View Agenda for this meeting

REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI
 MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2006 AT 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS Ė NOVI CIVIC CENTER Ė 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

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

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL: Mayor Landry, Mayor Pro Tem Capello, Council Members Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Nagy, Paul-absent/excused, Tom Schultz, City Attorney

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

CM-06-10-270 Moved by Margolis, seconded by Gatt; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To approve the agenda as presented.

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-270 Yeas: Capello, Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Nagy,

Landry

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

PRESENTATIONS - None

REPORTS

1. SPECIAL/COMMITTEE Ė Report on Visit to Library Board Meeting Regarding Potential Space Cooperation Ė Members Margolis and Mutch

Mr. Pearson stated he attended the Novi Library Board meeting with Members Margolis and Mutch, and introduced the topic of sharing space to the Library Board members. He said they wanted to see if the City and the Library could cooperate, and if there was any opportunity to provide additional service to residents with the existing Library space, and potentially adding on to the Library. Mr. Pearson said they had provided some of the caveats they thought were givens on the part of the Council, which were not to slow down the fundamental Library program, and not to interfere with future expansion needs of the Library itself. He said they talked about those kinds of parameters, invited feedback from the Library Board, and asked if there was concurrence in working with the City on this kind of venture. Mr. Pearson said there were several helpful comments and questions from the Library Board, which were outlined in a memo to Council. He advised Council that the Library Board voted yes to approve this kind of study, and to explore it within 60 days, plus or minus.

Member Mutch thought the Library Board raised a couple of questions they would like Council to address, but showed a willingness to cooperate with the City, and look at whatever proposals Council brought forward. He said one of the items he spoke about, at the last meeting, was giving them a better idea of what Council had in mind. Member Mutch thought their presentation addressed some of those concerns in terms of stating, up front, areas that would be deal breakers for the Library Board. He said areas such as ensuring that Council didnít put together a proposal that would preclude them from moving forward in the future, or that was viewed as the City taking over their space. He thought what they had come forward with had a little bit more shape to it, and that was what they needed to discuss tonight.

Member Margolis said she was very pleased that the Library Board enthusiastically came forward and unanimously voted to look at this, and she commended them for their interest. She agreed with Member Mutch and said Mr. Pearson gave a good presentation, and identified some of the concerns they might have, such as not delaying or pushing back their proposal, which was appropriate. She noted they really wanted to look at the opportunities for cooperative work for cost savings, and brought up some excellent points for Council to consider. She said some points Council had brought up, and some were new. She commented that one of the big issues they wanted to look at was traffic and how it would impact this area, and look into gathering public opinion as to whether this would work. Member Margolis thought it was a very positive meeting. She said what Council had asked the Library Board, and what the Library Board had asked Council was to act cooperatively to provide services for the citizens. She said the City staff had gotten information from Plante Moran, which was the group that did the original study for the Library, and they were very familiar with the Library plans. Member Margolis said if anyone wanted to see the work that they do, the Library Program Review was excellent, addressed a lot of issues, and was a very in depth study of the plans. She said Plante Moran came forward with a concept of what they could do in a study to look at this further.

Mr. Pearson said after the affirmative vote from the Library Board they went back to Plante Moran and received a proposal this afternoon, which would facilitate and do what had been discussed at the tables. He said they could enter into an agreement, and the next step would be to make an appropriation of $15,000, which was at the lower end of their range. Mr. Pearson said that would be the next step as far as formal Council action, and part of that would be to enter into an agreement with Plante Moran.

Mr. Pearson said the study Council had showed the scope and what they would provide, and Council could tweak that tonight or during the week after they had a chance to look at it. In keeping with the theme of moving forward, he suggested if Council wanted to venture into the study, they embark on it sooner rather than later.

Member Margolis noted she brought this forward and was really interested in seeing this kind of cooperative arrangement move forward. She strongly believed that the next step was to study this from the point of view of what senior services and Library services the community would need in the coming years.

CM-06-10- Moved by Margolis, seconded by Gatt;

To move forward with the Plante Moran Study and make sure that it addressed senior needs, Library needs, ideas for cooperative space, impact on construction and operating costs, as well as to look at the issue brought up by the Library Board about traffic.

No vote taken

DISCUSSION

Mayor Pro Tem Capello commented several weeks ago that a study wasnít needed to determine whether there would be commonality between the programs of the Library and the senior center. He said, however, if the study went beyond that to determine the future needs of the seniors of Novi, whether associated with the Library or not, he would be happy with the study. He said if that was part of it, he would agree but if it was just to determine who would use a room and at what time, he thought $15,000 was a lot to spend.

Member Nagy said she would not be supporting this motion, and would not reiterate her comments in the previous discussion. However, she didnít know if the Library staff had any input, and whether or not they would want to put one more thing in there they would have to do. She thought their day was rather full. Member Nagy said since Novi has had an increase in population, the Council denied the Fire Department a study for its future needs. She thought that study would be more important for the taxpayers than a small segment of the population. She believed there had been programs provided by various hospitals for senior citizens. Member Nagy said looking at the Plante Moran document, they had talked about talking to the director of the senior center. She commented she had some feedback from seniors who lived in her area and used the facilities, and they were not in favor of any changes. Member Nagy knew Council had a long term goal of building another free standing senior center, but she presumed it would be with living areas, and not just a room for senior activities. She said the Civic Center was used for senior activities too. She thought, with all the things this City needed, they didnít need to spend $15,000 on this now. Member Nagy noted she thought the Fire Department survey was more crucial to the residents at large.

Member Mutch commented when this first came before Council, he had raised a number of questions and concerns, partly in terms of the scope of the proposal. He said while he thought they flushed it out a little, in terms of what they went to the Library Board with, he was surprised the Library Board didnít ask more questions about the proposal. He didnít think, as a Council, they had enough of an idea of what they were getting into. However, he was sure the study would provide a framework for Council to make future decisions about what the scope of the senior services would be. He agreed with Member Nagy that the priorities for future facilities, at this point, needed to be police, fire, and DPW, the core services. He said they would be doing the police and DPW discussion on November 20th. Member Mutch said during the budget session, Council removed money to study the future needs of the fire department. Member Mutch stated that really hit home for him when he went to Fire Station #1, and saw the facilities they called the female locker room. He said it was more like a broom closet with some lockers stuck into it. He commented he was really surprised at the need just in that station alone, and it had received dollars and resources to do upgrades. He said they would be doing the roof replacement this evening. He commented knowing that some of the other smaller stations had even more pressing needs, there was no money set aside to address them, and it seemed to be one more thing they were taking on that he didnít think they were ready to take on. Member Mutch said one of the reasons the fire department study was pulled was they didnít want to do a study when they didnít have the money to fund improvements. He said the majority of Council agreed they didnít do studies to be put on the shelf, and that was the direction he thought this was going. He thought there were too many unanswered questions on the financial side of things, and he was not comfortable with this allocation of $15,000. He knew there were needs in senior services, and that seniors were an active population in the community, and they made use of Meadowbrook Commons, the Civic Center and the Library outreach services. He said he was not ready to move forward with this proposal, and thought asking Council to vote on something received at the table five minutes before the meeting was problematic. He said they would want to study it in more detail. Member Mutch said he mentioned, to Administration in advance, he didnít feel comfortable allowing consultants to work on the plans to determine the facilities the City might need, and also being able to bid on the facilities, and facilities construction in the future. He understood that Plant Moranís CRESA Group did do construction management. He said at the minimum, if Council decided to fund this kind of study, he would want that kind of firewall between the consultants and any future work. He thought to get an honest, objective, opinion they needed to look only at the needs of the City, and not what future work might be in it for them. He stated he would not support the motion.

Member Gatt agreed with Member Mutch that there were a lot of unanswered questions, and he always thought the purpose of the study was to answer questions. He said a previous speaker said they werenít ready to spend money on a small segment of the population, and thought she was referring to the seniors. Member Gatt said they might be a small segment of the population, but they were one of the fastest growing segments of the population. He commented that he heard on the news that a person turns 60 in this country every few seconds, the baby boomers are upon us, they are going to want more recreation, and need more facilities to recreate. He agreed he didnít like to vote on something they just received, but they had a couple of weeks to think about this. He said the urgency was that the Library was ready to move forward, and the last time they talked about it, the discussion was "would the Library Board be in favor of us piggybacking their building". He said apparently, at the last meeting, there was no objection to it; he thought it was all positive, they were open for discussion, wanted answers, and thatís what the study was for. He said he would support the motion, and they should move forward expeditiously.

Mayor Landry said Member Gatt was right; when they were before Council the last time, the opposition at the table was they didnít know whether the Library Board approved this. He said he watched the meeting on television, and they unanimously approved this, every single Library Board member was in favor of this, and voted to move it forward. He said this study was exactly how it was supposed to be done. He commented that Council members could not make this decision themselves, they needed to hire professionals, they needed to do the studies, they needed to look at the library, and whether there was a possibility of recognizing an economy of scale. He said they would never be able to make that decision alone, and would always need to hire consultants to look at it, and give their advice on whether to move forward or not. He commented this study was not to commit to doing that, not to commit to taking over any Library space, this was not a commitment to limit the Library in any way, shape or form. It was simply to look at what was needed, get all the facts, and make a decision later. He wholeheartedly supported this as did the Library Board. He believed the seniors supported this, and that it was the right thing to do.

Member Nagy stated because she didnít support this motion, it didnít mean she didnít support the senior population. She said what she was not supporting was the study, and the allocation of $15,000. She said the study might give them answers, but there are priorities, and the function of government was to provide basic services to taxpayers.

She thought police, fire and DPW were the basic services that should be provided. She was disheartened that they were saying letís spend $15,000 for this study, see what the outcome was, and then go from there. However, they were not going to look at the fire department, which was in dire need of equipment. She said a study wouldnít be so bad because Novi had about 53,000 residents, and she would like to see what the future needs were. Member Nagy said as they approach their budget next year, she wanted to see what they needed so they could plan financially for it. She suggested Council take a tour of the fire department so they could all see what was going on. She commented she had taken a tour and was appalled at what those people had to work in and under. It wasnít a matter of not supporting the seniors, because she does and had with past votes. She said it was the fact of allocating $15,000 for this study. She would rather spend the $15,000 for a study on the fire department and their needs. It was a matter of priorities, and this study was not the priority.

Member Margolis said the phrase that comes to her was penny wise and pound foolish. She stated the reality was they had kind of a historic time here that Council could take a look, in a broad sense, at providing services for this community that would save money in the long term. She said Council would not have another chance to take a look at another building project, and combine two services that really fit together, which was the library and senior services, both of which serve the same population. Member Margolis said they would not get this chance again, for the sake of doing a study, which was not mutually exclusive of doing something for the fire department, because these are two separate items. She said this was an opportunity to spend money on a professional study to find out what would be needed to meet the needs of the seniors for years to come. She said if they get behind that curve, they would be in trouble in the future, and they would not have the opportunity again to save the kind of money they might save by doing cooperative services in this City.

Member Margolis said it was something she strongly believed in. She thought they all built way too many things individually, and it was time they started working together. She said the City went to the Library Board and asked if they would be interested in this, and they enthusiastically supported this proposal, and now Council was saying they didnít want to do it. She appealed to her fellow Council members to think long term, big picture, and to look at this in the sense of what this could do for the City for years to come.

Member Gatt said at the last meeting the opposition was that the Library Board would not be in favor of any kind of partnership. However, when it was presented to the Library Board they were unanimously in favor. He pointed out to everyone listening that Item #7 on the agenda tonight was an expenditure of $173,000 plus for the fire department. He said they were not going to forego the fire department for the senior citizens. Member Gatt said they could do it all, this was Novi, this was a great City, a great Council, and they would do it all.

Member Nagy clarified her opposition. She said when discussed at the last meeting, her opposition to it wasnít with regard to the board wanting or not wanting it. She thought her comment was that if they wanted to do this the $15,000 should come out of the Library Boardís money. She noted she used the fire department as an example, because even though Novi was alright financially, it wasnít great. She commented that this was a concern of hers because it wasnít funded at the budget meeting, and the item to approve today for the fire department was funded. She said her opposition was to the funding, and if the Library Board wanted to do this they should use their own funds.

Mr. Pearson said they were proud and happy during the last budget presentation to recommend several studies of the facilities so they could plan ahead, and have actual numbers to put in the budget. He said they would be hearing about public works and police long term plans, nothing said they all had to be done tomorrow, but at least they would have a plan and an idea of where theyíre headed. This way they werenít going to have to undo things down the road, and there would be numbers to put into capital improvements over time. He said they were glad to recommend those, and Council saw fit to recommend it. He noted they were looking forward to recommending the fire services, and were also looking at those facilities. Mr. Pearson said, granted, they didnít know exactly where every penny was going to go for the roof, but at least there was a long term capital improvement plan. Mr. Pearson said the fire department roof replacement was on the agenda tonight, and came in at better than half under budget. Mr. Pearson said they were going to recommend to Council that they examine going back, and funding the fire services study, so they would have the same sort of plan. He concurred that these were not mutually exclusive, there were funds available that would cover it just from that item, and they could do the fire. He said the main idea was to have that information so when going into CIP, they werenít guessing about what numbers to put in, and when to put them in. Mr. Pearson said these are important planned documents, and they are doing them efficiently. He commented he had seen a lot of other cities do studies that run into tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars, and these were modest for outside expertise, and they had done these for other communities. He said CRESA had done these kinds of senior facilities for another community in the area. Mr. Pearson said they were supplemented with a great deal of staff commitment, effort and expertise, but needed some outside expertise to supplement that. Mr. Pearson commented they were trying to do this efficiently, and have a plan with actual numbers, so Council could make good choices down the road at budget.

CM-06-10-271 Moved by Gatt, seconded by Capello; CARRIED

UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone this item until a full Council was available.

Roll call vote on CM-06-20-271 Yeas: Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Nagy, Landry,

Capello

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

2. CITY MANAGER - None

3. DEPARTMENTAL - None

4. ATTORNEY - None

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Vicki Mc Lean, resident of Dunbarton Pines, was present to address the topic of the Library/Senior Services study. She said she was happy the decision was postponed, because she would hope that adequate funding would be provided if the study was done. Ms. Mc Lean said it should be a very comprehensive study, which would address traffic safety issues, and

prove a definite need and desire by her fellow senior citizens to use such a facility. She thought the future needs study was an excellent idea, but was it really needed now, and if so, there needed to be absolute proof that this was what the senior citizens wanted and needed. She said there also needed to be a willingness for the senior citizens to travel to the new location, and there also should be enthusiastic support from the citizens of Novi to fund such a facility. She believed this would be a hard sell. She said there are other joint uses such as churches, schools, and existing buildings, and the study proposed would only concern new construction of the library, and no other possibilities. She said .33 to .35 of a mil would be necessary to fund the 60,000 sq. ft. library that was originally proposed. She said this could be balanced by the approximately equal amount that would be available when the police bond was retired in 2007. She thought it would be a wash when citizens voted on it. Ms. Mc Lean questioned the ability of a short term study to thoroughly address all of the issues and concerns. She also questioned whether this was something Council felt the seniors, and the rest of Noviís citizens wanted. She asked why this wasnít suggested last June, when Council knew the Library Board was hoping to go before the voters in November 2006.

Gary Gudes, 41843 Ridge, a member of the Friends of the Novi Library, said he was speaking as an individual. He echoed what Ms. Mc Lean said. He said his question was what did the seniors think about this addition to the library, and had they been asked, or would it be in the study. He doubted that the seniors of Fox Run and Meadowbrook Commons would go to the library, especially at night.

CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals)

CM-06-10-2720 Moved by Capello, seconded by Gatt; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-272 Yeas: Margolis, Mutch, Nagy, Landry, Capello,

Gatt

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. October 9, 2006 Ė Regular meeting

B. Enter Executive Session immediately following the regular meeting of October 23, 2006 in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing pending litigation, privileged correspondence from legal counsel and labor negotiations.

C. Approval to award bid for Ella Mae Power Park Phase 1 Ball Field Renovation, Infield Material and Clay Track Surfacer to Turf Services, Inc., the lowest bidder, in the amount of $21,853.50.

D. Approval to award bid for Community Sports Park Ball Field #5 Improvements to Turf Services Inc., the lowest bidder, in the amount of $45,179.

E. Approval of the 2007 Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (S.M.A.R.T.) Municipal Credit Funds Resolution and Contract in the amount of $44,713.

F. Approval to award the Civic Center atrium caulking contract to J.C. Pattock Company, the low bidder, in the amount of $23,178.

G. Approval to award bid for Fire Station #1 Roof Replacement to Newton Crane Roofing, Inc, the low bidder, in the amount of $44,000 (base bid) plus $6 (sq.ft.) as needed for replacement metal decking.

H. Approval of the final balancing change order and final payment to Six-S, Inc. for the Nine Mile Road Water Main Extension project between Kensington and Roberts Roads in the amount of $59,639.

I. Approval to award the Backhoe/Loader to Wolverine Tractor and Equipment in the amount of $66,300.

J. Approval to postpone the October 23, 2006 Public Hearing for the 2007 Community Development Block Grant Program to November 13, 2006.

K. Approval of Claims and Accounts Ė Warrant No. 731

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION Ė Part I

1. Consideration of 1.) Community Entryway Sign Design; 2.) Locations; and 3.) Cooperative Partnership Policy and Agreement.

Mr. Pearson commented Council has had goals for a number of years, and they had provided plans for various locations for entryway signage. He said it was before Council tonight with a concept for design, and locations. He stated there were people who would like to partner with the City, and help cost share on the signage. Mr. Pearson said they were asking for a Council policy discussion on the design, locations, and whether Council was interested in having a format of businesses to cooperate with the City. He said if someone paid for the sign for a number of years they could have "home of XYZ Company" at the bottom of the sign.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he was somewhat pleased with the designs, but was concerned about the wood face plate in the center. He thought the brick and the stone, was representative of what they wanted for the City signs. He noted he would like to see a little more detail in the lettering, the font of the lettering, and the actual materials before it went to contract. He also had concerns about the locations. He said he would like a larger sign than a monument sign, at the north east corner of Fourteen Mile and Haggerty, because that was the four corners of four different communities. He said there was no sign at 8 Mile and Napier, and he thought that would be a prime location, especially with all the development coming in along 8 Mile Road on the South Lyon side, and the Novi borders. He commented he would like to see a larger sign at 10 Mile and Haggerty, and thought there was a good sign on Grand River. He said at both ends of 10 Mile at Haggerty and at Napier, he would like to see at least the secondary sign, and thought the price difference would be minimal between the monument and secondary signs. Mayor Pro Tem Capello wasnít sure why they would put a sign at West Park Drive and 12 Mile Road.

Mr. Pearson said he would make a supposition that it was one of the entries if coming off of Beck Road and I-96, and to emphasize that whole 12 Mile corridor. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he didnít mind one on 12 Mile Road, but he thought it should be a little closer to the border line, and only coming from the west to the east.

Member Margolis said she was fine with the design of the signs. She thought Mayor Pro Tem Capelloís comments were appropriate regarding some of the changes, and she would support those. She appreciated staff and the thought they put into getting the criteria out as to how they chose where different signs were regarding traffic flow, etc., and thought it was very appropriate. Member Margolis had one thing she wanted to comment on, but before she did she wanted to make it clear that she commended staff for their creative and out of the box thinking. She didnít want to, at any time, stop staff from doing things that might be a little different. Member Margolis said she would not be in favor of the partnership with businesses on the City signs. She was fine with naming rights on parks and other items, but it just concerned her to have a business name on a City entrance sign. She thought as a City, there needed to be signs about who we were, and what we stood for as a City, and thought that would be more appropriate.

Member Nagy agreed there should be a change at 14 Mile and Haggerty, and would prefer to see a secondary sign versus a monument sign. She said she would put the monument sign at West Park Drive and 12 Mile Road. Member Nagy said regarding 8 Mile and Napier, she didnít know if it was meant to be a primary or secondary sign, but since that was being built out she didnít think a sign was a bad idea. She said regarding the design, she thought it was nice enough, but was also concerned the wooden sign panel would wear out if exposed to the weather. Member Nagy thought using the name of a company at the bottom of the sign was a little tacky. She said when she looked at other communities, on par with Novi, they didnít have things like that. Member Nagy commented she was also looking at the maintenance, and the Beautification Committeeís offer to participate in the landscaping and maintenance of the entryways. She commended them for volunteering, and suggested that the people who do the Cityís landscaping do the signs as part of the bid, and put a pre-emergent down, mulch properly, etc. She assumed that the landscape architect would help that along as well. She noted she wasnít opposed to the signs, but asked if the colors shown were the colors they would use.

Mr. Pearson said the tones were what they suggested. He noted the color copies were more vibrant than they would actually be, but if she didnít like them they could find more details and color palettes. Member Nagy stated she would prefer not to have the business name on the signs, as it would be much more attractive, and in keeping with the quality of the community.

Member Gatt agreed with the previous speaker, and was not in favor of the wood. He thought the wood over a period of time, exposed to the elements, even treated, would not hold up, and he would prefer something that wouldnít deteriorate. He agreed the business name on the signs would be tacky; and Novi was above that.

Member Mutch said he had a couple questions after reading through the documents provided, and wasnít sure the Administration had answers to them, and thought they were looking more for Council direction. He asked if they did sponsorship opportunities on the signs, would they limit one per sign. He thought some businesses might want to get the prime entrances into town, and all of them would say 12 Oaks Mall, Providence Hospital, etc., and Council would need to decide whether they wanted to limit it or not, if they decide to do it. He commented

Administration did provide a specific term length for a sponsorship, so if Council decided to do it, how long did they want the sponsorship agreements to last. Member Mutch thought the final

point, incorporated into a policy and agreement with any sponsored signs, should be that sponsorship costs should not only cover the cost of the sign and installation, but also enhanced landscaping around the sign. He knew the Beautification Commission expressed interest in the landscaping design and thatís great, and could probably help long term to maintain those landscaped areas. However, he thought from the beginning they would want more than just the bare minimum, and he would like to see that incorporated into the cost of a sponsored sign, if they decided to do that. Member Mutch said he had seen communities that have the sponsorship signs, and thought if they were done tastefully they looked fine. He noted they were a way to promote whatís unique about the community, which was some of the institutions and businesses within Novi. He said it was a win win for them and for the City. He commented that if they donít do it, they had to recognize it would probably limit the number of signs they would be able to do, and they would have to budget accordingly, long term, to be able to fill in the gaps. Member Mutch said based on some of the comments some Council members felt that wasnít the issue, but he just wanted to put it on the table. He said he didnít have a problem with it but if the majority of Council didnít want to do sponsorship signs, then thatís how it would be.

Mayor Landry said Council already approved $53,100. He said what Council had to decide tonight was did they approve of this type of sign, and if so, they had to decide if they wanted corporate sponsorships. He said if they chose not to go with the sponsorships, then however far $53,100 got them would be how far they went. Mayor Landry said he didnít see any particular priority, and assumed it would be up to the Administration where the signs would go. He also assumed that the Administration, when putting this forth, was going to leave it up to some private businesses, and they would contribute some money for the sponsorships, and then that would fit into the priority. He asked if that was correct, and Mr. Pearson answered it was.

Mayor Landry suggested Council decide what they wanted to do with the corporate sponsorship issue, or perhaps offer a motion, and see where they go with that. He thought they all agreed on the signs. He said regarding the sign locations, he agreed there should be one at 8 Mile and Napier, and increase the size of the sign at 10 Mile and Haggerty. He said corporate sponsorships didnít bother him, and if Council chose not to do so that was fine too, but then they should be prepared to allocate more money.

Member Nagy asked if the money that was appropriated included landscaping. Mr. Pearson said they would take the money as far as they could. She asked if the monument sign was like the sign at 8 Mile and Haggerty in front of Chiliís. Mr. Pearson thought it was that idea. Member Nagy said the monument signs were smaller so she didnít think corporate sponsorship would be feasible, because it couldnít be seen. She thought the secondary sign had more room for sponsorship, and she would like to see the primary signs nicely landscaped. She commented it would be nice to have corporate sponsorship, but she didnít want to see the name of the corporation on the sign.

CM-06-10-273 Moved by Nagy, seconded by Capello; MOTION CARRIED:

To delete the reference to corporate sponsorships in this policy.

DISCUSSION

Member Margolis said by deleting corporate sponsorship in the agreement, were they saying they would try to get sponsorship without letting them put their name on the sign, or there would be no sponsorship at all. She said she would support the motion. She asked if they allowed sponsorship could they limit the businesses that could put their names on the signs.

Mr. Schultz said that was really the heart of the issue with regard to corporate sponsorship. He said when they set up the proposal, they were asked to put together the agreement, and helped work on the policy, that was really the question. He said it was the only thing that would likely get the City in trouble; how would they pick who the sponsor was going to be. He said the policy gave the Council the final say, the policy said it had to be of some size and identity. He said they put that out there for Councilís discussion. He said they could probably put more limitations, which would narrow the field, and then some people might say they didnít get a fair opportunity to get on the sign. He thought it was fair to say do we want a corporate sponsorship, and if so, discuss who, and then work on the policy in response to that. He said it would be easier to say no sponsorship at all, but if Council decided to go down that road the policy would need a little refining.

Member Margolis said she was on the record as not being in favor of sponsorship, and this would be an additional reason why. She said they could get into some difficulty they didnít need to for not a lot of money.

Member Mutch said he didnít have a problem with the corporate sponsorship idea, in the effort to give the Administration clear direction; he would support the motion to delete it. He said it didnít sound like there was consensus of Council to move forward with it, so he would support the motion.

Mayor Landry said he wouldnít support the motion because he remembered how difficult it was to get the $53,100 at budget time, and he was fearful that if corporate sponsorship was not allowed, they would never see the signs. He said he would rather see the signs with corporate sponsorship than to not see the signs.

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-273 Yeas: Mutch, Nagy, Capello, Gatt, Margolis

Nays: Landry

Absent: Paul

Mayor Landry said there were no corporate sponsors so far, and asked what else Council wanted to do with this proposal.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he didnít know if it needed to be in the form of a motion, but he thought given the fact that if they took into account some of the suggestions he made with one additional sign, and upgrade a few of the signs at $1,000 a piece, the total would be $183,000 without lighting and landscaping. He said Council had allocated $53,100. He thought what Administration needed to do was come back to Council with some landscaping plan, hard goods on the signs, and some type of a phasing plan so this could be allocated over a two or three year period.

Mayor Landry said that would be a motion to postpone because it was an action item, and the request would be for the Administration to come back with that information.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said the agenda read "consideration of" so he thought they were taking more direction from Council today. However, if they need a formal motion to keep it alive, he could do that.

Mr. Schultz said either would work. A postpone to allow the Administration to come back with the two things Mayor Pro Tem Capello mentioned, and a revised version of the policy would work, or an approval of the policy with amendments would work.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello thought postponing it would get it back on the agenda in a timely fashion so he would turn it into a motion.

CM-06-10-274 Moved by Capello, seconded by Margolis; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To postpone this item, and have Administration come back to Council with landscaping plans, hard goods on the signs, and a phasing plan so this could be allocated over a two or three year period.

DISCUSSION

Member Nagy said she would support this, and liked the idea of the phase in. She said if they had the phase in over two or three years, obviously, they would start with the primary signs, and asked if they could bring Council a break down of the costs.

Mr. Pearson said they had their direction, and would come back as soon as they could.

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-274 Yeas: Nagy, Landry, Capello, Gatt, Margolis,

Mutch

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

2. Approval of Local Cost Participation Agreement between the Road Commission for Oakland County, City of Novi, and the City of Farmington Hills for elimination of four pinch points on Haggerty Road between Eight Mile Road to Ten Mile Road at a local cost of $340,000.

Mr. Pearson stated that during the budget session they had discussed this, and invented this non-technical term of pinch points, which are areas where Haggerty Road changes because of development patterns, and went to one lane rather suddenly. He said as a traffic and safety enhancement they were asked to investigate this. He noted Haggerty Road was a Road Commission for Oakland County road, and it also shared a border with Farmington Hills. Mr. Pearson said he had met with both of those entities, and came up with the attached background, and estimates of what it would take. He believed these were conservative estimates, but they could accomplish this sort of road improvement next spring. He said the Road Commission would manage the job, bid it over the winter, and get it done in 2007. He said both Farmington Hills and the Road Commission would have to sign off on this, and this was just to advance it, and get it to Council for their consideration.

Mayor Landry said, as he understood this matter, the Council would simply be appropriating the money, but it would be contingent on the City of Farmington Hills, and the Road Commission appropriating a similar amount. Mr. Pearson said he was correct.

Member Gatt thanked the Administration for coming forward with this proposal. He said everyone knew this had been a sore spot for many people in this community for many years.

He didnít know how or who designed Haggerty Road with a telephone pole cutting off one lane.

CM-06-10-275 Moved by Gatt, seconded by Landry; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To approve the Local Cost Participation Agreement between the Road Commission for Oakland County, City of Novi, and the City of Farmington Hills for elimination of four pinch points on Haggerty Road between Eight Mile Road to Ten Mile Road at a local cost of $340,000.

DISCUSSION

Member Mutch asked if this was an actual allocation or was it an agreement with the understanding it would be allocated in the future. He was asking from a budgeting viewpoint, and believed that $300,000 was budgeted for this project, and the estimate was $340,000, pending verification. Mr. Pearson said it was both because they couldnít enter into the agreement unless they had the appropriation to do it. Mr. Pearson said it seemed like if entering the agreement with that knowledge, they were also appropriating it out of the same fund.

Mr. Schultz commented he wasnít aware of what the dollar amount budgeted was, but if it was more than the agreement then the agreement approval would be an appropriation. He said if it was not $340,000 that had been appropriated, it would take five votes.

Member Mutch said the amount budgeted was on the cover memo, and it was $300,000, so this was an appropriation.

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-275 Yeas: Landry, Capello, Gatt, Margolis, Mutch,

Nagy

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

3. Consideration to Road Commission for Oakland County for City leadership of right-of-way acquisitions for Novi Road Link between Ten Mile Road and Grand River Avenue.

Mr. Pearson said they were looking ahead for future road improvements. He said between 10 Mile and Grand River Avenue was the missing link in terms of widening and adding a bridge over the CSX Railroad tracks. He said this would be a major project the Road Commission had on the books, and the City had been looking forward to it. He noted they had appropriated money off Tri-Party, and the 2000 Road Bond, and it was ready to go for this improvement. He said the Road Commission had their own funding challenges with cut backs and various cost escalations, so this project scheduled for construction in 2007 kept moving back. Mr. Pearson said the idea behind this was just to introduce the topic, and determine if the City could be of any positive assistance to the Road Commission to advance this, and move forward. Mr. Pearson said one way to do it would be for us, locally, to take the leadership for the necessary R.O.W. acquisitions. He said from what he had seen, they hadnít entered into any agreements. He noted there was precedent for the City doing this with similar circumstances on Grand River Avenue between Beck Road and Clark St., and also on 12 Mile Road. He noted those were both Road Commission improvements that the City had leadership of the R.O.W. Mr. Pearson said the attached letter was just a suggestion to introduce the topic to the Road Commission leadership to see if Novi could be any assistance to make this happen sooner rather than later.

Member Nagy said she supported this because she thought it was important, and to get Oakland County to do this.

CM-06-10-276 Moved by Margolis, seconded by Nagy; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To approve City leadership of right-of-way acquisitions for Novi Road Link between Ten Mile Road and Grand River Avenue.

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-276 Yeas: Capello, Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Nagy,

Landry

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

4. Approval of Ordinance amendments to streamline resident and business applications:

Mayor Landry asked Mr. Schultz if these items should be done individually or all at once. Mr. Schultz said it would be a good idea to do them individually.

a. Consideration of Ordinance No. 06-157.03, amending the City Code, Chapter 31, Streets, Sidewalks and Other Places, to allow certain improvements within such property subject to the applicant signing a license agreement. Second Reading

CM-06-10-277 Moved by Nagy, seconded by Gatt; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To approve Ordinance No. 06-157.03, amending the City Code, Chapter 31, Streets, Sidewalks and Other Places, to allow Certain improvements within such property subject to the Second Reading

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-277 Yeas: Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Nagy, Landry,

Capello

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

b. Consideration of Ordinance No. 06-120.09, amending the City Code, Chapter 20, Massage, to amend the process for the review and approval of Massage Business licenses and permits to provide administrative review and approval of these applications. Second Reading

CM-06-10-278 Moved by Nagy, seconded by Capello; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To approve Ordinance No. 06-120.09, amending the City Code, Chapter 20, Massage, to amend the process for the review and approval of Massage Business licenses and permits to provide administrative review and approval of these applications. Second Reading

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-278 Yeas: Margolis, Mutch, Nagy, Landry, Capello,

Gatt

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

c. Consideration of Ordinance No. 06-42.2, amending the City Code, Chapter 24, Outdoor Gatherings, to amend the process for the review and approval of Outdoor Gathering permits to provide administrative review and approval of these applications. Second Reading

CM-06-10-279 Moved by Nagy, seconded by Capello; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To approve Ordinance No. 06-42.2, amending the City Code, Chapter 24, Outdoor Gatherings, to amend the process for the review and approval of Outdoor Gathering permits to provide administrative review and approval of these applications. Second Reading

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-279 Yeas: Mutch, Nagy, Landry, Capello, Gatt,

Margolis

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

5. Approval of Ordinance Amendments:

a. Consideration of Ordinance No. 06-82.06, amending the City Code, Chapter 29, Soil, Article II, Sedimentation Control, to comply with recent amendments to state law regarding right-of-way entry and inspection, residential properties, and maintenance requirements. Second Reading

CM-06-10-280 Moved by Nagy, seconded by Capello; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To approve Ordinance No. 06-82.06, amending the City Code, Chapter 29, Soil, Article II, Sedimentation Control, to comply with recent amendments to state law regarding right-of-way entry and inspection, residential properties, and maintenance requirements. Second Reading

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-280 Yeas: Nagy, Landry, Capello, Gatt, Margolis,

Mutch

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

b. Consideration of Ordinance No. 06-104.06, amending the City Code, Chapter 21, Nuisances, with regard to weed control. Second Reading

CM-06-10-281 Moved by Nagy, seconded by Gatt; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To approve Ordinance No. 06-104.06, amending the City Code, Chapter 21, Nuisances, with regard to weed control. Second Reading

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-281 Yeas: Landry, Capello, Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Nagy

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

 

6. Approval of Resolution Regarding Temporary Promotional Signage allowing a community-related theme or focus on Saturday, Sundays and holidays, but will not typically exceed five (5) consecutive days in any event and may occur in connection with a short-term temporary use.

Member Nagy said she had a question regarding the draft of the resolution. On page 2, item #3, it said "the area of the sign shall be no greater than (16?) sq. ft.", she asked if the question mark was there because they didnít know what they were going to do. Mr. Schultz said the policy was for Councilís consideration. He commented the 16 sq. ft. represented the smallest sign other than a for sale sign. He said it was the smallest typically comparable temporary sign, and 16 sq. ft. was for their consideration. Member Nagy asked if all the signage would be no greater than 16 sq. ft., if that was what Council chose.

Mr. Schultz said Council wanted a policy on these signs, and the way the ordinance was written it allowed Council to establish the sign each and every time. He said they were suggesting that if they wanted to use a figure, 16 sq. ft. would be representative of the kind of temporary sign Council permitted through the ordinance in other similar situations. He said it could be left blank, and the Council could set it each time they got a request for a promotional sign, which was why they left it as kind of a maximum.

CM-06-10-282 Moved by Nagy, seconded by Margolis; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To approve resolution regarding Temporary Promotional Signage allowing a community-related theme or focus on Saturday, Sundays and holidays, but will not typically exceed five (5) consecutive days in any event and may occur in connection with a short-term temporary use. The area of the sign shall typically be no greater than 16 sq. ft., and to amend the ZBA language.

DISCUSSION

Member Mutch said he wasnít comfortable with 16 sq. ft. He envisioned this kind of temporary promotional signage to be something smaller, and more like real estate signs, but would be highlighting a particular Community event. He commented that a 4 by 4 sign, the language would be no greater than 16 sq. ft. so obviously nothing would preclude whoeverís creating the signs to do something smaller. He said he didnít feel comfortable with that large a sign around the community. He thought they were tailoring the language to allow all potential situations, but he thought most applicants would look to see what the max was and go for that. He said he wasnít an expert on the variety of sign sizes that are standardized, but he would be looking for something smaller than 4 by 4.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said, on page 2, he liked the first paragraph under "NOW, THEREFORE", but didnít like the second or third. He thought if they were going to leave this up to Councilís discretion to say that the signs would only be allowed for five days, Saturdays, Sundays or holidays was too limiting. He said they needed to look at what each event was, for Ringing in the Holidays, Council might want to allow signs a week ahead of time, Monday through Friday. He thought other events might need more promotion. He said the Fifties Festival or Motor Festival might take more promotion than just five days or weekends. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he would strike #2 on page 2 entirely, and do the same thing in regard to the size of the sign, placement location, and type of sign. He said when they come before Council, let them bring all of that information on the color, style, and location with them. He asked what was wrong, under certain circumstances and in some areas of the City, with allowing signs in the public R.O.W. He thought the car in front of the high school was probably in the R.O.W., technically. Mayor Pro Tem Capello felt Council could made those decisions based on every event on an as come basis. He would like to see #2 and #3 stricken on page 2. He asked Mr. Schultz if they could prevent any appeal from going to the ZBA, since this was a policy decision coming from Council. He said in the event they come before Council and get what they want, he didnít want to see them go to the ZBA and get more. He asked if they could do that.

Mr. Schultz said yes, they could. Mr. Schultz addressed his comments on #2 and #3 on page 2. He said he understood the point but wanted to point out that in the introduction to the resolution they specifically said "this does not limit Councilís authority to change these general limitations". He said part of the idea was to give people notice of what they might get from Council; it didnít mean a longer time couldnít be permitted for a particular event. He said it would be a policy question for Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello suggested, to finish that, that #2 and #3 be stricken. He suggested a motion to approve standing with #1, strike #2 and #3, and add the provision that an appeal of Councilís decision for any reason would not go to the ZBA. He asked for a friendly amendment to allow those provisions.

Member Nagy did not accept the friendly amendment.

Mr. Pearson said Council had been very diligent about protecting what went into the public R.O.W. for many reasons, and it was property they controlled. He said the Varsity signs, etc. had been moved out of the R.O.W. He said it would be very complicated if they allowed that, and asked who would pick and choose who could use the public R.O.W. He said it could be political signs, etc., and he thought the R.O.W. should be kept for visibility and safety. The Road Commission had some of the R.O.W.ís, and he requested they stay out of the R.O.W. for even these kinds of things.

Mayor Landry said his understanding was that what was being considered was simply a Council policy to give notice to businesses or people who wanted to ask for temporary signage. He commented that when Mr. Schultz drafted this, he indicated the signs would typically only be allowed on Saturday; however, every applicant would have to come before Council for specific approval of their proposed signage. Mr. Schultz said yes, the ordinance itself says "as approved by Council". Mayor Landry said this was merely to give guidance to Council, and if they come back for a particular event and want 16 sq. ft. signs, and Council didnít think the event merited a 16 sq.ft. sign, Council could tell them no or decrease the size of their signs. He said if something like the Fifties Festival wanted signs all week Council would have the discretion to do that. Mr. Schultz agreed.

Member Gatt said if someone came before Council who wanted a 24 sq. ft. sign, Council could not grant that under this. Mr. Schultz said these are guidelines and notice type provisions in appropriate situations.

Member Mutch said he was concerned about the square footage, but would support this, because when Council initially discussed this, he thought it was important to provide guidance to potential applicants. He also stated he viewed this as a learning process, and Council would just have to see some examples, and decide how it was going to work. He thought Mayor Pro Tem Capello raised some legitimate points but considering these are guidelines and not binding, it gave Council leeway to adjust those as necessary. He thought the guidelines were important to get people started.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked for a friendly amendment just in regard to the ZBA language. He said he didnít want them to come here and get a 24 sq. ft. sign, and then go to the ZBA and get 30 sq. ft. Member Nagy agreed as the maker of the motion, and Member Margolis agreed as the seconder of the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said since this was just a resolution and there were provisions in the sign ordinance to go to the ZBA, would they need to amend the actual ordinance in regard to appeals to temporary signs to the ZBA, or would the resolution handle that. Mr. Schultz said he thought it would require an ordinance amendment.

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-282 Yeas: Capello, Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Nagy,

Landry

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

7. Approval to purchase (40) Self Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Department from International Safety Instruments, Inc. through Douglas Safety Equipment LLC, a sole source provider, in the amount of $173,496.

Mr. Pearson said this was one of the most fundamental pieces of equipment for our firefighters, in terms of maintaining safety.

Fire Chief Smith said Douglas Safety Equipment was the sole source provider for this particular piece of equipment. He said it had several features on it that no one else in the State of Michigan could provide. Chief Smith noted it prevented the cross contamination of air through the arrangement of the regulator, and also had a voice activated microphone inside of the mask that would allow much better communications. He said this time they were only ordering 12 of the units that could be connected to the radio, and hoped at some future time they could order more, if they worked out well. He commented the best part of the mask was the entire unit could be dunked in a 5 gallon bucket of water for cleaning, as they get sweaty and dirty.

Mayor Landry asked if they were talking about the mask a firefighter wore when going into a structure fire. Chief Smith said yes.

CM-06-10-283 Moved by Nagy, seconded by Margolis; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To approve purchase (40) Self Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Department from International Safety Instruments, Inc. through Douglas Safety Equipment LLC, a sole source provider, in the amount of $173,496.

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-283 Yeas: Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Nagy, Landry,

Capello

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION Ė Part II

8. Appointments to Boards and Commissions

Member Mutch commented that his mother was seeking reappointment to the Historical Commission, and if any Council member had a concern about him voting on that, he would be willing to abstain. Otherwise, he planned on completing all of the appointments.

Mayor Landry asked if anyone objected to Member Mutch voting on appointments to the Historical Commission. There were no objections from Council.

Council recessed at 8:18 P.M.

Council reconvened at 8:31 P.M.

Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk, read the results of the votes for Board and Commission appointments.

Board of Review Ernie Aruffo Ė reappointed

HCD Richard Vahlbusch - reappointed

Ron Boron Ė term expiring in 2008

Sherrie Konkus Ė term expiring in 2010

Historical Commission Kathleen Mutch Ė reappointed

Elizabeth Nick Ė reappointed

Parks, Recreation & Forestry* Paul Policicchio Ė term expiring in 2008

Christina Radcliffe Ė term expiring in 2007

Ms. Cornelius said Mr. Policicchio and Ms. Radcliffe both received a number of votes. However, neither candidate received a minimum of four votes in a specific term. Mr. Policicchio received 3 votes for a term expiring 2007, and three votes for a term expiring in 2008. Ms. Radcliffe received three votes for a term expiring in 2007, and only two votes for a term expiring in 2008. She commented it appeared that Council wished to appoint them but the termís expiration date was a matter that had not been determined.

Mr. Schultz said Council could vote again to see if they could agree on a term, or they could postpone it to a future meeting.

Mayor Landry said he would like to vote again to resolve this. He said they needed to decide the terms for Mr. Policicchio and Ms. Radcliff. Ms. Cornelius said they were both vacancies.

Member Mutch asked if a motion could be made to appoint Mr. Policicchio to the term expiring in 2008, and Ms. Radcliffe to the term expiring in 2007. Mayor Landry said they could do that.

CM-06-10-284 Moved by Mutch, seconded by Capello; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To appoint Mr. Policicchio to the term expiring in 2008, and to appoint Ms. Radcliffe to the term expiring in 2007.

Voice Vote

Public Access Promotion Committee Lynne Boyle Ė term expiring in 2010

Randy Burlison Ė term expiring in 2009

Stormwater Management Randy Burlison Ė term expiring 2010

David Greco Ė term expiring 2010

Zoning Board of Appeals Brent Canup- reappointed- term expiring

2010

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - None

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None

Council entered into Executive Session at 8:34 P.M.

Council reconvened from Executive Session at 9:49 P.M.

Mayor Landry said Council had been in Executive Session, and there was a motion to be made with respect to a particular litigation that the City was involved in.

CM-06-10-285 Moved by Capello, seconded by Nagy; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

In the matter of the City of Novi versus Hana, to approve the Consent Judgment as drafted by the City Attorney, and pay to the defendant the amount of $2,500.

Roll call vote on CM-06-10-285 Yeas: Landry, Capello, Gatt, Margolis, Mutch,

Nagy

Nays: None

Absent: Paul

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at

9:50 P.M.

______________________________ ______________________________

David Landry, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

_____________________________ Date Approved: November 13, 2006

Transcribed by Charlene Mc Lean