tax credit has been formally approved, and is up to final agreement to be prepared with the State. Council has already authorized the signing, and then it will be up to the company to perform as such.

Mr. Helwig said he had the opportunity, as did other staff and Council members, to attend the one-year anniversary of Fox Run Village. This was also an opportunity to do a symbolic beam signing for their fifth building. It was just four short years ago that the City toured the Erickson Retirement Community’s comparable facility, Henry Ford Village, in Dearborn. Fox Run has become an amazing asset for this community in four short years. Apparently there are 350 residents at Fox Run now, many of whom were in attendance at the large tent gathering put on by Fox Run Village. There is a true sense of joy and community at that development. City Councils long ago set the policy that they would like more opportunities for seniors to reside and live out their years in the community, long after they could afford taxation in a single-family home in this community.

Mr. Helwig said the City has a third update from the Oakland County Road Commission as to when the Grand River Avenue culvert will be completely replaced and necessitate up to four weeks’ closing of Grand River Avenue just west of Novi Road, between Novi Road and the new bridge. That work is start August 4^th. The Road Commission was sensitive to the fact that there is a very important election in the community on August 3^rd, as the City is trying to help people get to their polling places. Crews will now begin on Wednesday, August 4^th, with that work. Administration is asking for everyone’s indulgence; this will be one of the last major disruptions in this construction cycle.

Mr. Helwig continued; Council has been supporting Providence Hospital through policy setting in the hospital’s many-long-year endeavor to land a full-fledged hospital in this community. Last week, Providence was the recipient of a positive decision toward that end in the courts. Providence plans to be submitting, in the not too distant future, their plans for a facility with a minimum of 200 full beds. Council’s working with Providence on height restrictions and the campus development were keys to making this happen. The City wishes Providence God’s speed in that endeavor.

3. DEPARTMENTAL – January – June, 2004 Building Statistics – Don Saven, Chief

Building Official

Mr. Saven commented that the Building Department’s primary goal is the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the community and of the public who work, visit, and enjoy this great city. Some of the Building Department’s responsibilities by code are to ensure fire safety systems, alarm systems, emergency egress lighting, exit signage, exit doors, and provide those uses that require these systems. Panic hardware on exit doors, guard rails, hand rails, stairways require specific dimensions, smoke detectors, emergency egress windows, ground fault interrupters, and compliance to material usage are all examples of codes that the Building Department inspects. Regarding inspections, there are over 22,000 inspections on an annual basis. Over the past 15 years, there has been a remarkable change in housing stock. Housing has become more elaborate, more square footage, and the quality of housing has risen to a very high standard. What is more remarkable is that the demand of this housing stock: on a single-family detached home projection for the 2003-2004 year, the City had approximately 140 additional single-family homes built in the community. These homes range on average from $350,000 to $1 million, and are not the average homes of 15 years ago; they are very complex homes and require a lot of T.L.C., regardless of what type of home they are. In an inverse order, the multiple housing stock has seen a slight decrease, as the multiple housing stock peaked in the 2002-2003 period of time, when Main Street II was going into conclusion. Carlton Forest, Gateway Village, Fox Run, Central Park Estates, Island Lake, and Pointe Park, all of which are active right now, are going into a closeout phase. The City will carefully watch the projections for new developments, such as Charneth Fen, Taft Knolls, Trillium Village, and Fox Run II. Fox Run is quite an establishment; it is a project that takes a lot of T.L.C., as there are many bells and whistles involved with the project.

Commercial construction evaluation showed a slight decrease, which is not unusual for this type of development. When one increases, others seem to decrease in certain phases. Next year, the City will be looking at the Expo Center coming into play, not to mention Providence Hospital, which will be right around the corner. There are certain time restraints that need to be met, as these are critical issues. The increase of approximately 140 homes is all set to decrease, and commercial and multiple valuations are in increase. Building permit revenue from last year, the 2002-2003 to 2003-2004, showed an increase of approximately $24,829. Based upon the construction activity and availability of reasonable mortgage rates, this fiscal year will be the greatest year that the Building Department will experience. Communications that he has had over the last six months have been intense and very moving, and it seems that everybody wants in now. Developers are very interested in getting their projects moving as quickly as they possibly can. With the increase in construction activity, the intensity of development, and additional ordinances, the Building Department has maintained its full-time staffing level for approximately 30 years without any changes. He wants to thank his staff for their patience and hard work. "The achievements of an organization are the results of the combined efforts of each individual." – Vince Lombardi.

Mayor Csordas thanked Mr. Saven and his staff for the fine work that they have done throughout the years for the City of Novi. He recalled that when he was appointed to the Planning Commission, there was a requirement to sit with a department head for every discipline and skill. Mr. Saven was the first department head he sat with, who provided the best advice he has ever received: you’ll run into things that you don’t like, but you must go forward without being emotional.

4. ATTORNEY

Mr. Fisher noted that a few months earlier, Council approved the text of a proposed Consent Judgment with Paragon and a conceptual site plan, subject to the developer preparing and bringing back to Council for approval a final site plan. From that time to this time currently, there has been some trepidation on the part of the developer to spend $200,000 or $300,000 in the preparation of a final site plan, when there were certain discretionary decisions that would be made by staff and consultants in bringing forward a plan for review. He was happy to say that the previous Friday, what he believed would become a solution to that problem was worked out, by way of a memorandum of agreement between the City and the developer in terms of what kinds of recommendations will be made to this Council. Council will still have all of its powers and authorities, but in terms of the process for bringing the item to Council, there is a process worked out, initial documentation has been prepared for discussion, and he optimistically believes this will come to fruition. Council should have something in a couple of months to act on for the item.

Mr. Helwig said that the second meeting in September, September 27^th, is the goal that was the consensus target for the final site plan to come forward to Council. No consent judgment could be entered until Council has approved that final site plan.

Chris Janik, 45611 Emerald Forest Drive, said that a few years earlier when he was in the Toastmaster’s Club, part of that meeting was always a section called "table topics." The topic master would pick someone from the meeting and tell them that they had 15 seconds to prepare a two-minute speech; he said he would use this system for what he would say to Council. He wished to speak briefly about the proposed Charter amendment regarding the adoption of the budget. He wanted to make it clear that his comments were not directed at anybody personally on the City Council, the current City Manager, or anybody currently seated in office. His concern with the Charter amendment is twofold: one, it takes away the accountability that the City has for the City Council and Mayor, in that the Mayor and City Council are elected officials by the people of Novi to perform their task and represent residents in Council Chambers. One of the issues that comes forward is the adoption and review of a budget. He feels that by a default process such as the proposed Charter amendment, defaulting the budget responsibility back to the City Manager if Council cannot agree, would take away the power of the people. Residents vote Council members and the Mayor into office, and they should be held accountable and do the job that they were elected for. He can understand why Council may have disagreements, but it is its job to tough it out, discuss a matter, come to a consensus and resolve the issue. He is very concerned to the budget defaulting back to a proposal by the City Manager. Once Council adopts the Charter amendment that allows the proposal to happen, it presents the possibility, though not likely, that a future City Manager could propose a budget that he or she knows will not be adopted by Council, but that favors some entity that is somehow related to the City Manager. He noted that this was no reflection on any of the current people involved with the City. The Charter amendment would take away the power of the people to vote for represented officials to speak in Council Chambers and conduct business as residents see fit.

Carol Crawford, Beck Road, said she agreed with everything that the previous speaker had said. She does not care who the City Manager is: it could Rick Helwig, Ed Kriewall, or Saint Peter. The City Manager does not need to hold the City’s purse strings. She does not know how long the current City Manager will stay, or who the next one will be, and she feels that the Charter amendment would give some rights to someone that is not supposed to have them. As a student of political science, she could not believe some of the things she had heard that evening. She questioned how much research had been done about other cities, and what those cities did when there was a crisis with their budget. She did not see a crisis with this year’s budget. A crisis had been mentioned earlier in the meeting, but she did not feel that the situation was a crisis, as it was not like there were weapons of mass destruction hidden in Council Chambers. One member of Council had said that Council could not get three members to move on their budget vote, but she preferred to view the situation as Council could not get four members to move on their vote. She knows that the $1 million that Council argues about may not seem like much to Council, but it is a lot to her as to where that money goes. This is not the only city where there might be a job without a contract. As a teacher, there were many years where she did not know if she would be going back to work or striking. She did have to strike a few times, but did not shake in her boots or not sleep at night, as she knew that things would eventually work out, as all things do. If Council places the matter on the ballot, then this is fine. There are a lot of people who feel the same way as her. She has been in union negotiations where they were there all night. Some people have been locked into negotiations by a judge until they came to a solution. This was a difficult budget, but it might be harder next year. Council can start earlier, work longer, and get a budget together that everyone is satisfied with. Everyone should compromise, work it out, and come to a consensus. She certainly hopes that her comments that her comments do not fall upon deaf ears. She added that the 18^th amendment was not a good amendment to the U.S. Constitution; prohibition had to be repealed later on. Not every amendment to a constitution is good.

Member Lorenzo wished to remove the warrant, Item C, from the consent agenda.

CONSENT AGENDA: (Background information for Consent Agenda items is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office)

A. Approval of minutes of:

July 8, 2004, Regular Interview meeting

July 12, 2004, Regular meeting

B Approval of Resolution 1 for Special Assessment District 172 – Bentley and Blomfield Subdivisions Water Main Extension authorizing the preparation of plans, specifications, and cost estimates.

1. Consideration of placing the proposed amendment to the City Charter on the ballot for the November, 2004 general election.

Member Gatt said he respected and liked both speakers during audience participation very much. He wanted to reiterate to those speakers that it would not be the City Council who would approve or disapprove of a Charter amendment. All that was being proposed was for the people of the City of Novi to decide whether they want to approve or disapprove of the amendment. He said he could not think of a more democratic system than allowing the people to decide what they want. If the people decide like Mrs. Crawford said, that they do not want the amendment, then so be it. The budget would come back to Council and it would settle it out. He agreed that Council did not meet enough over the budget, and said that Council needs to meet more in the future. Mr. Toth had suggested one meeting for every million dollars spent, and he could not agree more. He said Council could schedule 25 meetings, on 25 days in a row. Members would have about 10 months’ notice to clear their schedules for those meetings. If Council can reach an agreement before the 25^th meeting, then this would be great. If not, then nobody could say that Council did not try. He was not saying that Council should give up any of its power, which was not the proposal. Council would not give up any of its power with the amendment. He agrees totally that people elect Council members to choose the budget. If the Charter amendment was passed, and the procedure had to be triggered because Council could not agree after 25 or 30 meetings, then the people who placed Council members in office could vote them out of office. At that point, some or all Council members should be removed.

Member Nagy said she had thought a lot about the matter. A few things had happened in Council’s previous discussion about the item that she wished to bring up. She does not appreciate statements being attributed to fellow Council members, nor does she appreciate when a Council member questions another Council member’s vote, or how they should or should not vote. The City Charter provides for checks and balances, which is why the City Council reviews the budget. She did not believe that the issue had been researched enough, including that as indicated by the answer from the City Attorney. She talked to the Michigan Department of Treasury, as did the Finance Director. She is not opposed to anything that the residents have a say in. However, she thinks that the ramifications of what future possibilities could happen by the proposal have not been researched. She presented a hypothetical possibility: Sometime in the future, the City Manager, whoever that person might be, suggests that the City raise taxes. However, there are only six members of Council present, and the vote is 3-3. She asked if the seventh member were to return but there was not a fifth vote in support, if that would mean that the suggested budget by the City Manager, which would raise taxes, would go into effect. She feels that the proposal is premature, as she is not certain all the ramifications of the amendment are known. She questioned how the item would be presented to taxpayers. She has every faith in the residents of our city that they are intelligent enough to understand things. She feels that they would agree that this proposal is far too premature. Currently there are checks and balances built into place. When a budget is presented to the United States Congress, it is not automatically passed. Representatives go through the budget, negotiate, debate, disagree, and eventually come to a consensus, but that budget is not rubber stamped. She does not feel her role as a Council member is to rubber stamp anything. She would like to continue in the fashion that every other area of government does, which is to debate, see what you can do, discuss the situation, and come to a consensus. The healthy discussion which Council had with the budget provided the taxpayers with better services, the number one complaint that Council receives from residents. As an elected official, she looked at that budget in terms of what the feedback was that she receives from local residents. That is why she took the time and took 15 hours going through that document to provide the citizens with what they elected her to do. The amendment proposal is very premature, and it needs to be researched more. She said she would not be able to support the motion.

Member Lorenzo said that if this had been a City-initiated referendum with an overwhelming number of residents coming forward to request that it be placed on a ballot, she would have more consideration for it. However, Council received nowhere near an overwhelming response; if members received more than a half-dozen letters during the course of budget discussions, this was a lot. As it stands, Council members are elected to make decisions in the best interest of the citizens. She believes that not placing the issue on a ballot is in the best interests of the citizens at this time. It is hard for her to believe that any citizen would want to give away taxation without representation.

Mr. Fisher said that technically, the process that needed to be followed was that the proposed language would be sent to the Governor and the Attorney General. He believed that it was implicit in the motion, to follow the process provided by law, for the amendment of the Charter.

Mayor Csordas said this was absolutely correct.

2. Approval of City’s acceptance of dedication relative to the streets and utilities and adoption of Act 51 New Street Resolution in Cheltenham Estates Subdivision. Proprietor: Nanda Enterprises.

3. Approval of final plat of Wilshire Abbey Subdivision, conditioned upon the presentation of a revised or additional easement authorizing use of supplemental access for construction vehicles during the construction and build-out phase(s) of the subdivision, and subject to bond in the amount directed by Circuit Court Order for maintenance and repair of Cheltenham street damage that may be caused by construction vehicles during the construction and build-out phase(s) of Wilshire. Proprietor: Mirage Development, L.L.C.

Member Capello asked Mr. Fisher if, in the event that the decision in regard to the dedication of the public street on Nanda’s piece, Council would be required to place some limiting language in the approval of Wilshire, to require them to use that secondary access as their main access.

Mr. Fisher replied that his understanding was that Council, by the motion, would be approving the resolution that was inserted into Council members’ packets.

Mayor Csordas commented that this was how he understood the motion.

Mr. Fisher said that in this instance, the City Attorney is to file an affidavit with the Register of Deeds office to give all people notice of the litigation that is now pending. One of the potential – but very unlikely – upshots of that litigation would be that these roads would be withdrawn from public dedication. By putting this notice in the Register of Deeds office, which would parallel a notice by the proprietor of the subdivision to purchasers, which he assumed would extended, the City would be giving notice to all the purchasers of the property that some solution would have to be worked out after the fact if that was the outcome of the court case. That would be basically the avenue that Council was now taking, and a solution would have to be worked out later.

Member Capello said his question specifically toward the emergency entrance was, because he can foresee that the simplest solution if the Circuit Court judge’s decision is overturned, is rather than use that emergency exit for ingress and egress, that they will turn to Edinborough again. The City has already gone through that battle, and he would want to make sure that the solution would be to use that emergency access and not go through Edinborough.

Mr. Fisher replied that this would certainly not be implicit that this would be the case for a number reasons, not the least is which it would take the waiver of a number of ordinance requirements in order to use that emergency access, as well as an expansion of the easement that has been presented.

Member Capello asked Mr. Fisher if he had any resolution to his concern.

Mr. Fisher replied that his thought was that at this point, his office feels this is a very unlikely end result. Number two, if the City puts the notice at the Register of Deeds office, it would be allowing the marketplace to operate in terms of whether or not a solution will be forthcoming. The third thing is that if the City gets to that point, it just has to deal with it and address it in some fashion.

Member Capello asked if Council could place a restriction in the approval of Wilshire, that they cannot use the Edinborough access. He would hate to make those homeowners now bear the whole brunt of this, after they came forward in a timely fashion when the projects were getting approved. Now, they would get the brunt of problems that arose between Lokey and Nanda.

Mr. Fisher said that if that provision were placed in the document, it could be changed by Council anyway. Ultimately, Council will have the opportunity to make that determination when the time comes, if it comes, which he hopes it does not.

Member Lorenzo said she did not realize what that condition represented. Wilshire Abbey subdivision’s preliminary plat required secondary emergency access. When Lokey split the property, he still gave the City that emergency access, although stipulating that it was solely to be used for Wilshire Abbey residents. She asked if the City still has this easement and access, and if that was being maintained with the motion or if it would be given away.

Mr. Fisher replied that this was being maintained, and is already a condition of the approval. Actually, this resolution would increase that easement to not only be for emergency access, but also enhance it so that it allows an express allowance and authorization for construction vehicles during the build-out phase.

Member Lorenzo said she thought that was what they were doing with that access at this point in time.

Mr. Fisher replied that this was the intent, and that was the representation. However, a reading of the easement does not expressly permit it, and the City wants to make sure that it does.

Member Lorenzo said that like the previous speaker, she would not open this up for the re-discussion of other subdivisions. She believes that Wilshire Abbey should have given the City, by requirement, permanent secondary access. She asked if the secondary access would become access, period, if Wilshire Abbey does not have an alternative. She asked Mr. Fisher if this was basically what he had said. Absent another emergency access valve, she asked if this would, in effect, become the permanent access.

Mr. Fisher replied that the Wilshire emergency access easement would remain as the emergency access easement.

Member Lorenzo asked if the City was asking Wilshire to come back and give an alternative emergency access.

Mr. Fisher replied that this was not correct. The document would merely be expanding that easement, so as to allow construction vehicles to use it as well.

Member Lorenzo asked if this was not stipulated with the City Attorney’s office approval of the easement.

Mr. Fisher said he did not believe that was part of the requirement.

Member Lorenzo said she thought she saw this on Beth Kudla’s letter to Brian Coburn.

Mr. Fisher said this was an understanding that the easement would be used in that manner. Because of the contentious situation, they wanted it in writing.

Member Lorenzo asked if this was never stated in the actual easement, and if the actual easement that was approved by Mr. Fisher’s office did not provide that in the actual document.

Mr. Fisher replied that this was correct.

Member Lorenzo asked if Mr. Fisher’s office had advised something, but did not check it.

Mr. Fisher said he did not think that was the case.

Member Lorenzo asked if the City had anything that said Lokey agreed to utilizing that access for construction traffic.

Mr. Fisher said there was nothing formal that would be filed at the Register of Deeds to date. This resolution, if adopted, would require that.

Member Lorenzo asked if the resolution would not go on to exploring other possibilities for secondary access.

Mr. Fisher replied this was correct.

Member Lorenzo remarked that Council was just making a condition that Lokey must now give the City an easement that not only says it is permanent, secondary access, but also construction access during the construction of the subdivision.

Mr. Fisher said this resolution, if adopted, would require either an amendment of the existing easement, or a new easement authorizing construction use.

Member Lorenzo asked if a new easement could open it up so that Lokey could come back and not want to give the City permanent secondary access.

Mr. Fisher said that if this was the case, then the plat was not approved.

Member Lorenzo said that as long as this was the case, she could be comfortable with the resolution. She did not want to open up other areas for secondary emergency access, or give Mr. Lokey the opportunity to not give the City permanent access.

4. Approval of the deletion of the requirement specified at the time of approval of the Cheltenham Estates Subdivision plat requiring temporary secondary emergency access to Beck Road.

Member Capello asked Mr. Fisher if the City "has" to do this.

Mr. Fisher said he did not think there was any specific law or case that he could point to that would indicate Council had to do so, but the history of the matter up to this point, and the possibility of litigation on this very subject, in his opinion, warrants a recommendation to do it and modify the subdivision design standards accordingly.

Member Capello asked if this was not part of the Circuit Court order.

Mr. Fisher replied that this was correct. The deletion would be part of the ongoing litigation.

Member Capello asked if the order was appealed.

Mr. Fisher replied that it was.

Member Capello asked if it would be more prudent to hold back on this until after Council sees the status of the appeal.

Mr. Fisher replied that he did not believe it would be.

Mayor Csordas said that Council was going through a four-step process that is very well thought out, to initiate the process to protect the City.

Member Capello said he was just concerned that the City was giving up too much to early.

5. Approval of Storm Drainage Facility Maintenance Agreement for Wilshire Abbey Subdivision with owner Mirage Development, L.L. C. and Wilshire Abbey Homeowners Association, Inc.

6. Consideration of request from BOCO Enterprises, Inc. to transfer ownership of 2003 Class C liquor license with Dance-Entertainment Permit located at 43700 Expo Center, Suite 101, Novi, MI 48375, Oakland County, from Novi Expo Center, Inc.

7. Consideration of request from GODAIKO Novi, Inc. to transfer ownership of 2003 Class C liquor license located in escrow at 655 Michelson, Rochester Hills, MI and transfer location to 44175 Twelve Mile, Suite F-145, Novi, MI 48377.

8. Approval of Resolution requesting the Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC) to consider a Traffic Signal at Eight Mile Road and Napier Road (joint jurisdiction with City of Novi, South Lyon, Wayne County, and RCOC).

CM-04-07-290 Moved by Lorenzo, seconded by Capello; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve of Resolution requesting the Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC) to consider a Traffic Signal at Eight Mile Road and Napier Road (joint jurisdiction with City of Novi, South Lyon, Wayne County, and RCOC).

9. Appointments to Zoning Board of Appeals (Regular and Alternate).

Member Lorenzo asked if Council was to choose a regular and an alternate for the Zoning Board of Appeals. She noted that Council’s ballots only included one vacancy.

Ms. Cornelius said that the City currently has one vacancy, that of Sarah Gray. Right now, Justin Fischer serves as the alternate.

Ms. Cornelius noted that with the appointment of the alternate ZBA member to the regular position, Council needed to replace the alternate position.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Kathy Mutch, Chair of the Historical Commission, wanted to let Council know that she would present at the duration of the meeting if Council needed to call upon her, with regard to the issue that was added by Member Lorenzo. Betty Nick, who Council recently appointed to the Commission, was also in attendance. The other three members were unable to attend because of previous commitments and the death of Maggie Pringlemeir’s husband, who was a volunteer with handicap parking enforcement. She appreciated those on Council who offered to add the item to the agenda.

Mayor Csordas said he was aware of Mr. Pringlemeir, and said the City’s condolences go out to his family.

10. Approval of Local Cost Sharing Agreements with the Road Commission for Oakland County for:

1. Novi Road and Ten Mile Road intersection (RCOC Project No. 47851)

2. Novi Road and Grand River Avenue intersection (RCOC Project No. 47451)

3. Novi Road "Link" Ten Mile Road to Grand River Avenue (RCOC Project No. 41531) Preliminary engineering.

4. Novi Road "Link" Ten Mile Road to Grand River Avenue (RCOC Project No. 41531) Right-of-way.

11. Consideration of construction contract with Star Construction on behalf of Maybury Park, LLC in the amount of $353,408.24 for Phase 1B for the on-site sanitary sewer extension being financed by Special Assessment District No. 170.

Member Capello asked Council to recuse him from voting on the issue. He said he represented Maybury Park, LLC before he was elected to Council, though he does not represent them now. This is the same continuing project.

Member Lorenzo asked if the applicant would be responsible for soil erosion and sedimentation measures.

Mr. Fisher replied this was correct, as it is part of the normal contract.

Member Lorenzo asked if there was a violation with regard to the previous project, 1-A.

Mr. Fisher said he was not aware of that situation.

Member Lorenzo said that if Council was going to approve the company as the contractor, it should be done with the proviso that the City does not want to see those issues again.

Member Nagy recalled the violation notices that the City received from the Michigan DEQ with regard to this and a couple of other things. She asked if there were any fines attached to those violation notices that the City had to pay.

Mr. Helwig replied that there were none that he was aware of.

12. Consideration of ordinances to amend City of Novi Code of Ordinances in order to revise the following ordinance to insure that "farming exemptions" and earth disturbance activity being conducted within the City of Novi are bona fide farming operations –

Member Lorenzo asked how the issue that she brought forward at the previous meeting had been resolved.

Mr. Fisher replied that additional standards were inserted into the language, which hopefully would be satisfactory under the definition of "bona fide."

13. Consideration of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 18.173 to amend the ordinance to add a definition of "Fences" to Section 201, Definitions: D - F of Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to amend Section 2515 Fences (Residential and Non-Residential) and to amend Section 2907 Porches; Decks, all proposed in order to modify the standards for fences within the City of Novi. 1^st Reading.

Member Lorenzo said that if her memory served her correctly, she thought the impetus for this amendment was the huge brick wall adjacent to a piece of property that was too close to the other homeowner. She asked if this was correct.

Member Capello replied that the concern was a piece of property on Nine Mile Road just west of Taft.

Mr. Helwig noted that Barb McBeth has followed the amendment most closely, not only through Ordinance Review but most recently through the Planning Commission, which was bringing a recommendation to Council.

Member Lorenzo asked how the amendment would address the issue that brought the concern to the City. She did not see the definition pertaining to brick or stone. She asked if that would be referred to as a "fence" or as a "wall" or if both fall under this definition. She asked how the amendment distinguishes between a wall and a fence, and how it will prevent that sort of situation from happening. Even with a two-acre parcel, it is possible that a fence could be put down a property line and still affect the adjacent neighbor.

Ms. McBeth said the matter was referred from Council almost a couple of years ago. The Planning Department reviewed the minutes at the Planning Commission Implementation Committee level, and took a look at the concern. The Implementation Committee looked at the concern over the course of a couple of meetings, and reviewed the standards that are currently in place. Lots are treated differently in the residential district as they relate to fence standards. If a lot is in a subdivision and is of a smaller size, fences are not allowed in the front yard closer than the front yard setback line, and are limited to six feet in height. There are certain exceptions for lakefront lots, and there are also certain exceptions for decorative fencing. The Implementation Committee looked at the concern and realized that there was an issue on the Nine Mile Road property with a taller fence on one of the larger lots. That committee looked at Council’s recommendation from that time, which was to look at the regulations as they relate to the larger lots. The larger lots are currently excluded from those requirements, so there can be a fence in the front yard of a larger lot, and it can be in excess of six feet. The committee looked at those recommendations and agreed that it would not like to see a fence in excess of six feet, but for the larger lots would recommend that the fences can go closer to the front yard than the front yard setback. A definition for "fences" was recommended that is used in a city in Colorado, which describes a fence as, "An enclosure or barrier such as wooden posts, wire, iron, etc., used as a boundary, a means of protection, privacy screening, or confinement, but not including hedges, shrubs, trees, or other natural growth." Member Lorenzo’s description of a stone or brick fence was not necessarily included.

Member Lorenzo asked if such a structure would actually be considered a fence. She wanted to know if someone could duplicate the issue that brought the amendment before Council.

Ms. McBeth replied that she believed such structures could be considered as fences. Based upon the recommendation of the Implementation Committee and the Planning Commission as a whole, these structures were recommended for leaving in the exclusion for those larger lots.

Member Lorenzo asked if they would be limited to six feet.

Ms. McBeth replied that this was correct.

Member Lorenzo said her concern was that if the City does not spell out a stone or a brick fence/wall, someone could claim that their brick or stone "wall" would not fit into this ordinance.

Mr. Fisher said he concurred with Member Lorenzo.

Member Lorenzo commented that she would like the definition of "fence" expanded to include brick, stone, or any other material that might be encountered in the definition of "fence." A fence would be limited to six feet. She asked if this would be in conformance with all other lots, or if large lots would still be excluded from the ordinance.

Ms. McBeth said the Planning Commission recommended that large lots should still be allowed to have a fence in the front yard encroaching further than the front yard setback line, but they would all then be limited to six feet in height. This would not apply to at least 200 feet of frontage within a recorded plat, and acreage parcels that are not within a recorded plat. All of these are excluded from the ordinance requirements.

Member Lorenzo asked Ms. McBeth if that exclusion was in effect now, or in the future as well.

Ms. McBeth replied that the exclusions are in effect right now, and the Planning Commission recommended that these be excluded in the future as well.

Member Lorenzo said she would not be in favor of acreage parcels being excluded because it would not address the main issue that was brought to Council’s attention.

Mayor Csordas said he believed that those fences were much higher than six feet, though.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked if those fences were closer than the front yard setback.

Member Lorenzo replied that she did not know, but believed the lot that had brought the matter to Council’s attention "was almost like a fortress," from what she recalled. She would want acreage parcels to come under the ordinance. If the City limited the fences to six feet and had them included with a definition she would not have any problem with the amendment. She does not feel that acreage parcels should be excluded, because this would bring Council back to the original complaint. The problem was not that the fence was on acreage, but was rather an adjacency issue.

Mr. Fisher remarked that he believed the problem in the noted situation was that there was a large parcel with a wall next to a small parcel. If there were two large parcels, there would not have been a problem. The result was that the home on the small parcel was very close to the wall.

Member Lorenzo said the amendment did not address this situation, unless it were to say "unless abutting a smaller parcel."

Member Nagy asked if the limit of six feet would be placed in the amendment.

Mr. Fisher replied that this was correct.

Member Nagy asked if there is a requirement to go 12 or 18 inches into one’s own property when constructing a fence.

Mr. Fisher replied that he did not believe this was the case. The tradition has been to put a fence on a property line so that there is a common understanding of where that property line is. If a fence is put 18 inches into the property, then the neighbor might think that they own up to the fence.

Member Capello asked what would happen if Council allowed a higher wall based upon setbacks from the property line on larger lots. Rather than having a six-foot fence on a property line, a homeowner could have an eight-foot fence on their property, but 15 feet back from the property line.

Member Lorenzo said the eight-foot height should be considered for how it affects the other house and where it is sitting. The next-door house could be closer to a house’s property line, which would be her concern. Depending on where a house sits, eight feet could seem more intrusive than six feet.

Member Capello said another issue is whether or not there is a requirement for facades on both sides of a brick, wood, or block wall.

Member Nagy asked if the standard height for a fence in Southfield is six feet.

Ms. McBeth replied that six feet is a typical standard that she has seen.

Member Nagy commented that she would be opposed to anything greater than six feet. Aesthetically, this would be a disaster. She would like to have Member Capello’s verbage added as well, that the stone or brick must be on both sides.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked Mr. Fisher about part four of the ordinance, which talks about porches and terraces. The first sentence talks about required front yard setback. The second sentence says, "an open, unenclosed, and uncovered wooden deck may project into a required rear yard." He asked if this meant a setback.

Mr. Fisher replied that this was correct.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked if the word "setback" should be included.

Mr. Fisher said it could be.

Ms. McBeth said the bolded, underlined part was being amended.

Mr. Fisher said he had seen the language both ways, with and without "setback."

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he would defer to Mr. Fisher.

14. Consideration of ordinances to adopt Chapter 38 "Performance Guarantees" and amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances to consolidate regulations related to performance guarantees for private development projects – 1^st Reading

Ordinance No. 04-173to amend Chapter 38

Ordinance No. 04-94.06 to amend Chapter 7

Ordinance No. 04-124.14 to amend Chapter 11

Ordinance No. 04-103.10 to amend Chapter 12

Ordinance No. 04-157.01 to amend Chapter 31

Ordinance No. 04-62.03 to amend Chapter 34

Ordinance No. 04-125.19 to amend Chapter 37

Ordinance No. 04-45.28 to amend Appendix C

Member Lorenzo said she had several questions about this item. She asked if the changes would apply to residential and non-residential building.

Mr. Fisher replied that this was correct.

Member Lorenzo referred to pages four and five of the amendment, which discusses installation of all required improvements within two years after the issuance of the initial permit, together with the posting of all necessary bonds. Page five says, "The time limit may be extended at six-month intervals at the director’s discretion upon determination that work is proceeding toward completion and that the delay is not dilatory or unreasonable under all the circumstances. She asked how many of the six-month extensions would be provided.

Mr. Helwig wished to introduce to Council Marina Neumaier, who has been the staff leader, the controller, the assistant finance director, who has worked with members Paul and Capello and developers in bringing this project forward.

Ms. Neumaier replied that the City did not make a restriction in terms of the number of requests for extensions that could be submitted. What the proposed ordinance language does provide, however, is that only one six-month extension would be allowed. After that, for additional extensions the City would use a 2.0 multiplier to calculate the value of any incomplete site improvements. At each request for extension, an inspection would be performed to confirm the balance of the work and the cost of the work remaining.

Member Lorenzo asked if there would only be one six-month extension.

Ms. Neumaier said this was correct. After that, additional extensions would be allowed upon the discretion and approval of the building official. If that extension were to be granted, the City would increase the multiplier from 1.5 to 2.0.

Member Lorenzo commented that this was not specifically stated in the document, which talked about 200% of the cost of the work to be completed, but not the multiplier.

Ms. Neumaier said that what she was referring to was the 2.0, or 200%.

Member Lorenzo asked if the City had done any samples of what that might look like, in terms of how much money that would be. To some subdivisions, that could still be "a drop in the bucket" compared to not wanting to conform and finish the work right away.

Ms. Neumaier replied that the dollar value will be factored on many different circumstances and what is involved in the scope of the project. To provide a median would be difficult to do. A performance guarantee might have been calculated 10 years ago because there was no timeframe for completion. Now, the City has specified two years.

Member Lorenzo said her concern with all of the extensions was that they would defeat the purpose of setting the two-year timeframe. She remarked that she would like an example of a high-end development, a mid-end development, and a low-end development, and to see what the numbers would be for each, in order to see if it would be worth the applicant’s while. Beyond the financial concerns, the issue has been getting things done quickly. She did not see how, with allowing numerous extensions, the changes would get things done faster. She has seen several times in the ordinance that a time requirement is determined, but then it mentions that the City can provide extensions and agreements. She wants to see projects come in and be completed within the two year period.

Ms. Neumaier asked Member Lorenzo if she was looking at a cap in terms of the number of extensions that are allowed to be requested.

Member Lorenzo replied that this was absolutely correct. For example, even if a project is built in the middle of the winter, during which nobody would expect landscaping work to be done, that landscaping can start to be worked on come May. Two years is actually a generous amount of time. There is no reason for projects to not be completed. She added that she was not sure that these delays should be at the building official’s discretion, and not at the discretion of Council. When homeowners are not seeing their landscaping or other things, they don’t go to Mr. Saven; they go to the Council podium or write Council members letters. Council is elected and has to be accountable for the decisions that it does or does not make. She would be a bit hesitant to continue with extensions and having those done at an administrative level.

Member Lorenzo said her same thought process applied to the written completion agreement, on pages eight and nine. Those pages talk about approval of plat plans for any single-family residential building sites, including platted subdivision, and site condominiums, which shall be the responsibility of the City Engineer. Letter C states that, "Approval of plot plans and/or building permits shall not be issued until these punch list items have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City." Letter E goes on to state, "After completion of the utility and grading punch list items, the City Engineer may issue a ready-for-use letter, which may list and be subject to completion of other specific site work that has not been completed." She said that there was nothing to be left completed if the City was going to issue a ready-for-use letter. She felt that the process still did not seem to address the City being proactive in making sure that these deadlines are met. Page six mentions, "All improvements must be inspected by the City after the completion of the construction of the improvements. The applicant must submit a written request for such inspection." That is the way it is today, which is the problem. The applicant may not request the inspection for two or four years. The City has to have an internal tracking system so that if two years go by and this is the time limit, it can demand that the work be finished.

Ms. Neumaier agreed with Member Lorenzo and said she was correct. Administration is working on setting up some software changes to the current Permits Plus system that will allow for this.

Member Lorenzo said she did not see this addressed in the ordinance amendment proposed. She saw allowances still relying on the applicant to come forward, but nothing about inspections being initiated by the City to ensure they are not going beyond the deadline.

Mr. Fisher referred to the language on page seven under "Default." "Unless a shorter period has been specified in the permit or elsewhere in the code, timely completion of improvements shall not be longer than two years from the date of issuance of the initial permit.

Member Lorenzo said something was needed something saying that the City will have a tracking system and will track inspections. The City should not rely upon applicants to come and make the request, but this is what is being done now. The process has been broken for a while. She does not want to continue any of the broken practices that the City has had. She commented that she appreciated City staff members’ work in addressing all of the monies that the City has had to hold on to. The City has come a long way in getting rid of millions of dollars. As it moves forward, she wants to make sure that staff is not burdened with this task on a repeated basis, now or in the future.

Member Lorenzo noted that while the amendments address asphalt roads, they do not seem to address concrete roads. The final wearing course on an asphalt road is different than constructing a concrete road. She asked what happens in the event that a subdivision will have concrete roads.

Ms. McClain replied that with concrete roads there is no wearing course. Asphalt roads are put down as two or more layers; concrete roads are put down all at one time. Page 11 lists the maintenance and guarantee bonds. Those items must be done when the City hits the completion of utilities and acceptance for maintenance. At that time, when the ready-for-use letter is submitted, the project must also have the storm water agreement, the water main easement, and maintenance and guarantee bonds. The City includes in that the roadways.

Member Lorenzo said the ordinances need to include concrete as well as asphalt. Asphalt is mentioned, but there is no mention of concrete.

Ms. McClain said that with asphalt, there are two lifts. The City does not want the second lift to go on at this point until construction is complete, so that it does not get damaged. Concrete is one level.

Member Lorenzo asked if the City would be requiring builders to put the concrete roads in within two years.

Ms. McClain replied that concrete streets have to be in before building permits can be issued, as well as a street with a first lift of asphalt. All the utilities for the development must be in before a building permit can be issued.

Member Lorenzo asked where this was stated in the ordinance amendments. She wanted to make sure that the changes were all-encompassing.

Ms. McClain said the City only mentioned asphalt streets because of that wearing course, to keep it as a separate issue. She said the City would look further at the language to make sure that this is clarified and understood.

Member Lorenzo referred to letter B on page 11: "At the time 90% of the building permits have been issued, or within four years after the issuance of initial permit, whichever comes first, the final lift of asphalt where applicable and all required street trees must be completed, including all required soil erosion/sedimentation control measures." She said this was not saying that it does not apply to concrete. If concrete is excluded and has a different standard, then this needs to be clarified.

Ms. McClain replied that the clarification would be made.

Member Lorenzo referred to the second paragraph of page 11: "No final certificate of occupancy shall be issued until all site improvements required by an approved site or plot plan or plat (except the final lift of asphalt, where applicable) are constructed, installed, or placed on the property and final approval of same has been obtained from the department and any other approving body…" She did not approve of the language continued in that statement, "…unless a completion agreement as described in section 38-28, together with any required performance guarantees, is in place." She felt that this was a loophole and defeated the purpose.

Ms. McClain suggested an example for discussion: a high-end subdivision that will take more than two years to complete. However, that developer is willing to come to an agreement, sign a completion agreement with the City that in this amount of time, they will complete items and will post bonds for the City. The developer signs a written agreement with the City providing those dates. The developer would then have to live up to those dates by the legality of that agreement.

Member Lorenzo said her concern with this, other than it would defeat the purpose, was how to distinguish between high-end, middle-end, and low-end developments. Anyone that would ask for the agreement would have to consider what the standards are that the City would use to balance the decision.

Ms. McClain noted that the agreement would be subject to Council’s approval.

Member Lorenzo said that in her opinion, the ordinances were nowhere near ready for even the first reading. There are many loopholes and weak areas in the language that need to be plugged. However, the intention is the best.

Member Nagy said she agreed with Member Lorenzo about a number of her comments. She would like to see more definition. Making standards of "high-end" and "low-end" is arbitrary and does not work. She commended the City for everything that it has done. This has been a lot of work on staff’s part, and it is greatly appreciated by Council. She commented that some of the sections in the ordinances seemed to put more burden on the Building Department, namely page 5, the section that Member Lorenzo had read regarding the six-month intervals at the director’s discretion upon determination that work is proceeding. She asked Mr. Saven if it would make more sense to mandate a time limit. She asked how things could be tracked if he had to make determinations every six months.

Mr. Saven commented that Member Lorenzo had "hit several items right on the head" which staff members have had concerns about. The Building Department never had the opportunity to call for certain requirements in this ordinance, but now does. Things like foreclosing documents and easement agreements are coming up front now. Prior to the Building Department issuing any building permit for a site, nobody from the Engineering Department would allow that approval to be granted for that certificate of use unless the items are minimal in nature, or weather conditions prevail that the City does not have the opportunity to move that site along. Time is money; in essence, winter is sometimes the best time for starting models and getting things ready and prepped for the spring. Those were issues that had to be considered. There had to be an ability to do that, provided that they were minor in nature.

Mr. Saven said that in regards to limitations, the threshold level is set at four years. What Ms. Neumaier had spoken to was that the City is trying to develop a particular system right now that is in process. There is nobody that knows the problems the City has had with financial guarantees more than himself, in trying to go back to the builders and developers and trying to get these problems corrected. The City will now have this opportunity by virtue of the proposed ordinance as it reads. Some things might have to be clarified, but the control and limitations are there by virtue of that four-year maximum time period. In terms of defining projects as "high-end" or "low-end," there are certain conditions that exist. Sometimes subdivisions are not built out as the City would like, but there might be a uniqueness to the project and the City won’t want anything occurring on the project’s roads, as activity might create more problems in the future. That is one condition in regards to the alternative that the City would have, which is something that the City has never had.

Mr. Helwig asked Mr. Saven if he was comfortable with the six-month interval for monitoring.

Mr. Saven replied that this was absolutely correct.

Member Nagy asked if a time restraint should be placed in the ordinances. She asked for an example of a present special circumstance in a subdivision.

Mr. Saven replied that one example is Bellagio.

Member Nagy said she understood what Mr. Saven was saying, but there need to be definitions of standards.

Mr. Fisher said his office could work on this.

Member Nagy agreed with many of the things that the previous speaker had mentioned. She referred to page 7, under A, completion of utilities and acceptance/maintenance. C and E seem to contradict each other. Overall, the ordinances are really great. She said she appreciated the committee’s work and everything that the City did.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry referred to page 12, paragraph six, which discusses acceptance of roads. The last sentence of that paragraph refers to the fact that the City may, but is not obligated to, undertake emergency maintenance, snowplowing, and things of that nature. He asked if it would be worthwhile to add a sentence that simply says any such emergency maintenance shall not be construed as acceptance by the City, or if this was not needed.

Mr. Fisher said he would read that section and would make a note of the suggestion.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry believed it was the previous fall that Council had discussed that matter as an issue, he believed with Cheltenham. A sentence should perhaps be added that states, "Any such emergency maintenance shall not be construed as acceptance by the City."

Roll Call Vote on CM-04-07-298 Yeas: Landry, Capello, Gatt, Lorenzo, Nagy, Csordas

Nays: None

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION: (Consent Agenda items, which have been removed for discussion and/or action)

Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 677

Member Lorenzo referred to check #37461, LaSalle Bank. Her concern, which she had called Kathy Smith-Roy about earlier, was a conference and workshop item for $1,109.21. She pulled the item because Ms. Smith-Roy had indicated that this particular conference/workshop was not one that was approved in Council’s budget this year. In fact, there are zero dollars in this account for conferences and workshops. She does not feel comfortable supporting any additional conferences and workshops that have not been approved in the original budget. Council scrutinized memberships and dues and conferences and workshops during its budget deliberations. Council needs to be consistent, and this item would open up the door to other employees, as well as other members of boards and commissions, to start coming forward and requesting additional conferences and workshops. She does not want to be placed in the position of having to look at those requests.

Mayor Csordas asked if the conference/workshop item had already occurred, or if the warrant item was for prepayment.

Member Lorenzo said she understood that the warrant item was only partial payment for that actual item.

Mr. Helwig said that he had authorized the warrant item for Clay Pearson, to attend in the international city managers’ conference this year. Mr. Pearson has started the accreditation program for city managers, and part of that process is to attend the conference. This is also Mr. Pearson’s 10-year award; this year happens to Mr. Helwig’s 30-year award, though he has not attended the conference since he has been in Novi. He would like to find the money someplace for Mr. Pearson to be able to attend the conference. The City had made alterations in conference and workshop travels for other persons in past years. He understands Council’s concern, which is very valid. However, the expense is well justified and warranted to help Mr. Pearson, under the terms of the policy, become accredited.

Member Lorenzo said that with all due respect, she did not feel comfortable making the exception. If the assistant city manager wishes to attend this conference it should be at his own expense. The City provides the assistant city manager with a very generous compensation package. She will not be supporting any conference and workshop items, except what was approved in the budget, for anyone.

Member Nagy asked if the amount of $1,109.21 was the cost for the registration of the conference.

Ms. Smith-Roy replied that this was correct. The cost was for the registration and the airfare.

Member Nagy asked about the cost of the hotel.

Ms. Smith-Roy replied that this cost had not yet been included.

Member Nagy asked about the cost of meals.

Ms. Smith-Roy replied that she was not sure about this cost, as she had not seen the application. She did not know what meals were included with the conference.

Member Nagy remarked that the conference cost item was for just one individual. If the cost was for several individuals going for something very necessary, she could justify the cost. However, she could not justify the cost in this case.

Mayor Csordas asked where this conference stands in terms of Mr. Pearson’s career development.

Mr. Helwig replied that the item is part of Mr. Pearson’s becoming accredited after having been in the city managers’ association for 10 years, which has been the standard. He initiated the policy change last fall, and would like to think that there is still the potential to make exceptions when the City is trying to retain and attract the best talent that it can. The City Manager’s office has not attended this conference in the four years that he has been here. Directors have been attending chief of police conferences, one or two people at a time; clerks have been attending clerks conferences, both in and out-of-state. This is not an unreasonable request.

Member Lorenzo commented that the City’s taxpayers could see the item as "pork" when the City sends someone to California for a conference. When discussing the budget this year, Council was arguing over nickels and dimes. She does not care who it is that comes forward with requests for conferences, she would say "no" because it would require a budget amendment. If an individual wants to attend a conference, under these economic times in the City of Novi, they will have to pay for it themselves, other than items that are approved in the budget. There were certain items that Council approved. However, beyond that, she could not think of budget amendments that Council should approve. Earlier that evening, Council had discussed giving the City Manager control over the budget. This instance puts Council in a predicament. If something is not already in the budget, she would appreciate it coming to City Council as a request before it sees something on a credit card and a warrant. If something is not in the budget then it is out of the budget. If something is out of the budget then it needs to come to Council separately, either as an individual request or as an actual budget amendment, before the City makes plans for somebody to do something.

Member Gatt said he respects and admires his colleagues and understood everything that they were saying. From the perspective of a former City employee, he was afforded the opportunity to attend several national conferences as a D.A.R.E. officer. It was at those conferences that he made contacts with other officers and chiefs of police from around the country. Because of that networking, the City of Novi D.A.R.E. program was and still is one of the best in the country. He said he would support the warrant item because it is very important that a city manager attend these conferences and network. It is good for the citizens and good for the City. If this was a conference in Hawaii in February, he might agree about the item being a "pork" label. He agreed that the item should have been brought forth in the budget, but it wasn’t, so the City needs to live, learn, and move on. Council was also about to look at another item that was not approved in the budget, for the Historical Commission, that would likely be approved. In this case, the City should find the money and move on.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he agreed with the previous speaker. It did not appear that anything was trying to be slid by Council. The item was in the warrant before it was spent. The budget is tight this year and the budget talks were intense. However, he felt that the appropriate way to handle the budget was to pass it, and if there are items that need changing throughout the year, Council can change them with budget amendments. He agreed that there was a general policy to drastically cut conferences and workshops, but this is a unique situation. Nobody from the City Manager’s office has been to this conference, and it has been indicated that the item will benefit the City. He does not mind being flexible. All of the comments that had been made were certainly appropriate. However, the way the budget process should work is that Council should pass the budget and vote on it knowing that there can be some changes made throughout the course of the year.

Mayor Csordas stated that he agreed with Member Lorenzo in that the request should have come to City Council prior to the meeting’s warrant. He believes in continuing education and did support the budget, though it was one of the things that he had to compromise on. He would like to see more continuing education, but not conferences for the purpose of getting a suntan and playing golf. This conference is something that is important to somebody’s career path, and continuing education is critical to everyone in the City of Novi organization. The warrant item should have been processed a different way. This is a variance from the budget and Council should see the item. However, he would support the continuing education effort for Mr. Pearson.

Member Nagy asked for a description of the conference item.

Mr. Helwig replied that the conference is the International City and County Management Association.

Member Nagy asked what the conference entails.

Mr. Helwig said the conference entails workshops, speakers, sessions on management issues for everything from information technology to customer service, organizational matters, budgeting processes, and anything to do with managing a city. Other topics could be police issues, fire issues, or software issues.

Member Nagy said she was opposed to the item because of the process. Member Gatt had brought up a good point. Council was going to be discussing finding some funds for the Historical Commission. As much as she did not want to do it, she felt that if Council would find money for one, it would have to do so for the other. In the future, she would like the process followed.

Member Nagy referred to warrant item #34403, Dykema Gossett, for professional services. She asked what Dykema Gossett does for the City.

Ms. Smith-Roy replied that the company performs legal and advisory services for the library.

1. Sump Pump Diversion reimbursement request – Member Lorenzo

Member Lorenzo said she brought the issue to the last meeting after she received a phone call from a resident on Antler Drive in Deerbrook subdivision. What makes this situation different from many others in the City about aftermarket installations and re-routings, etcetera, is that this issue was known by the City of Novi, at the time of plumbing inspection and during the construction of the home. The plumbing inspector gave a partial approval and specified that the sump pump installation had to be rectified. In fact, the approval sticker for the homeowner says, "Direct sump line away from house adjacent." The plumbing inspector’s notes say, "Partial outside sump line discharging onto neighbor’s lot - must divert to own property. Inside plumbing approved." The temporary certificate of occupancy also noted as a condition that the sump pump issue had to be addressed before the final certificate of occupancy. The homeowners received grading permits, inspections and approvals from JCK. Everything was approved, and the problem is that the sump pump issue was never addressed. She understood from what information Mr. Saven had provided that typically, inspections only require that the sump line is three feet away from the actual home that is under construction. It appears to her that the City originally went beyond that, as the City would not have known the sump was flowing to the adjacent home if the line was only three feet from the home under construction. Because of this, a reimbursement is warranted in this particular instance. This is a case-by-case basis. In other cases, reimbursement may not be warranted. The litmus test is whether the City knew or should have known, and she did not see how Council could contend that the City did not know there was an issue. She would hate to have the homeowner go to Circuit Court, District Court, or even small claims court, with the matter. She felt that it would cost the City more in just attorneys’ fees than to reimburse the homeowner for the couple of thousand dollars requested.

Member Gatt noted that Member Lorenzo had brought up a point, that if the homeowner were to go to court to fight the City, it could cost the City more than the $2,000 to pay Mr. Fisher or another attorney. He asked if the homeowner could go to court on the issue, or if the City was protected.

Mr. Fisher replied that anybody who has a filing fee can walk up to a clerk’s office and file a case. The City cannot put a bar across the door and prevent someone from filing the case. If a case is filed in bad faith, the court has the authority to award attorneys’ fees, but one cannot stop a person from filing a case.

Member Gatt asked if the person who would file this case would have a good case.

Mr. Fisher replied that he did not know all of the facts. If this is outside of the scope of the City’s inspection, the homeowner would have to show that the City was acting with a terrible disregard for this person’s rights, almost going out of the way to intentionally hurt them.

Member Nagy said she would rather err on the side of caution. Anyone can file suit. Whether this case is winnable or not is not of her concern. By the time the City would end up paying its attorney fees, it might as well reimburse the resident and do the right thing. She suggested that the City needs to get information to the public, perhaps through the Novi News, that residents cannot change their sump pump flow and should not build berms where ditches are. This resident did not do either. The City also has to make the public aware that it is contributing to its own problems at times when people fill in ditches, put in landscaping, or change the direction of flow.

Mr. Saven referred to his July 7, 2004 letter to Council. The inspection that was performed to which the plumbing inspector had indicated to divert the sump line was done on February 18^th. That is a very cold time when frost is in the ground, and there possibly was no permanent sump line installed for direction. In other words, that sump discharge was pouring out and flowing onto the neighbor’s property. The grading certificate was issued on February 8^th. If the line was not connected at that time or to a point of surface discharge, the engineers would have picked this up because there would have been erosion on the ground. He had contacted the City’s current engineers, Ayers Lewis, and informed them that when there is surface drainage discharge on the plot plan, they are to verify that location before the final grade has been approved. This way there are no additional fees charged. The City’s requirements call for a check of the sump pump location. With that requirement, the City can now check the surface drainage.

Mayor Csordas said the question was whether the precedent would be set, and what would now happen. The City has already spent more than $2,100 dealing with this matter. He said he was very concerned with setting the precedent.

Member Nagy said she understood the concern about precedent, but felt that everything should be taken on a case-by-case basis. She would rather err on the side of caution and on the taxpayers’ side.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said that these types of issues are very personal and can be very unfortunate, especially if the applicant is not the initial homeowner who may have caused certain things to occur. What this basically comes down to, in his opinion, is a resident who says the City bears responsibility because it issued a permit. Those are very dangerous cases. In the courts, the general rule is that just because a municipality issues a permit does not mean that the municipality is the guarantor of anything. This is a very dangerous precedent to set. On one hand, the matter can be taken on a case-by-case basis, but then what criteria to decide between cases must be chosen. The land improvement permit said to discharge the sump into the rear detention area. The City inspected for three feet away from the house. Simply because a municipality issues a certificate does not mean that they guarantee quality in workmanship. He pondered whether the City will pay for the consequential damage to the furniture if it inspects a house, issues a certificate of occupancy, and the roof later leaks. He also questioned if the City should bear the responsibility if it inspects plumbing for a building and the pipes freeze and suffer damage. This is very difficult from a homeowner’s standpoint, but Council must look out for the best interests of the City. The general rule is that an inspection by a city does not mean that the city guarantees the quality of the work. This is a very unfortunate situation, but he said he could not agree to set a precedent. There are three or four other similar cases under similar circumstances before the City right now. This would be a very dangerous precedent to set. He asked if the City’s insurance counsel would defend a lawsuit if it was filed.

Mr. Fisher replied that the insurance counsel would be called in to defend the City. However, the cost would probably come out of the City’s funds to a certain point.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said that most of these issues will cost less than the cost to defend. In almost all of the circumstances, the homeowner would be happy to have $1500 or $2000, which is less than the cost to defend. If the City were to use this rationale, it would just pay all of the homeowners to settle the complaints. He has no problem with the residents asking the City. However, the City needs a consistent approach to the requests. The general rule is that a city is not responsible simply by making an inspection.

2. Resident request to install a sidewalk on the west side of Bramblewood Drive, South of Cider Mill – Mayor Csordas

Mayor Csordas said he had put the item on the agenda at the request of a resident. There was no implication that he supports the item, which he wanted to make clear. Council had a July 21, 2004 memo from Mr. Klaver to Council regarding the Bramblewood sidewalk, which he asked Mr. Helwig to paraphrase.

Mr. Helwig noted that he was involved in going out to the site two years earlier. The staff response at that time, which remains, is that to put a sidewalk on the west side of the road would mean placement immediately adjacent to the curb, which is not the City’s first choice. The sidewalk, no matter how carefully it was done, would result in the removal of some trees and encroachment in the conservation area. The third point, which administration feels is fairly obvious, is that there is a sidewalk right across the street. As a practical matter, there are many other sidewalk priorities, which Council has discussed. This sidewalk is not something that administration would recommend.

Member Lorenzo said she could appreciate the resident’s request. She believed that a requirement for that subdivision was that sidewalks could only be placed on one side of the street.

Mr. Helwig replied that this was what he had also been told, though he was not in Novi when the development was constructed.

Member Lorenzo remarked that she saw the request as a dangerous precedent. If this homeowner in this subdivision requests this sidewalk and receives it, then other homeowners on one side of the street with sidewalks might start to ask for sidewalks on the other side as well. With the City’s very limited resources, Council needs to look at the greater good of the City for sidewalk connections, and not subdivision by subdivision. She said she could not approve of this kind of request.

3. Fuerst Farm Picnic Request – Member Lorenzo

Member Lorenzo said this was a good topic. The big question is whether Council should embrace this particular event, and whether the City has the money in the budget to support it this year. She wants to make sure that these types of events are coordinated by the City, not by the Historical Commission if the City will be paying for it, so that everything will be accountable to a City employee as well. She would also like to take the request down from the $2500 requested to something more moderate, like $1000 or $1500, perhaps with the hope that under the leadership of City staff, sponsorships and partnerships might be found to help contribute toward the event. For instance, perhaps the people with the horse and cart from Toll Gate might donate that to the picnic or a day for community goodwill. She would like to make sure that all events are done in a very cost effective, economical manner. In this instance, instead of hiring someone to come with a cart of ice cream and charging several hundred dollars to the City, perhaps someone can go to the grocery store and put the ice cream in coolers, saving a lot of money. Those are the kinds of creative cost effectiveness that she would like to see in all events that are done in the City. She asked for a list of all of the events that occur in the City. There is $13,000 sitting in a category, "Promotion and Events." She asked what events, other than Fall for Novi, fall in to that category, and asked for a cost breakdown of each, as well as what that money covers. She would also like to know if, in that $13,000, Council can absorb the extra $1,000 or $1,500 to contribute to the Fuerst Farm Picnic. She does not want to go into the fund balance for a budget amendment for the event.

Member Nagy said she would like to see the same information as requested by Member Lorenzo. However, she had a different point of view. The Fuerst Farm event that she attended last year had residents of Novi and children who really enjoyed the festivities. One of the things that Council forgot to do during the budget process was provide authorization to solicit funds or sponsorships. If Council allowed the assistant city manager to go somewhere for three days, then she wants to allow the Fuerst Farm event the $2500 requested, regardless of whether it comes out of fund balance. This event benefits the residents of Novi as a whole. All towns around the area have a farmer’s market except Novi. The City could hold a farmer’s market at the Fuerst Farm. There are a number of things that could be done to generate income for the farm so that it can maintain itself. She said she is willing to honor the request for the additional money. If Council grants a request for one person, then it should be able to do so for all of the residents of Novi that it benefits.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said the Historical Commission budget, as he understood it, is $4,000. $3,500 of that money is for fixed costs, simply to keep the doors open on the old Township Hall. That leaves the Commission $500, with which not a whole lot can be done. The budget session was tight this year, and this was an item that in his opinion was caught in the fray. The Historical Commission believes that they could get along with $11,000 for the total year, which would be an increase of $7,000 from what Council had allocated. This money would take care of everything, including the Fuerst Farm Day.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry commented that if the Historical Commission is worthy of being a City commission and is worthy of having the City’s name on it, it is worthy of being done right. The City cannot have a commission if it doesn’t fund it.

Member Capello concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Landry. If the City of Novi is going to do something, it should do it right. He has had opportunities to visit other cities, and he feels that the City is lacking in a lot. The picnic has been going on a long time, and that is just a small issue. Now, to say that Council will reduce the request from $2,500 to $1,000 is a disaster. If anything, the City needs to improve some of the events that it has. Luckily, the Fifty’s Festival has volunteers that trudge through and keep that event going for the City year after year. Member Nagy has a good idea to try to use Fuerst Farm to try to generate some income. He has always wondered why Novi doesn’t have a farmer’s market but everyone else does. There are some structures over there, and City might as well put them to use. In Council’s next goal setting session, it should give the Historical Commission more authority to try to raise funds and solicit contributions. There are a handful of volunteers who work very hard for the Commission, and Council ties their hands by not providing any funding or support. He said he wholly supported the motion and believed Council could find the $7,000 in order to let the event carry on.

Member Gatt said he also would support the motion, and offered a suggestion to the Historical Commission. Pontiac has the Oakland County Farmer’s Market, which is open three days a week. That market is not very large, but it draws tremendous crowds way up in Pontiac. If a contact was made with the Oakland County people, they might be interested in opening up a southern-end farmer’s market at Fuerst Farm, and perhaps the profits could be shared.

Mayor Csordas asked Kathy Mutch to describe the $2,000 research printing/publishing for a guidebook.

Ms. Mutch said that one publication which the Historical Commission has recently made is a tri-fold brochure about Fuerst Farm. The Commission took the information from a report that was done for Preservation Novi that was also used by the City to document the history of the farm buildings. The Commission wanted to use this brochure as an informational, educational, and promotional tool. The publication has since been reprinted in black and white, and is handed out whenever there is an event such as Fall for Novi.

Ms. Mutch said that another publication that has been under production, done entirely with volunteer work, is "A Child’s Pioneer History of Novi." The Commission has worked with teachers to develop something that would be useful for schools. There is a ready market and need for this publication. This publication targets third and fourth graders.

Member Nagy wished to make the authority to solicit funds, per the ordinance, as part of the motion. With regard to the farmer’s market, this is an activity that should be directed by staff, not volunteers.

Member Lorenzo said she went back to the ordinance, which Ms. Mutch was kind enough to present an excerpt of earlier. From year to year, Councils have been appropriating funds to the Historical Commission. However, by ordinance, section 17-24, appropriation of funds, it says, "Council may, from time to time, appropriate reasonable sums of money for the carrying out of functions of the commission." Thus, Council was never obligated to fund this commission year after year. She is concerned with the Fuerst Farm barns falling apart. It is hard for her to justify spending thousands of dollars on brochures and other items when the barns are falling apart. To her, any discretionary funds should be spent on fixing and maintaining that facility. She said she could not justify spending that money on wants versus needs. Process-wise, the request was placed under the issue of "Fuerst Farm Picnic." Council had moved from discussing the Fuerst Farm picnic to a budget amendment for thousands of dollars more. It was not necessarily appropriate to allocate the money in this fashion. Council had asked the City Manager to bring such requests to Council. To be consistent, Council needs to lead by example. It would be appropriate to add the Fuerst Farm picnic to a future budget amendment, but not in this fashion.

Mayor Csordas said Member Lorenzo brought a good point. There is surely a value to creating the brochures and other items. There is also value to taking money and paying attention to the maintenance of the barns. Those are hazardous buildings, and he fears the day when the structures might collapse. The theatre group stores sets in a barn, and there is a good deal of creative capital stored there. To him, there would be more value in putting money into the maintenance of those buildings, as opposed to creating the publications.

Mayor Csordas asked for a friendly amendment to the motion, to take $2,000 from the additional $7,000 and place this towards immediate facility maintenance for the Fuerst Farm barns.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry suggested just making the motion for an additional $5,000 appropriation, instead of $7,000. The Historical Commission can come back to Council later with an additional request.

Member Nagy said she would like to follow the proper process, as Member Lorenzo had noted. The only reason that she would support the motion because Council had supported the other request. From now on, she would like to follow the process.

4. Raccoon Video – Mayor Csordas

Mayor Csordas noted that the City was in the process of legal action regarding this item, so it would be inappropriate to discuss the item further.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION – None

There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor Csordas adjourned the meeting at 10:59 p.m.

____________________________ ___________________________

Lou Csordas, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

____________________________

Transcribed by Steve King

Date approved: August 9^th, 2004