REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI
MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2006 AT 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – NOVI CIVIC CENTER – 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

Mayor Landry called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Landry, Mayor Pro Tem Capello, Council Members Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Nagy, Paul

ALSO PRESENT: Clay Pearson, City Manager

Rob Hayes, Engineer

Jeff Johnson, Acting Fire Chief

Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning

Mayor Pro Tem Capello added under Item B on the Consent Agenda, discussion of labor negotiations in executive session.

Member Paul said she and Member Mutch were on the Sidewalk Pathway Committee and had met several times. She commented that the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission had been meeting with them. She said they had completed their prioritization and would have some adjusted tallies. She said Mark Spencer would be doing a presentation soon and would give Council some information.

Mr. Pearson commented he would like to start out with the continuation of the discussion that Council had at the last meeting regarding a process for Council to provide their strategic goal setting session and community input into the next budget. Mr. Pearson said they took what was said at the last meeting and formulated it into a couple more options for the Council. He said there seemed to be consensus about the proposal the Transitions Group presented. He noted they had scaled it back and focused it more on the Council input session and had given Council a couple of options for input leaning toward a community survey. Mr. Pearson said they received information from the ICMA group, which provided a mail survey option and the advantage of that was it offered comparisons with other peer cities around the country. Mr. Pearson said it was focused on the level of services and could be customized with additional questions. He said it was all leading to a revised timetable they have had discussion and input on, which would have City staff, Planning and Council input in September. This could be a part of a meeting if Council desired and then Administration would do background research, get financials, start the survey and culminate with a full-day Council retreat in January. He said there would be plenty of time for Administration to take Council’s input and work it into the 2006-2007 budget. He was comfortable with that and said it was in keeping with other processes they had done. Mr. Pearson said they tried to juggle all the input from the last meeting and apologized that it wasn’t one recommendation or focused on one choice at this point. He commented they were waiting for Council direction.

Mayor Landry said after reviewing the material, it appeared that one option Council had was the community survey. He said if Council went with the community survey from ICMA, Mr. Pearson was suggesting Council conduct the City Council goal retreat in January. He asked Mr. Pearson if he was indicating to Council that would give him sufficient time to implement and take into consideration their goal setting. Mr. Pearson said absolutely. Mayor Landry said if that was Council’s choice, he would like to set the January meeting date tonight. He was concerned that the holiday season would run too close to their budget meetings. If Council’s choice tonight was to do the survey option and the retreat in January, calendars were available to plan around school holidays. If Council chose not to go that way, that would be fine too.

Member Margolis commented she appreciated all the work staff had done on this and was continually watching how, when Council gave their input on things, they managed to pull together a somewhat cohesive response. She said they had incorporated a lot of what all Council members had talked about. Member Margolis said since budget time, she had been a proponent of a survey because it was absolutely the way that they, as a Council, could make the right kind of decisions for the community. She said the kind of survey ICMA was talking about would ask people about their satisfaction with City services, not "do you want these ten things" and they could answer yes on all of them. She commented it would give Council a chance to prioritize what it was they put money behind with the budget. She thought it was the only way to govern and was very much in favor of the survey rather than focus groups and liked the idea of multiple input from City staff and then a short Council meeting to gather information. She felt the boards and commissions were not utilized as pro-actively as they could be and would like staff to gather information from them. She wanted to know where they saw their particular board or commission going in different kinds of things and their input to Council as part of that. Member Margolis stated she was very comfortable with the survey as the option for gathering information and would like the scaled down version of the community survey at the center section of the timetable.

UNANIMOUSLY: To accept the proposal to do the ICMA National Citizens Survey as an information gathering, and the Transitions Option 2 proposal with the bundled technology.

Member Margolis said she had facilitated sessions with the Meeting Works technology and it was a wonderful way to gather a lot of information and organize it in a short amount of time.

Member Nagy said she would support the motion with regard to the survey. She noted a survey was sent out several years ago and she wasn’t sure why the return of the survey was not successful. She thought by putting it on the web site and on cable Channel 13, they would get a better response. She commented that she wanted to make sure the survey included the ability for Council to understand how the taxpayers wanted their money spent. Member Nagy thought it would fit into some of the issues that were at hand or would be in the future, such as the Library, gun range, sidewalks, etc. She stated the taxpayers provided the income for this City to function and she wanted questions that were geared in such a manner that Council would understand what the residents wanted their money spent on. Member Nagy liked this idea and would be willing to do this in December to facilitate the Administration. She hoped that by advertising, the response would be great. She stated this would be beneficial to Council and she would support the motion.

Member Paul noted she wasn’t in favor of a survey during the budget session because there had been many studies that had not been utilized. She felt that sometimes after a study was done something changed and the study became obsolete and needed to be repeated. She said now that a survey was going to be done and the information used, she could say the money would be well spent.

Member Mutch noted that at the last meeting he had said he didn’t see the benefit of doing a stand alone survey. However, he would support this because he thought they needed to have some basis for making decisions going forward to talk about the budget and planning. He would be looking for the community survey to have some benefit beyond just the upcoming budget year. In the next budget, he wanted Council to be planning and funding something more along the lines of the strategic vision process that was discussed. Member Mutch thought it was an area where there wasn’t a unified vision of where they wanted the community to go over the next 10-20 years. He thought the community survey could be the first step in that process and if it was a part of a larger process, the money would be well spent. Member Mutch said if this was all that was done over the next year or so, he would see it as a lost opportunity. He said he would support this item and thought it was the first step in the larger strategic vision process that would give this Council the opportunity to work with the community to create a vision for the future.

Member Nagy requested copies of the previous studies, as there were many studies that were not implemented and she thought Council should go through them to see if anything could be obtained from them. She felt that even though they might be ten years old they might have some value.

Mayor Landry thought Council needed to determine when the goal session retreat would be. Mr. Pearson said it seemed to be a tradition to have them on Saturday and the Saturday of the Martin Luther King weekend was open. Mayor Landry said the 13^th or the 20^th looked like the logical choices.

Member Margolis suggested a second choice since a facilitator would be required. Mr. Pearson said he hoped they could get it on the calendar since they were planning ahead. Mayor Landry said for the kind of money being paid for this, he would hope the facilitator would be available. Member Nagy asked what time, and Mayor Landry said they would decide that at a later date. She asked if Council was firm on the amount of money they were willing to spend.

Mr. Pearson said this came out of a suggestion that Council look at web streaming of Council meetings. He said it would be an archived process and would have the actual videos of City Council meetings available on the internet. The meeting would be bookmarked so it wouldn’t be necessary to go through a whole meeting to see a particular item. He said the technology had progressed enough that it was less expensive than it was in the beginning. He said they had outlined an option, identified a vendor and could do this for a $1,500 up front equipment cost and an ongoing minimal staff cost estimated at $1,200. He said when this idea came up there was also a call, to Council’s credit, about what else was being done in terms of technology and what might be coming up. Mr. Pearson said they took the opportunity over the last four weeks to inventory the technology initiatives already on the books that they would be implementing and managing. He said they put that to a time line and asked directors to give them what else might be on their horizon for this budget year and the next. He said the result of that was IT Director Rob Petty put together an Information Technology portfolio, which would be very helpful for Council’s planning even into the next budget. He said there were three items highlighted in yellow and those were things they would be coming to Council to ask for consideration on in this fiscal year. He said they were only asking for direction for the Video Streaming tonight and the other two would be coming in a different context. Mr. Pearson said they tried to lay out some of the global technology initiatives they were undertaking now and asked for discussion on the video web streaming.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Petty to tell them why he would recommend this and what it would do for the City.

Mr. Petty said Mr. Pearson had covered the Video Streaming and it actually came from a citizen. He said the FEMA flood hazard determination would be an opportunity for the City to create a link off of the City internet site that would assist financial institutions, citizens and real estate agents make a determination of whether they are inside or outside of the flood plain. He said they would be providing detailed information on that site. It would allow individuals to make the initial inquiry themselves and if they wanted to pursue it further there would be an opportunity to enter their e-mail address, which would be forwarded to the Building Department. Mr. Petty advised that the site would also provide the opportunity to continually update the stagnant maps on our web site now. If a change was made in house, that information would immediately be reflected on the web site and when a citizen pulled up a map they would see what staff saw in house.

He said the Sikich Group recommendation, from a technology point of view, would cover items as simple as adding equipment such as a copy machine within a department to better serve the staff members. He said PC’s, printers, etc. were the type of equipment that would be detailed in that item and this was in response to the Sikich report.

Member Mutch commented he appreciated the list of projects that Mr. Petty put together. He said he was concerned about moving forward on this proposal in a vacuum and not seeing where that fit into the context of the City’s overall IT efforts. Member Mutch said looking at these three projects, the Video Streaming was the lowest priority for him. The Sikich Group recommendations have a huge benefit for the City both internally and for customers externally. He said with the Interactive Mapping Portals, the City would be able to leverage not only the FEMA information but all the other data the City had through GIS and make it available to the business community and the residents. He noted he worked with that everyday and it was a huge benefit to the community businesses and residents. Member Mutch asked regarding these three projects, if they had the dollars for all these projects and were planning to move forward with all three, or would Council have to pick and choose. Member Mutch said if they had to pick and choose, he would not want the Video Streaming now. Mr. Petty replied they were planning on covering all of these and would follow up with the FEMA Portal. He said he would provide additional information in the off week packet that would detail out that funding source through the Building Department, as well as the Sikich recommendation. Mr. Petty said on the Video Streaming, their approach would be a conservative approach in that they would archive them and make them available. He said from that they would be able to see the activity. Mr. Petty said the investment was a PC and if it turned out they didn’t see the activity on the web site, the PC would move into a staff position. He commented they would be able to see the hits and give Council information on whether it was worthwhile continuing because the City would pay for the posting on a month to month basis. He said there was opportunity there to re-evaluate whether to continue it or not, or move to a live feed scenario if the hits were there on the web site.

Member Mutch said on page 2 there were three different projects mentioned. He said none of those were shown coming out of this budget year. Mr. Petty said he was correct and he did not expect funding for them in this budget year. He said they were all projects they would attack in the next budget session. Member Mutch said as long as the dollars were there he would support the three but thought the priorities, in terms of these projects, would be the Sikich Group recommendations and the mapping portal. He felt the Video Streaming would be an interesting technology to try out but not a priority.

Member Margolis said she would support this and didn’t disagree with the priority listing Member Mutch talked about. However, Video Streaming was a request from a resident, could be offered at a small cost and she would be interested in seeing what the traffic on it would be; if it didn’t get the traffic then it would not be worth it. She said it would also provide an opportunity for businesses that had something coming before Council to access the information, instead of sitting in the audience all night waiting for it to be discussed. She asked if Mr. Pearson was looking for a motion on this.

Mr. Pearson said if Council was inclined, it would be up to Council whether or not to implement the Video Streaming. He said one truth in advertising on Document Management was this was the working list of things on the horizon. It was quite probable they would have some investigatory work this year, in terms of feasibility, maybe some outside expert consultant advice. He said they wouldn’t actually be buying software, but he wouldn’t be surprised if sometime during the year they requested help in getting a hold of Document Management and hiring some help.

Member Margolis said she would support that in terms of Document Management and thought the more they could use technology the less they would have to increase staff costs.

Member Gatt asked how he would track the use and length of time people stay on it. He said there might be 100 hits for 10 seconds and then they move on.

Mr. Petty said his interpretation was that it would be just the hit itself. He said there would be bookmarks on it so if he had one thing from his neighborhood he was interested in, he could go to that and only view that. He said how much time he would spend could be misleading; he would investigate that and find out if that information would be available.

Member Paul asked if the $15,000 for the Sikich Group and almost $15,000 for the Interactive Mapping Portal would come from Building Department fees. Mr. Petty said he could not address the Sikich Group. He said they had been working with the Building Department on funding the FEMA Flood Portal in combination with the Finance Department. Mr. Petty said that would be brought forward to Council in the off week packet.

Member Paul asked if software was bought for Mr. Lemmon’s area for tax assessing which would allow citizens to check their parcel and their tax amount. Mr. Pearson said that was up and running and was the BS&A. He said whatever was eligible to be paid for from Building Department fees would be. He said the equipment and hardware would be applicable under the Building Department and under the Sikich recommendations and that was where it would be charged to. He said there would be different funding sources. He noted he had not checked out the FEMA Portal to find out how much of it was eligible and would do it appropriately and whenever they could they would charge that. Member Paul asked where the $5,377 was going to come from. Mr. Pearson said the Video Streaming would come out of the contingency account as an eligible project that had come up during the year and that was what it was there for. He said the funds are available.

Member Paul said she wanted to look at what the Sikich Group recommendations were and whether the Interactive Mapping Portal could be funded from the Building Department and what Council would have to fund. She said she was looking at about $36,000 and Council just spent $18,000 for their consultant. She said they were trying to streamline and not spend a lot of money until their goal session was done. She noted she would like all three of these items but wanted to prioritize what would be most useful to the business community and the residents.

Mayor Landry said a motion to postpone puts the item to another meeting. He asked if that was her wish or did she wish to table to a later time in this meeting. Member Paul said to another meeting.

Member Nagy noted she wanted to bring to their attention that the amount of $5,377 was not indicated.

Mayor Landry said she was correct and asked Mr. Pearson if they needed approval for about $1,000 for staff. Mr. Pearson said that didn’t have to be done now and could be done as a budget amendment. He said the equipment would get this going.

Member Nagy asked if they would come back with actual figures for the Sikich Group and the Interactive Mapping Portal and if it would be done within the next two or three months. Mr. Pearson said yes and 90% plus of that would be funded out of the Building Department. She asked if Mr. Petty would be implementing the Archived Video Streaming. Mr. Petty said yes, in partnership with Sheryl Walsh and the vendors. Member Nagy asked if he would be the person that helps implement the Interactive Mapping Portal with the Building Department. Mr. Petty said absolutely. She said she would not support the motion because she didn’t want everything to come at Mr. Petty all at once.

Mayor Landry said as the Information Technology person for the City, his understanding was that nothing happened without going through Mr. Petty. Mr. Petty said he wished it was that way. However, he was very lucky that he and the directors stay in contact with one another and a lot of what was on the report was a result of their hard work in bringing ideas to the table for him also.

Mayor Landry understood Member Nagy’s concern and shared it, but if Council decided to invest in additional information technology for the Building or the Planning Department, Mr. Petty would clearly have to be involved in the implementation of that. Mr. Petty said he was correct. He said if Council would notice the last column, what they tried to get across was the implementation schedule for the existing projects. He said anything new that they took on they have assigned staffing level recommendations. By that he meant the work load on internal staff so they could serve the existing projects and have success with the ones they add on.

Mayor Landry asked if Council approved the motion for the Video Web Streaming did he anticipate any problems with his time in the implementation of that. Mr. Petty said he did not.

Member Mutch said he would second what Mr. Petty said. He said a lot of this would be done with consultants or the service provider and a lot of the work would not even occur in house. He didn’t see any problem with Mr. Petty taking on these projects. He noted the concern he raised about the funding and the statement by the Administration that almost all the funding for the two other items would be covered by Building Department fees addressed his concern. He didn’t want to fund the Video Streaming at the expense of the other two projects, but based on that information he thought they could accomplish all three. He stated he would support a motion to approve.

Mr. Pearson said tonight Council had a chance to see some of staff’s work presenting some strategic goal setting options. He noted they had seen Mr. Petty with the Information Technology and he was very proud of what staff members had done and what they were delivering for Council. He said the next item is the capstone to that. Mr. Pearson said they have had a team of City staff who had worked very diligently with an outside consultant represented by the Sikich Group. He said Council was supportive of this very important review at the beginning of the year and since then they had taken that charge and opportunity very seriously. He said they were looking at our own business processes, how things were being done now and what could be done better. He said they were questioning how they had been doing things and opening themselves up at a little risk as people could legitimately say "why wasn’t that done that way before". He thought they had set that aside and made a good effort to look from top to bottom, how paper was handled, how they resource staff, how the technology was available and the culmination of that was the report submitted to Council about a week and a half ago. Mr. Pearson said the staff members directly involved were Ben Croy of Engineering, Angie Pawlowski and Jason Myers from Planning, Sarah Marchioni, Ken Elphinstone, and Malinda Martin from Building and Sheila Weber from the Treasurer’s office. Mr. Pearson said, in turn, each of those people have been backed up and supported while they worked on this with their colleagues and Mr. Pearson wanted to also thank them for all their hard work. Mr. Pearson said the work report Council received started with citizens and developers. He said they came in for a series of one on one meetings and were asked what they liked and didn’t like about the development and site plan review process. He noted that a lot of the work Council would see tonight emanated from them.

Larry Maholland, Sikich Group, thanked Council for the opportunity to come to Novi. He said they were impressed with Novi. He said there were two strong beliefs they had going into a project like this. Mr. Maholland said they believed that the recommendations had to come from the customer’s perspective and they interviewed a lot of people. Secondly, they felt strongly that the expertise to make those recommendations already resided in the City with the City employees. He said their role was to understand the process improvement, etc.; they understood the context and had experience in facilitation and group dynamics. However, they really didn’t have the expertise to make the recommendations Council saw in the report. He wanted to get into the report and talk about it from an overview.

Mr. Maholland said the study objective was to assess stakeholder’s needs by determining whether their needs were being met, that the processes were efficient and effective, necessary resources were provided and employees have the appropriate technical and interpersonal skills.

He covered the study objectives and their approach. He said the recommendations were just a part of this and they needed to be moved forward and implemented. He said everyone was serious about this, and he was sure they would be implemented. Some of the recommendations could be implemented right away but they thought it would take approximately one year to complete. Mr. Maholland said they felt it was critical to have guide posts that everyone could agree to, as they were necessary to guide everyone toward the same goals. He said the first was a goal in partnership with the people who created and changed the physical shape of Novi. The City would establish relationships and processes that assured community pride, were environmentally friendly, would provide economic vitality and continue to meet the community’s public health and safety needs. He said the guiding principles they would like everyone to adhere to were to ensure predictability, enhance Novi’s reputation, encourage common sense approaches, promote accountability, effectively and consistently communicate and provide efficient processes. Mr. Maholland said when they looked at the interviews they categorized them into themes. He said two of them came out: too much time and a poor reputation and they were the overwhelming themes they heard. He noted there should be a 40% improvement in process time and the standard used was typically 25 days to get a plan through an evaluation process whether in the planning review part or the building plan reviews. He said in the interviews with the stakeholders what seemed to be acceptable to them was about 3 weeks, so that became their goal. They worked to eliminate or significantly reduce the processes that didn’t seem to have a need. He said greater predictability, enhanced customer service, etc. should be the result of the recommendations. They talked about some underlying cultural changes they thought would improve the entire process. He said first of all was to have customer service training and standards. He said many of the employees of Novi have great customer service skills but It’s not a cultural thing and could only be achieved by having training and developing those standards City-wide. They were suggesting that would be something the City should consider. Mr. Maholland said process improvement programs should be continuous and the City shouldn’t wait until they heard so many complaints. He said part of that was providing the resources to do process improvement. If that was done, in the long run Council would find the efficiencies that offset the resources put into it. Mr. Maholland said it was important to approve the guiding principles and for Council and employees to get on board. They were asking that that be done as well.

Jason Myers said he and Sheila Weber would go over a number of different categories of recommendations they had made, explain why this overall recommendation was important and give an example to illustrate what it really meant.

Ms. Weber said they wanted to enhance process time flexibility by reducing the number of review days, provide immediate permitting, review by the engineer in training, add another full time inspector, hire seasonal clerical and have a satellite office. Also, to ensure procedural quality, the first would be the City staff’s quality, the quality of the work they do, making sure they are proactive and doing the right things at the right time. Mr. Myers said the second part of that was to make sure we get quality input to our process, identify plans that are not going to go through the ordinance, are not going to meet the requirements and would be rejected for technical issues a few weeks later. We have to be sure to get quality work from the start. Ms. Weber said an example was the tree inventory; they understood the frustration of such a requirement, how much time it took and that it could hold up the process. Therefore, they would recommend to the developer or builder to hire a certified arborist or specialist with the proper credentials to identify trees or have the City contract a service with reimbursement to be made. Mr. Myers noted that another overall recommendation was to deploy technology universally. If the City spends a lot of its resources on its staff people, the more effectively they could leverage that resource by being efficient using our technology, the more efficient the process could be. There are some very strategic investments that the report identifies short term and long term that would help do that and in some ways getting more staff without hiring additional people. Ms. Weber commented they were looking into the expansion of Permits Plus. The use of the current system kept improving and was making things more manageable as time went by. She said they would like to expand their knowledge of the system, find out its full potential and what it could do. Ms. Weber said there were several opportunities discussed that related to how documents and information were handled. For example, calculating fees, assigning addresses and other practices that individuals take small amounts of time for and cause delays and inconveniences for the developers. In addition, efficient work areas and other efficiency improvements were listed under this category. Mr. Myers said an example the is fee calculation. Currently, in the Planning Department the process was that the plans were dropped off for review. The clerical staff would go over the plans and calculate the fees that would be required for the actual plan review and then contact the developer or applicant to bring in a check; then the real review would start. The Planning and Finance Departments identified a way using one small change in the Permits Plus system and changes in procedures which would enable the Planning Department to have all that communication and fee calculation happen before the plans were dropped off and the check would come with no lag time between the two.

Ms. Weber said they were recommending that the availability of such fees and financial guarantees be made in the final site plan review letters for a smoother transition toward the pre-construction meeting. She said next would be enhanced communications. Examples of improvements of communications would be to develop checklists and helpful information that could easily guide an applicant through the process. In addition, the City must address the concern of some developers that felt changes were made to the ordinances without notification. She said it was important to note that underlying the following recommendations was recognition that the image of this City must be focused on service areas instead of organizational departments. Mr. Myers said an example of this would be the Site Plan Manual and the Building Process Manual; both are very outdated and the City needed to update those manuals so they would reflect the proper requirements.

Larry Maholland commented that they looked at what obstacles there were to overcome so they could implement the recommendations. The first was culture with principle-based decision making and whether the culture would allow for that. Also, the commitment of resources, lessons learned in the past and hopefully those wouldn’t be things that would inhibit moving forward. He said they were asked to develop performance indicators; first of all they must be comparable to other communities, verifiable in an economic sense and ease collections.

Member Margolis thanked the staff and the presenters. She said she knew this would be hard work and a different way of looking at things. She believed that all of the staff had been working very hard and hopefully through this process they would realize there are ways they could work differently that would make things work better. Member Margolis said she was committed to providing the resources that were needed to do this because she thought it was crucial to the future of the City. She commented that there were many little things that didn’t sound like they would make a whole lot of difference. However, she had learned in process improvement that making those little changes could make a real difference. Member Margolis had questions on the benchmarks referred to on page 30 of the original report that talked about community comparables. She said eight items were listed under Site Plan Review that could be measured under Building Permit Review 9 items and under Inspection 4 items. She asked if they were not recommending that all of these items be measured, but that there be some choices done here because of the time involved. Mr. Maholland responded that he tried to pick ones that would build off each other; once information was gathered for a couple of them that’s information that could be used in another one. However, if they found that it was too difficult to collect the information, they wouldn’t use it. Member Margolis requested that these measures be part of a quarterly review or semi-annual review to measure how they were doing so the process could be continually improved and it would give Council a way to monitor whether they were moving in the right direction. She was concerned about the many recommendations the spreadsheet had and obviously it couldn’t be done all at once. Member Margolis asked someone to speak to the prioritization at this point.

Mr. Pearson replied that Member Margolis was referring to the four page table attached to the motion sheet. He said the table was a framework of what would happen next. It would provide measures and let Council know the progress of the recommendations. However, they couldn’t do all 45 of these things. So they came up with a general set of guidelines about the impact and the ease of getting it done with a one to three star ranking. He said he possibly would bring back recommendations by the second Council meeting in September on the high priority and easily attainable kinds of items. Member Margolis thought this was a wonderful way of prioritizing. She said there was a lot of work to be done and Council could provide the resources needed to move this forward and make sure Novi was the kind of city in which people wanted to do business. She asked what else Council could do to help move this forward, whether in attitude or reallocating money; although many of the items didn’t require an allocation of money or resources. She asked how Council could make sure they were supporting this effort. Mr. Maholland stated the guideposts provided that support by the Council and staff adhering to those guiding principals. He believed they were important to think about when making decisions; it’s important to follow them and if necessary, they could be added to or revised. He thought everyone should have some underlying values on which they would base their decisions. The guideposts were developed from the interviews and were something people should be held accountable for. He said the staff was asked if they had any changes or recommendations. Member Margolis stated she would be very happy to approve the guideposts. She thought if they wanted a one sentence guidepost it would be that the attitude presented to everybody should be that we are all in this together; how can we help you? She appreciated the work plan and wanted some type of review plan on the benchmarks regarding how they were doing this quarter as compared to last quarter.

Member Nagy appreciated the work that had been done and the planners input. She thought there were a lot of good items in the report and agreed they could not implement everything depending on the financial aspect of it. She said not only does the process have to be changed but also, at times, there are recommendations to hire people. She asked why people would have to be hired internally if a large consulting company was hired. She thought they should be able to provide all this without the City going through the expense. She noted a lot of this would be very costly and asked where the funds would come from. She thought the changes were necessary and would improve the situation within the City. Member Nagy thought these were great recommendations.

Member Paul asked what would be the ability for Council to adopt this and ensure predictability. Mr. Maholland stated the recommendations to enhance process time flexibility were the recommendations that directly related to predictability. Member Paul asked about promoting accountability; she could see that from a standpoint of communicating, a staff person being assigned to a project. She asked what other items they were looking at for accountability. Mr. Maholland explained that the consultants needed to have greater accountability and felt that was missing to some degree. He said the performance indicators provide accountability as well. Member Paul asked about the rapidness of approval time. She asked if both the Planning and Building Departments would look at eliminating the process to fine tune it to 15 days for review rather than 25. Mr. Maholland stated yes, Planning would move to 20 and hopefully in a year to 15. He said regarding the Building Department there wasn’t necessarily a standard and felt a reasonable time was 15 days, but had learned it was generally around 25 days. He said there wasn’t a promise to even be 25 days. Member Paul asked how often the review process should take place. Mr. Maholland thought the processes that needed improvement needed to be identified. He said training needed to go on for all employees and might just be a small process where employees get together every 2 or 3 weeks for a year with a coach to help them guide that process. He said they should establish goals, what they want to accomplish, what the outcomes would be, what’s in scope and what’s out of scope. Mr. Maholland said that team would then define a process that needed improvement. Initially it would be an effort that required training and wouldn’t happen naturally, but eventually it would. It might take 2 to 3 years because it’s a cultural change. Member Paul asked if they looked at the Building Department and some of the processes each person was responsible for and how to quickly make a change in that process also. Mr. Maholland explained that the Building inspectors are in the building for about two hours a day so they were not available for most of the day. He said the inspectors average more than 17 inspections each day, which was way over what was typical. He said the other part was to resolve that issue so that someone was available during the day to review some of the miscellaneous plans that come in and to respond to phone calls. They didn’t think leaving an entire day without getting back to anyone was a good way to do business. Member Paul asked, when talking about committing resources, if there were specific guidelines they would want Council to look at allocating some recommendations they had given. Mr. Maholland stated that they gave recommendations in terms of who they thought should be hired in terms of staff, technology, etc. He thought that in each recommendation there were some very specific areas that they were asking Council to address. He said he assumed those would be brought forward at future Council meetings and the implementation plan would be part of that.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello commented that he was glad the study was done. However, he didn’t see any different results than what they had 12 years ago when they did the same thing internally with the City and in conjunction with the building community and Chamber of Commerce. He hoped with their help they could move forward. He noted that what he liked the most on page 11 of the report was talking about the customer service. He said he would like that to be a high priority goal and would like training for employees because they probably had not had any. He also felt that the City should record phone calls for quality assurance. He said a business resident and citizen came to his office and complained because he was not pleased with how he was treated both at the counter and on the phone and he suggested the calls be recorded. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said on page 30, they did outline ways to monitor our progress relative to other communities. He thought they should not just compare Novi with other communities, but should see how other communities were doing things. He commented that he had heard Northville Township could turn plans around in 6 to 10 days and he wanted to see what they were doing. He said plans might be submitted by an architect and an engineer and the battle would begin. He said they both could be right but because the City was the City, they felt it had to be done their way. He thought that was wrong as long as they were both right. He said he didn’t see much distinction between Building and Planning in the review and permitting process. However, he thought there had to be a distinction there. On pages 10-12 regarding the review process, it was a nice idea to get it down from 25 to 15 days, but if it were that simple he didn’t know why the department didn’t do it ten years ago. He thought part of the problem was getting it out in 15 days. The building permit process, especially for residential homes, should have a much shorter review process than it would be for Planning. He said what he had seen happen was the review letters would come out in 15 days and they were vague and ambiguous. He said they missed things so that on the second review new things were coming back up again and it happened on a consistent basis.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said they get wetland and woodland reviews from consultants. The developer complies with the woodland review and then the wetland person doesn’t like it, so they keep coming back because there’s no consistency coming out of the City. He said there also had to be some accountability from the consultants; they submit the review letters to the City and Council should look at all of it before the review letters went out. He felt the time was after the second, third and fourth reviews. He said on page 26 regarding accountability, he liked the idea of one person being in charge of projects. He thought a supervisory person was needed in charge over Building and Planning; someone that could call the consultants, tell them what they should be doing and what decisions to make. He said also, with the consultants, one person does the inspection and we get three review letters back; then someone else goes out and there are new inspections and new issues.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said, in regard to the goals themselves, he didn’t think they were specific enough. We have specific issues and our goals should be much more specific so employees know what they should be doing and how they’re going to get there. He said accountability was very important in their review and he was glad it was addressed, as it would solve a lot of problems that were not specifically addressed.

Mr. Maholland commented regarding customer service. He said having the training would start to set the tone, people would realize it was important and just doing those kinds of things would change the atmosphere and attitude. He also agreed with the accountability issue and thought it was a critical issue. He said what they tried to do with the project coordinator was have someone that would follow up and then they would talk to the people that could hold the person accountable if there was an issue. The department director or the manager should be the one to make sure things are straightened out.

Member Mutch commented on the guideposts and the overall report. He thought it was critical to have employee involvement in this process. He said anything of this nature, which involved changing how things were done within the City, would directly impact the employees. He said it was critical to have staff input because they were working with this everyday and it was important for them to step out of their everyday work to be able to evaluate it. He thought if the Administration and department heads provided the employees the opportunity to do that, it would ensure getting a much better final product.

Member Mutch said one of the things that concerned him about coming out of a process like this was that quality and community value would be sacrificed. He noted he was pleased to see that the goals of the report recognized that environmental protection was equal and balanced with economic vitality. He thought Novi had a tough reputation because of high standards and sometimes it was because things were made more difficult than they needed to be. He stated he was willing to work to make things more efficient, but he was not willing to sacrifice quality or the environment to make that happen. Member Mutch was glad that the report reflected those values. He thought whether a resident or business member in this community, they were making a major investment and wanted to ensure that everyone that comes after them had to be working toward the same goal that this would be a quality community that would last long term. This report would allow the City to do things better, smarter and more efficiently and still maintain the quality values that were expected from the development community, residents and businesses. Member Mutch hoped this report encouraged a culture within our City employee workforce to continue to find the best way to do what they do everyday. He said as a Council member, he hoped one of the messages sent to the employees was that Council encouraged the employees to bring forward suggestions for improvement. He said that had not always been the case as the culture had been to follow the rules, but if they find ways to do things better, quicker and at less cost he wanted to hear those suggestions through the appropriate chain of command. He wanted to encourage that culture within the employee workforce because he thought over the long term they would help us work more efficiently.

Mayor Landry commended the Sikich Group as his fear was that all Council would end up with were a bunch of platitudes. He said he was very surprised that there were some very specific and minute, in some instances, recommendations in a positive way. He thought the report was excellent and was pleased with the way it was set up in analysis, criteria and the way they came back with some good recommendations to be implemented.

Mayor Landry commended Mr. Saven and Ms. McBeth and every member of their departments for being willing to open themselves up for this kind of analysis. He said it was easy to criticize, but it took a real big person to open up their department for scrutiny. He asked that they pass on to everyone in their departments that Council understood the nature of this. Mayor Landry said he didn’t perceive this as a negative and felt this was a positive and a lot of people failed to keep this type of analysis in context. The City of Novi was so burdened with planning and building of major projects that it far exceeded neighboring communities and the amount of work these departments had to juggle was amazing. He thought it was a positive that the City wanted to step up and improve its process. Mayor Landry said he saw that more training was needed and that was more a comment about City Council than anyone else. He said the last few budget sessions the Administration kept putting training in and Council kept cutting it. He said they need to invest the money to give their employees the training they need and that was coming out first and foremost to him. Mayor Landry said if more was expected of the employees, they had to give them the tools to do it. He said they recommended hiring three positions, not all full time and he had no problem with that. In fact, he didn’t see how they could juggle the increased work load without doing it. He said he supported cross training. Mayor Landry said if someone was standing at the counter and he walked up, he didn’t care what department they were from; they had better answer his question or direct him to someone who could. He said we have the technology but we’re not using it, it’s a positive, didn’t cost anything, so let’s just use it. Mayor Landry said they recommended the City bring in a consultant to help improve records management for the entire City. He said they need to manage better the consultants the City already had. He thought these were very specific recommendations. He said tonight Council would approve the goals and the guideposts as the first step, but the work was yet to be done. The real work was for the Administration to implement these and Council should give them the money to do it. The real work was in the coming year or 18 months, it was not tonight. He said he would hate to see this report sit on a shelf somewhere. It was a great report and he commended Mr. Maholland and the City employees for participating in this. It was now out of their hands and in Council’s hands. He said he would be looking for the Administration to come back with how this could be implemented as soon as possible.

Linda Krieger, 44920 Byrne Drive, commented about the departmental issue in B., Process Improvement. She said she was glad she was present to hear it and agreed that Sikich had done an excellent job. She also appreciated the comments from Council regarding that. She said regarding the Building Department it was the developers, residents and the regular builders, so we’re all customers.

Jamie Kruzynski, representative of ITC Transmission, a company headquartered in Novi, said they own and operate all the high voltage electric transmission lines in southeast Michigan He said they had recently signed a deal to acquire all the high power electric transmission in all of the lower peninsula. He commented that they were looking to build their new corporate headquarters in Novi and there was a particular piece of property they were looking at. He was present to support item #6 of the agenda, which was the change in the height and area requirements in the ordinance. He said the property had some woodlands and wetlands on it and they were trying to preserve as many of those as possible. He said to get the amount of office space they needed on the property, they would like to build up as opposed to out. He said they attended the public hearing on it and submitted comments that Council should have in their packets. Mr. Kruzynski said they did support the modifications and hoped it would go well. He said he was definitely in support of the web cast.

Mario Fundarski, 43133 Coveside Circle, Suite 1714, was present to speak on behalf of a new political group entitled Israeli Americans for Peace, whose purpose was to go nationwide to affect the policy against the state of Israel. It was their belief that if the United States policy on Israel was changed, the war on terrorism would be won. He said their immediate goal was to change policy toward Israel; to stop giving them 6.3 billion dollars per year with no conditions. He reflected on the need to look back at the policy in 1948. He stated their group was neither anti-Jewish nor anti-Semitic; they were interested in what was best for America.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. August 14, 2006 Regular meeting

B. Enter Executive Session immediately following the regular meeting of August 28, 2006, in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing pending litigation, privileged correspondence from legal counsel and labor negotiations.

C. Approval of the 2006-2007 Winter Maintenance Agreement between the City of Novi and the Road Commission for Oakland County for snow and ice control on County-owned roads within Novi’s jurisdiction.

D. Approval of appointment of Jim Petres (Employee Delegate) as the 2006 City of Novi representative to attend the Annual Michigan Employees Retirement System (MERS) Conference to be held September 19-21, 2006.

E. Approval of proposal to purchase portable sound system from Thalner Electronic Laboratories (TEL) Systems, in the amount of $39,988.66.

F. Approval of the final Change Order No. 2 and final Pay Estimate No. 13 to Lawrence M. Clarke, Inc. for the Section 1 & 12 Sanitary Sewer Project in the amount of $59,660.

G. Approval of Change Order No. 1 for the Beck Road Water Main project between Grand River Avenue and Eleven Mile Road for addition of a temporary traffic lane on the west side of Beck Road to facilitate water main installation, in the amount of $79,761.

H. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 727

Mr. James explained they attempted to provide the loop system by gaining an easement to the property to the east but were unable to do so. He said several attempts were made and there was no reply from the property owners. He said they did another pressure test a week ago and it was at 1340 now with the proposed 8 inch main. He said concerning the access drive, they thought it would be more pleasing to the type of home they were putting in there because of its close proximity to the homes themselves.

Mr. Pearson said regarding variance #1 on the water, he could understand the inability to loop the system. However, they maintained a recommendation that the applicant be required to install the 12 inch main on their property, as it was feasible and would solve the pressure problem. He said their development design required the longer cul-de-sac and water pressure could be remedied with the 12 inch main.

Mr. Pearson said regarding the second variance and the kind of pavers, while not ideal, they do represent a certain aesthetic improvement. The developer had provided an offer to provide maintenance for them in the master deed and designate where they are. He said there were some ongoing concerns with this and he would leave it to the Council’s deference on whether they wanted to entertain that variance.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello noted variance #2 would be fine, as it was approved at Bellagio and it worked fine. He thought that should be done on a more consistent basis. Mayor Pro Tem Capello did have a problem with variance #1 and was concerned with lack of water pressure. He asked if the line went to 12 inches would it provide sufficient pressure to the end of the cul-de-sac or just for the first 800 feet.

Mr. Hayes responded that it would provide sufficient flow and pressure with a 12 inch main. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if there would be an issue with the Fire Department and Mr. Hayes said not if the 2000 gallon per minute requirement was met. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said before approving this, he would like to have the applicant go back to the property owners and try to get a response.

CM-06-08-224 Moved by Capello, seconded by Nagy; MOTION CARRIED: To deny Variance #2, a variance from Section 11-194(a)(19) of the Design and Construction Standards requiring an all weather secondary access to the east (a partially vegetated permeable pavement system as proposed) based on the fact that the practical difficulties had not been shown, the alternative was not a substantial deviation from the standard and the health, safety and welfare would be substantially impacted.

Member Gatt said on both these recommendations it stated that the Fire Department did not recommend approval. Acting Chief Johnson explained that neither one of the ordinances met the objective. He said the pavers would be a problem for them because the property owners don’t always take care of them after they are put in. Therefore, it would not always be clear where the access was. He said it made it very difficult to see them and he wouldn’t put Fire Department vehicles in a position to use them because they couldn’t see them. Member Gatt said it would be a matter of safety for the officers, trucks and the people they were going to protect. Acting Chief Johnson thought the intent of the ordinance was to provide a secondary access so they would only be using those if the primary access wasn’t available.

Member Nagy said she was not willing to change the Design and Construction Standards because of what Acting Chief Johnson indicated as well as Fire Marshal Evans. She said her concern was that this would be put in the master deed and the homeowners were supposed to be responsible for it. She said what she found, being the president of her homeowners association, was that people didn’t read their master deed and by-laws. She thought it was too much to ask of future homeowners because it would be an expense for them to maintain. She commented that she didn’t know how they would enforce it and didn’t want to see a very expensive piece of equipment get stuck. Member Nagy said she could not support the motion. She thought it would be a health, safety and welfare issue for the residents that would be living there in the future.

Member Paul asked if the Planning Department had any involvement with the property owner to the east regarding the water connection. Ms. McBeth replied that they have had conversations with the property owner and the developer to the east. She said they have encouraged the two developers to work together on the water connection. Member Paul asked if there was any response that they were trying to make that connection. Ms. McBeth said it was a continuing and ongoing negotiation between the two. She didn’t know if there was a final answer at this point but it sounded like they were willing to discuss it with this developer. She said usually an easement for water or sewer was easy to accomplish and asked why it was so difficult in this case. Ms. McBeth noted that in this particular case Mirabella Estates was originally called Meadowbrook Gate. They have a cul-de-sac that did not exceed the length that would require this additional access for the water connection. So at the time they were approved, they were not required to provide the water connection. Typically, if the cul-de-sac could be a little shorter, they wouldn’t need the additional water pressure. Member Paul asked if she was comfortable with Variance #1 having the 12 inch main and having the water pressure met. Ms. McBeth replied that this was primarily an Engineering and Fire Department issue. She said the Planning Department was comfortable with the increase in the size of the water main to allow the pressure that would be required for this development.

Member Paul asked Mr. Hayes if the 12 inch main would suffice. Mr. Hayes responded they had reviewed the calculations that verified a 12 inch pipe would provide sufficient pressure and flow, specifically to exceed the 2000 gpm requirement in the ordinance to meet fire flow.

Member Paul wanted to revisit variance #1 when Council decided what they wanted to do with the motion. She said Engineering said the water pressure would be okay and the 2000 gpm would be met. She didn’t feel comfortable not approving variance #1 in regard to water pressure and wanted to know why it was approved in Bellagio. Ms. McBeth believed that Bellagio was permitted to have their secondary access completed with a similar type of permeable pavers because it was clearly delineated with a gate across the secondary access. Acting Chief Johnson noted the variance was approved against the Fire Department’s recommendation. Member Paul asked what he would recommend to allow this developer to move forward in the process. Acting Chief Johnson said that would be something the Council would have to make a recommendation on.

Member Paul said when looking at the water main connection to the easterly property and having easement issues, could he share with Council what their discussion had been. Mr. James said they had several discussions about the water connection related to the neighboring subdivision. He said on several occasions he left it with them that they needed to get back with him with whatever it would require to get the easement, whether financial or something more physical such as taking excavation squalls or a combination of both. He said at almost every instance one principle in the company expressed that he would get a hold of the other principle in the company, make a decision and get back to him immediately. He said when it didn’t happen within 48 hours or so he contacted them again and he said they went through this process for about 3 weeks. He said his last phone call to them was last weekend at which time they stopped returning his phone calls. Mr. James said he was left with little recourse as far as making contact with them and getting a definitive answer on what they would like to have or whether they would even consider. He said the Planning and Engineering Departments encouraged him to contact the neighboring developer. He said he was not of a mind to do it at that point, but he did it and was glad that they prodded him into doing it to get to this stage. Member Paul said when they did the pressure test they did the 8 and 12 inch pipe and their studies said the 12 inch pipe would accommodate the 2000 gpm. Mr. James said yes.

Member Paul said she was looking at someone that was out of options and was looking at having a Variance #1 with the 2000 gpm being met. She didn’t feel comfortable delaying that portion of this project. She wanted to hear a little more about what to do about Variance #2. She said she didn’t have a problem with the medium and would rather not see another gate on Eight Mile.

Mayor Landry said if the Council was interested in ensuring 2000 gpm, then the 12 inch pipe was needed. Mr. James said yes. Mayor Landry said then Variance #1 would be denied, correct. Mr. James said Variance #1 would need to be denied if Council wanted to maintain the 2000 gpm.

Member Margolis said her question was about the variance for Bellagio, but it was her understand that Bellagio then put a gate up that would clearly delineate where the secondary access was. Mr. Pearson said it was a little different. The gate was for a larger development, would be between subdivisions and would be easier to do. He said they were proposing the delineation with arborvitae. He said it was a different way to accomplish what they were trying to do and was a question of whether Council was comfortable with that. He said they would look at the Design and Construction Standards to allow this. He said Acting Chief Johnson was correct and they had recommended that consistently. However, it was Council’s role to review it and take everything into account and on at least one occasion it had been granted. He said regarding Variance #1, it could be solved by the property owner on their property without asking anyone else by doing the 12 inch main. Member Margolis said she could not support the two variances. She appreciated the work they had done in trying to work with the other developers. However, when she heard from the Fire Chief there was concern for emergency access and fire, as a Council member, even if it was in the master deed, if something happened and a resident was injured she didn’t think Council would want to say they put it in the master deed. She thought the issue with Bellagio was different. She didn’t think a wire gate accomplished their intent and regarding putting up plantings, she could see why the Fire Department was saying that would not accomplish delineating where the path was. In this case because of safety, she could not approve these variances.

Member Mutch said in regard to Variance #1, the applicant chose to exceed the 800 feet and he probably picked up two lots or so and the additional costs would be his responsibility. He said regarding the second point, he asked if there was an existing secondary access easement on the adjacent subdivision parcel. Ms. McBeth replied the Mirabella Estates has secondary access aligned with the access that would be provided for this. He asked what the nature of the access drive was. Ms. McBeth said there was nothing in place at the moment. She said they were considering their options and watching this one to see what happened. If the pavers were allowed here they might consider that as well. She said the required standard was a paved access drive as the Fire Marshal and the Fire Chief indicated. Member Mutch said that had not been sorted out with that subdivision and Ms. McBeth said their assumption was they would put in the paved access drive that would support a fire vehicle. If they didn’t do that, they would need to seek a waiver from Council. He asked what it was approved with and she responded it was approved with a paved drive. Member Mutch said that settled it for him. The other subdivision was putting in the paved drive, it was not attractive aesthetically but it comes down to health, safety and welfare of the community. He noted he had the same concerns as the previous speaker regarding long term maintenance. He thought this was a case where the safety concerns were paramount.

Mr. Schultz reminded Council that under the section that was before Council, there were 3 things that must be satisfied. 1) Council had to find that there was an exceptional practical difficulty by applying the ordinance as written and essentially they were talking about financial, 2) that alternative was not a substantial deviation and 3) the public health, safety and welfare would not be detrimentally impacted.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said if the variances were granted and an asphalt drive went in, would it be an easement or would it be dedicated to the City as part of the roadway. Mr. James said it would either be asphalt or concrete and he didn’t know if it would be dedicated to the City. Mr. Hayes said an easement would be acceptable. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked who would maintain the easement. Mr. Hayes thought it would be the City’s responsibility. Mr. Schultz commented that typically they would require that the development maintain it and if they didn’t the City would maintain the right to do it and charge them. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked who would plow it in the winter. Mr. Schultz said the streets would be public and this presumed easement would be a private maintenance responsibility unless the City was compensated. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said whether asphalt, concrete or pavers the snow could accumulate in the winter which could impede the fire trucks getting through. Acting Chief Johnson said he was correct. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if they could tell Council the composite of the pavers. Mr. Hayes said they were different products and are typically checkerboard pattern of concrete blocks that have voids available to put soil in, so they could be planted and seeded so there would be a vegetated surface. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked about the base and Mr. Hayes said it was typically sand or an aggregate type of material underneath. It would be a solid, firm base to support the heavy load of the fire trucks. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said it was solid enough to hold the fire trucks for sure, correct. Mr. Hayes said yes. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said because of the base and these pavers the residents could go out there, dig a hole, and plant a tree. Mr. Hayes said yes. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said this is between two yards and proposed to be between two houses. Mr. Hayes said yes. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he assumed that grass would be there, the neighbors would maintain it, they couldn’t plant anything and the Fire Department would know where it was. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked the seconder to allow him to amend his motion to deny Variance #2 for the pavers. Member Nagy agreed.

Mayor Landry said the motion was to deny Variance #2 and he assumed that this motion was based on the fact that the practical difficulties had not been shown, the alternative was not a substantial deviation from the standard and the health, safety and welfare would be substantially impacted. Mayor Pro Tem Capello agreed.

Member Nagy said she was on the Planning Commission when Mirabella came before them and they have concrete which was their intention for their side of the access. She felt strongly about the safety and welfare of the people. She said for Mirabella to suddenly come back to Council to change from the standards because Council allowed one person to do it was not fair to those who come before Council.

She said while on the Planning Commission this was denied for other sites and they had always gone with the recommendation of the Fire Department.

Mayor Landry called for a motion on Variance #1.

Mayor Landry said that would be because there was no practical difficulty, the alternative was a substantial deviation from the standards, and health, safety and welfare would be substantially impacted. Member Gatt agreed.

Member Nagy said she would be consistent with her vote on the budget and would not support the motion.

Member Paul said she would also be consistent and would not approve giving a retired individual $1,000. She said there are many active employees that need training, as well as investment in their compensation. She said the City was paying for the retirees’ health care and the other costs. She felt their benefits were very rich and she would not be approving this motion.

Mr. Pearson commented that they recommended denial of the request for a variety of reasons stated in the motion sheet.

Mario Fundarski stated he felt that no Cost of Living allowance should be given automatically to retirees. He noted that he had met Zolton Ferency at Michigan State University. In the 1972 Gubernatorial election Mr. Ferency was running for Governor and didn’t believe police departments should carry weapons. He felt that Mr. Ferency was right. Mr. Fundarski felt the Novi Police Department was a paramilitary army. He said the police department should protect people, not harass them. He congratulated the three Council members who didn’t vote for the increase.

Council recessed at 9:23 P.M.

Council reconvened at 9:39 P.M.

Member Mutch commented that he would like to see the Administration explore revisions to the Design and Construction Standards to allow alternative storm water management within parking areas. He mentioned using bio-swales and other more natural features within the parking lots. He said since the standards on parking were going to be relaxed, it would give some opportunity for alternative storm water management, which he thought would work for the benefit of the developer and the City. Member Mutch said he didn’t need to see this with this revision but he would like it explored.

Member Nagy concurred with Member Mutch. She said they had done things like this in Ann Arbor and it had been very beneficial. She would also like it looked into in the future and suggested looking into Ann Arbor.

Member Paul stated she had very similar concerns and had asked Ms. McBeth how the City had been doing on our bio-retention/rain gardens. She said they were pretty much the same things, but the main purpose was to have the water run off go to an area where plants absorb it and it’s released in the air. She said several things were coming forward in the end of September and Ms. McBeth already had the Ann Arbor information as one of her resources. She asked if Engineering was working with that project. Ms. McBeth stated she had talked with Mr. Hayes and it sounded like they were going to come forward with information for Council’s consideration on this topic. Member Paul said in other communities they would have an option for repaving roads in an existing subdivision and they ask them if they would do a bio-retention basin versus a swale. She said most people, once informed what it was, would approve a bio-retention basin or a rain garden in front of their yards. She would like to see that so shopping centers could have bio-retention or swales.

Mr. Pearson said there was a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission on this item and a public hearing had been held. He commended the staff for their research of different alternatives and relying a lot on the Urban Land Institute Standards. He said that was a similar standard that was used for the Taubman Twelve Oaks expansion for retail shopping centers in excess of a million square feet. Mr. Pearson said another key element of this improvement and updating of the ordinance was that it would be available for developments that are in process. He said even the projects in final preliminary site plan would be able to look at this to see if it would fit their projects.

Mayor Landry said, with respect to planned shopping centers, the standard now was one space for every 192 leasable feet and the proposal was to move to one space for every 250 leasable feet. He asked Ms. McBeth how it would be handled if an applicant came in and was going to build a strip mall with six individual units he would lease out, but he didn’t know what would be in there. Mayor Landry said if he put a law office in one of them there wouldn’t be a need for very many parking spots. If he put office space in three of them not many parking spots would be needed. However, if a restaurant came in, took three of the six spaces and put in 200 seats, a ton of parking spots would be needed. He asked when the determination was made, initially when it was a planned shopping center with the uses unknown or when the certificate of occupancy was issued and the uses were known.

Ms. McBeth said they would typically look on the site plan and see if the uses were permitted in a retail shopping center. Then they would take the standard that had been applied historically at 1 to 192 for shopping centers less than 400,000 square feet and not at 1 to 250. However, if some unusual use came in, usually Mr. Saven’s inspectors were very good at alerting them to the fact that there was a different type of use coming in and asking whether or not it had to be identified as a particular use and would Planning have any issue with it. She said with this ordinance amendment they are able to identify particular uses if it’s identified specifically in the ordinance as a use that required a different number of parking spaces. She said they could say stop, a law office requires a different number of parking spaces than a retail center did and look at it at that point and say the balance was okay for now but be careful with the next three or four tenants to make sure the balance stayed good.

Mayor Landry said then the determination of a planned shopping center would be made when they initially come in and the individual uses were not known. Then as the shopping center filled in if there was a particular use that was allowed within the zoning classification but required more parking how would the City acquire more parking to make sure that there was sufficient parking yet not be unfair to the developer saying more parking spaces were needed.

Ms. McBeth commented that this was a problem they face everyday. She said different uses come and go out of these shopping centers and usually there are enough various tenant spaces in these planned shopping centers to allow for that fluctuation and difference in uses. Some have more evening hours, some more morning hours and they deal with it on a daily basis. She said if they are really under because of a great number of restaurants located in the shopping center they might have to say stop and reconsider the balance of uses they have. They frequently deal with the leasing agents and inform them that it was a good idea to have a better balance of uses in there because they were getting off kilter on the parking balance.

Mayor Landry asked Mr. Schultz if he believed the City would be on sufficient grounds to tell the developer they couldn’t have a particular use because there was not enough parking even though the use was allowed in the zoning classification.

Mr. Schultz believed it was something that this City regularly and unfortunately had to do.

Member Mutch voiced a couple concerns he had on the First Reading because he thought some language modification was needed to what was brought forward. His first concern was in regard to the language on page 2, (3), the language that was used to get the additional height was "properties abutting a limited access highway north of Grand River may be constructed up to 115 feet in height." He said if looking at the zoning and parcel maps, significant areas, especially south of Twelve Mile and also north, zoned OST, that he thought Council assumed were going to be able to go up the additional height actually don’t abut the freeway. He said there were intervening properties, the ITC corridor, some MDOT property that was not part of the freeway and other issues. He said if the intent of the Council was to allow most of the areas north of Grand River to go to 115 feet, the current language needed to be revised. He had brought this up to the Planning Department at the last minute and didn’t know if they had time to look into it further.

Ms. McBeth said there was a map that could be displayed on the overhead for the properties that would be affected. She explained which areas on the map would be affected by the ordinance amendments or not. She said the areas on the east side of M-5 west of Haggerty do directly abut M-5 and would be allowed the additional building height as the ordinance was currently written. She said the ITC parcel to the south, which was the Quaker Station south of 12 Mile west of Haggerty, would also be allowed the additional height as would the other properties in that immediate area. Ms. McBeth said on the other side of M-5, the way the ordinance was proposed this evening, there are pieces of property that are intervening between the OST property that would be developable and the freeway, because those pieces are controlled by MDOT or the International Transmission Company for their wires that are along the expressway. She said, on the overhead map, those areas that were red would not be allowed the additional building height based on the way the ordinance was currently written. She said there were a couple of pieces on the west side of town; one west of Fountain Walk and the Telcom Credit Union and the pieces that seem to be converting to OST on the south side of 12 Mile east of Beck Road. She said the blue pieces on the south side might have redevelopment potential west of the Rock Financial Showplace. She said they looked at the ordinance and there would be a way to modify it if Council wished. It could be modified to exclude the pieces that would be abutting the expressway and are in the ITC corridor or MDOT property. She said for the parcels in red she was sure they could work with Mr. Schultz’s office and come up with the appropriate language if Council would like all of those parcels to be included.

Member Mutch said the area north of 13 Mile shown in blue, none of those properties had been split or subdivided so the fact that they're abutting was more of a factor of them not being split than the fact that they are all abutting. He said when those are split they would see the same kind of result that there was south where there are only the frontage parcels and everything else was excluded. Ms. McBeth said he was correct. Those parcels are large parcels and they expect they would eventually be split into smaller parcels. Member Mutch thought they should talk about this. He said his understanding was that they were looking for more than just the parcels directly fronting, many of which were small if looking at the blue parcels with the exception of ITC’s parcel and some of the parcels to the north of 13 Mile. He said pretty much everything that was left was going to be a tight fit, if even developable with the setback requirements. Ms. McBeth said a lot of the properties between 12 and 13 Mile Roads are in the Haggerty Corridor Corporate Park and are already developed. They already have 2 story office buildings or 1 story office and research buildings. She said a lot of that area was currently developed and might redevelop at some point. She said they worked in the setback standards to be fairly consistent with what the ordinance had currently, but as the buildings get taller, increased setbacks would be required. She said for that reason they provided an alternate at the top of the second page of the motion sheet. If Council found that the setbacks proposed were too great for the parcels being looked at, there could simply be the standard of two additional feet of building setback for each one foot of building height in excess of the 46 feet that was typically expected. She said that would give setbacks for a 65 foot tall building of 88 feet from a non-residential district and 100 feet from a residential district and 115 foot tall building, which would be permitted under the proposed ordinance, would have a minimum setback of 188 feet from either residential or non-residential districts. Member Mutch asked how tall the Providence Hospital building was. Ms. McBeth thought it was 109 feet.

Member Mutch said under letter U, #1 the change in the language says "property south of Grand River shall not qualify for an additional building height". He asked why that was included as he thought that was a given. Mr. Schultz thought it was a given and maybe it was included to round out the three categories of properties that there are. He said it didn’t have to be there. He thought it seemed redundant to him.

Member Mutch said his last comment dealt with the issue of the change that was made at the Planning Commission regarding the step back provisions. He knew the representative from ITC appeared at the Planning Commission and expressed a concern about that in terms of their plans. He agreed that the step back provisions provided to the Planning Commission were a little too rigorous. He said they proposed going up 4 stories then they would have to step back and then 2 more stories and then have to step back. He said Commissioner Avdoulos who was an architect by trade, referred to that as a wedding cake look. He said he wasn’t looking for wedding cake buildings in the City but he also didn’t want to have square boxes. He said that was his primary concern. He commented that he didn’t expect the ITC building to be a square box and he was sure they would do something architecturally interesting and appropriate. However, the market being what it was, the square box was probably how to maximize square footage. He was looking for language that would make it clear to the developers that we don’t want a square box, but maybe it wasn’t as rigid as the wedding cake language that was provided. Member Mutch said what he didn’t want was the language that was in there now because he thought it was fluff. It says "the Planning Commission shall make a finding that the architectural design provides adequate building relief". If this came before the Planning Commission and we said we wanted to deny it based on that provision, what are the standards? He said there were no standards there. He encouraged Mr. Schultz to find something that worked and satisfied their needs and our needs. He didn’t want fluff language.

Member Mutch said the memo received from Mr. Hayes raised some red flags for him. He said Mr. Hayes highlighted the fact that if buildings were allowed to go up, they could reduce their footprint and in fact developers might be encouraged to use parking garages, which personally he thought would be a good thing, but then that increased the amount of buildable land that they might have left over. He said the combination of the building height increase, which was beyond what the ordinance allowed now and the ability to potentially to develop more land could lead to a situation where the sewer capacity was being maxed out. He said the sewer capacity at Commerce had already been maxed out and obviously anything beyond what was currently planned would result in a bad situation. He thought there were some benefits to these ordinance changes but this would be a major issue for him and he would not support changes that would lead to situations where we were overbuilding our capacity. He said the City had already gotten in trouble in all three of the sewer districts doing exactly that, allowing our ordinance standards to allow development beyond what the infrastructure would support. Member Mutch said he had seen language about limiting the amount of buildable area on the parcel to a certain percentage or build in some language that required the developer to pay in extra to purchase additional sewer capacity. He asked Mr. Hayes to address that in another memo whether there might be future capacity that could be purchased. He noted he didn’t want to see the City having to subsidize that. So, it either needed to be limited so it wouldn’t be maxed out, or find a way to acquire additional capacity to support this additional development. He thought there was a way to make that work, but for him this was a non-starter for the change in the height allowance, except for some really limited condition like an ITC proposal. He said otherwise we would be in trouble where we are already in trouble with our infrastructure.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello commented he was glad that Member Mutch came around circular and said that there was a solution to the sewer capacity issue. He thought Member Mutch was right and the sewer capacity issues needed to be looked at, but on the other hand, the developers understand that was an issue and he thought they could bring a resolution to Council. He said it seemed that when a building was built, that through the tap fees, the developers are paying for the sewer capacity that they would use for those buildings. He thought the City did eventually get their money back whether the infrastructure was in place or not, at least the money would be there to develop the infrastructure. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he had some of the same concerns as Member Mutch and one of his comments was abutting a limited access highway, language he suggested was "or part of a development that abuts a limited access highway", because some of the parcels would be sold off. He agreed with the comments that there were some parcels that didn’t abut the limited access highway that Council wanted to see within the increased height district, so they could work up that type of language. He thought that 3 feet of building setback for the additional height was too much. He said if he was driving down M-5 and saw a 115 foot building, he would rather see another building closer to it than 600 feet away. He said if there was 1 foot to every foot of building that would be fine with him because the closer the buildings are, the nicer they look and the more they look like an actual office complex as opposed to just a bunch of water towers running down M-5. He thought if they were given the additional capacity and height, there would be more capacity and they would build parking structures. He thought that was good because they wanted to develop the area and create a tax base for the City. He said under subsection 3 he had some of the same concerns that Member Mutch spoke of. He thought 3 B was rough language and he didn’t think there was anything in there they could put their finger on to say that a certain building promotes the intent of this section besides going high. He knew why they tried to put the language in there because at their meetings they talked about the wedding cake effect just as an example. He said if they put the language in there, he would like to see a waiver of whatever the Planning Commission does at the Council level. He said he would strike subsection C in its entirety, as it could prevent everything Council was trying to create in this section. He said section 4, "the maximum height shall include appurtenance architectural features", he wanted to see that come back to Council with a waiver in the event they are coming up with something new, unique or different.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said under part 2 he wanted them to explain to him why the language under new subsection C was all deleted. Ms. McBeth replied that part was deleted because the language was for OS-2 was carried over to subsection A and then for this section here with the three feet of setback for every 1 foot of building height was carried over into the new section that would be under footnote U, 2 b. He said he saw where the OST was moved, but then you just eliminated from the OS-2. Ms. McBeth said for the OS-2 it was carried up and put it under footnote in A. He said but all of the exceptions were eliminated from OS-2 and that’s the intent. Ms. McBeth said that was the intent as there are not that many sections that are zoned for OS-2 so they didn’t think it would make too much of a difference. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said his last comment was on the top of page 3, under the new subsection B I-1 District "five feet of horizontal setback", he thought there was a lot of pure office use in the I-1 District and it would be a risk for a developer to do that because then he would be limiting his building to office use. He suggested if the developer was in agreement, to have a strict office use or probably a few of the other uses would fit in there where they are non-offensive and that five feet of horizontal setback was not needed.

Member Nagy thought the comments by the two previous speakers were excellent. She said in reading the Planning Commission minutes, she agreed with Commissioner Avdoulos regarding the setbacks and would be willing to make it one foot. She said she would like to consider some of his comments regarding setbacks as part of this board's minutes. She said they were mentioning that along the freeway there was some property that wasn’t the City’s. She said the Planning Commission's intent was that one of the places they could put the taller buildings was along the freeway. She thought it would look much more attractive as well. She thought on the whole the ordinance was going in the right direction and she appreciated the comments of the previous speakers, especially in light of the fact that she had not thought about this when she read it. She said in regard to 3, section B, we do need a measure of standards by which to measure things, either approve or deny them, especially the denial process. She appreciated all the work that Ms. McBeth and her staff had gone through.

Member Paul said Planning had been kicking out a lot of ordinances and information and she was impressed. She said when talking about the 3 foot setback or land preservation, this was something she was thinking about. She said if they wanted to be closer, say they had 1 foot setback for each foot above our standard, instead of going 3 feet setback, maybe they stick with the 1 foot setback and have the land preservation for the other feet in another area. She said not just upland or wetland, but that they would preserve that land in another area, so if they wanted to move their building closer or further away, the land would be preserved. Therefore, they were not just doing a larger box, they were not killing sewer capacity either and still preserving land in any area that would be fit according to their recommendations.

Member Paul said when talking about the roof tops, they were also talking about going up quite a bit and out further. She said if trying to be more environmentally sound, they could recommend solar heating and lighting, as well as having a green roof. She said that was being done in many places, and these are the areas they were starting with. The OST has a flat roof, they have rain gardens down below so that we don’t have all the water runoff going down stream, which also helps with capacity and stream bank stabilization. She didn’t want to keep spending millions of dollars into regional retention basins; if it could be stopped in any capacity in this corridor, it would be helpful.

Member Margolis commended the Planning Department for pumping out the ordinances and thought they were making some very positive and real changes. She said she would support this and was not concerned about the capacity of the sewer. She thought the City received, through fees, the money needed to increase the capacity and that’s what they are there for. She was fine with the reduced setbacks as proposed. She said she didn’t have a problem cleaning up the language in terms of the architectural features Council might want to see. She noted she didn’t want it to get so restrictive that Council was telling them how to design their buildings. She said she definitely didn’t want to see this come back with step backs required because she thought that was a big mistake in this area. She commented that in reading the Planning Commission minutes, there was a comment that the letter that Council looked at in terms of looking at this ordinance and changing some things, that there was no support for other items mentioned in that letter such as free standing restaurants in this district. She said some of the other things addressed in the original letter, she did add some support and she would like to look at it as time went on. Member Margolis said she would support this.

Mayor Landry echoed the comments of the previous speaker. He had no problems with the height allowances, the reduced setbacks, but did oppose any step back. He didn’t think Council should be in the business of telling developers with that specificity. He thought Commissioner Avdoulos’ comments should be well taken and it greatly added to the cost of the building. He said he would support the motion.

There being no further to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:14 P.M.

______________________________ __________________________

David Landry, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

______________________________ Date approved: September 11, 2006

Transcribed by Charlene McLean