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

ROLL CALL: Mayor Landry, Mayor Pro Tem Capello, Council Members Crawford, Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Staudt

ALSO PRESENT: Clay Pearson, City Manager

Pamela Antil, Assistant City Manager

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development

Rob Hayes, City Engineer

Frank Smith, Fire Chief

Fire Chief Smith said on July 7th residents of Novi living on Walled Lake heard cries of help from several hundred feet away in the water. A speed boat had thrown a man, woman and a 17 month old child into the water. The residents called 911 and sprang into action. Maria Dismondy and neighbors Thomas Harvey and Steve Boyer paddled in a row boat towards the victims in the water. Chief Smith said the woman and child were placed in the boats and returned to shore. If these brave neighbors had not performed their heroic efforts, this incident could have resulted in a profoundly tragic outcome. Mayor Landry read the lifesaving award certificate and presented them to Maria Dismondy and Thomas Harvey. Steve Boyer could not be present.

Mr. Pearson said as part of a bond financing that Erickson Retirement Communities, Fox Run Village was conducting, there were certain tax qualified bonds that would be issued for their expansion. He said there needed to be a public hearing and the City offered to hold it to help out Erickson/Fox Run Village. He said there would be no City direct financial obligation to repay the bonds and it would not limit or inhibit the City’s taxing ability; it was simply a formality and this was the best public forum for public comments. There were no audience comments and the Public Hearing was closed.

Doug Koester, President of the Tollgate Woods Homeowner’s Association, was present to speak about concerns homeowners had within their subdivision located at 13 Mile and Meadowbrook Roads. He said it was a Singh Development and it had been broken into three phases. Phase I was about 95% complete and had completed roads that had not been approved yet. Phase 2 was about 25% complete and had just a base coat on it and incomplete roads and Phase 3 was still to be determined. Mr. Koester said they were concerned that the roads might not be converted over to the City at any point in the future. The Phase I roads, in talking to the Engineering Department, would not be approved because the builder did not follow the protocol or recommendations outlined by the Engineering Department as far as changes that needed to be made prior to the topcoat being put on. Mr. Koester said Phase 2 was in a fashion where it had been repaired on one or two different occasions, just with the basecoat, and every time there were issues with rain or snow there was flooding. He said they were concerned about hazard. The homeowners would be meeting tomorrow; they wanted to bring this to Council’s attention and asked how they move forward as far as conversion. He said they had worked with the City and they had been very helpful, but the builder had moved on and withdrawn a lot of the support for the subdivision, and the homeowners were now responsible for the costs. Mr. Koester said Singh had converted everything over to the homeowners association from a cost standpoint and there’s great concern that the homeowners would be left with the cost structure prior to the roads being converted over to the City.

Mayor Landry asked the Mr. Pearson to contact Mr. Koester and give him insight on how to follow up with the City.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. July 7, 2008 – Regular meeting

B. Enter Executive Session immediately following the regular meeting of July 28, 2008 in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing pending litigation, property acquisition and privileged correspondence from legal counsel.

C. Approval of Traffic Control Device Agreement with the Road Commission for Oakland County for the ongoing maintenance of the new traffic signal being installed at the intersection of Meadowbrook and Eleven Mile Roads.

D. Approval of amendments to Contracts for City Manager and City Clerk.

E. Adoption of MERS Uniform Defined Contribution Program Adoption Agreement for the City Manager.

F. Approval to award contract for snack machine vending services in Police Headquarters, Civic Center and Meadowbrook Commons to Don’s Vending Services, Inc., based on unit pricing and rate of commission.

H. Approval of request by E&M, Inc. (Society Hill) for one-year extension, to October 9, 2009, of site plan approval for a 312-unit apartment project developed as a PD-1 option in a multi-family (RM-1) district, located at the southwest corner of Novi Road and 12 ½ Mile Road, previously extended under a consent judgment and subject to annual extension reviews.

I. Approval of resolution relating to issuance of bonds by the Colorado Authority for the Fox Run Village Project pursuant to IRS Section 147(f).

J. Approval of resolution to authorize transfer of Metro Act Funds to the Road Bond Fund for the Right-of-Way relating to the Novi Road (Grand River to Ten Mile) improvement project for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2009.

K. Approval of Service Agreement with Total Employee Assistance & Management, Inc. (TEAM) to provide Wellness Program in the amount of $7.50 per employee per month for a period of one year, for an amount not-to-exceed $13,500.

L. Approval to award an engineering contract to Stantec Consulting Michigan, Inc. for construction engineering services for the Eleven Mile Road/Meadowbrook Road Intersection Improvement project for a fee equal to 6% of construction cost, or $17,639.

O. Approval of the final balancing change order and final payment in the amount of $73,178.75 to Anglin Civil Constructors, Inc. for the Walled Lake Diversion Sewer project, located at the intersection of West Park Drive and West Road.

P. Approval of Purchase of Service Credit by employee.

Q. Approval of award to University Lithoprinters, Inc., the low bidder, for design and printing of the Annual Calendar, Engage!, the senior newsletter, and resident handbook for an estimated amount of $96,300 for one year with the option for two renewals.

R. Approval of award to Accuform, the low bidder, for printing of the Theatre Program Cover, Theatre Postcards, Proposed and Annual Budgets, State of the City Address Invitations, and the Annual Appreciation Dinner Invitations and Programs for an estimated amount of $6,800 for one year with the option for two renewals.

S. Consideration of Ordinance No. 08-90.02, an amendment to the Novi Code of Ordinances, Chapter 33, "Traffic and Motor Vehicles", Section 33-636, "Definitions", Section 33-637, "Spaces for Physically Limited Persons", in order to update language and definitions; and Section 33-638, "Courtesy in the Parking of a Vehicle", Section 33-639, "Free Parking in Metered Space or in Publicly Owned Parking Structure", Section 33-640, "Display Requirements", Section 33-641, "Misuse of Handicapped Parking Privileges", and Section 33-642, "Penalties", in order to be consistent with existing State Law. First Reading

T. Consideration of Ordinance No. 08-81.23, an amendment to the Novi Code of Ordinances, Chapter 33, "Traffic and Motor Vehicles", Section 33-42, "Handicapped Person" and Section 33-490, "Parking Prohibited in Specified Places" in order to update language and definitions. First Reading

U. Consideration of Ordinance No. 08-8.02, an amendment to the Novi Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22, "Offenses", Section 22-257, "Traffic Control Devices" and Section 22-258, "Stopping, Standing, Parking Motor Vehicles" in order to update language. First Reading

V. Resolution authorizing the purchase of tax foreclosed property located in the City of Novi, tax parcel identification nos. 22-03-351-0111.

W. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 773

Mr. Pearson said this item had a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission and from Administration.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello understood why they weren’t moving forward and making changes. He said it appeared they wanted Council to approve the existing approved plan with a few changes, yet they weren’t going to build 80% of the plan as it had been approved. Mr. Nona said they were not going to do it right now. The only change they were asking for was the elimination of the parking deck and one of the buildings from the development on the north side of Main Street to assist with parking. However, the rest of the plan, as approved, had not been touched. Mr. Nona said when the time came for each phase of the development they would come back to Council or staff for necessary approvals.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if a bar or restaurant was permitted on the second floor. He thought there was an exemption from second floor retail, if there was a certain amount of retail on the first floor and access to the second floor. Ms. McBeth said there was a limitation, if there was going to be residential above the retail component. The end cap proposed for Phase 2 was an end cap to the Mix Lounge and would be a two story kind of night club addition, which was one of the proposed changes. She said they were also proposing a re-phasing plan. He said he was thinking about the Crowley exemption when they wanted to come in with an upscale store with two stories. He said the ordinance was amended to allow that provided there was 7,500 sq. ft. on the first floor and a certain amount of retail on the second floor. Ms. McBeth stated she wasn’t familiar with that but recalled having residential above the retail might have been a concern. She said she would look at the ordinance again and check that. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he was asking now because he thought they had to have 7,500 ft. on the first floor and 7,500 ft. on the second floor. So, while they were doing this if they needed to grant a waiver from the 15,000 sq. ft. down to 14,200, he would like to do it now. Ms. McBeth said that wasn’t one of the exceptions they had noted but they would check it before the motion was made, if possible.

Member Mutch said the change he was most concerned about was the removal of the building adjacent to the street that fronted where the parking garage was going to be located. He said in terms of the changes proposed and how it impacted the parking and the layout of the site, if the changes were approved, would that preclude that area from being further developed later. Ms. McBeth said she didn’t see a limitation in terms of what they were proposing that would prohibit them from coming back with a plan that would be similar to what was originally approved. She said she wasn’t sure the developer would be able to interrupt any of the business that would be taking place at the first phase long enough to do the work that needed to be done. She said it might be a better question for the developer.

Mr. Nona thought it would be unlikely that there would be a parking deck at the same location originally proposed. He said if they had a functioning building there, they had to provide parking and could not take it out of operation. However, there were other locations in that northern area whereby a parking deck could be constructed, either north of Building 4 or the existing large main building. He said that was premature now and they would wait until the economic conditions approved.

Member Mutch said he understood and Main Street had its own struggles preceding Mr. Nona’s involvement. However, he had a real problem with the amount of parking in terms of how it disrupted the whole concept of what the Main Street area was supposed to represent. He said it was supposed to be pedestrian oriented with the buildings generally fronting the street, and what they proposed on two side of that building before Council was these sort of gaping holes in the street front. Member Mutch said he understood his point that if they had existing buildings in place, it was very unlikely someone could come in and disrupt the parking and that made sense. However, the concern he had was they would make a decision today that would have an impact for the next 20 or 30 years of the development. He said if they approved that, they were saying they were giving up on that concept in that area for a long time. Member Mutch was not sure he was ready to do that. He felt that they had to keep in mind that this economy was a cycle that they would go through and that there had been difficult times in the past. He was really concerned about locking in this decision today based on Mr. Nona’s needs today, and setting up a condition down the road that took away from the whole model of what they were trying to create on Main Street. He said when the original plans for Main Street came through there were decisions made that he thought, in hindsight, if they had implemented the Main Street concept a little better, it would have been a better end product and they were hoping to learn from that. Member Mutch thought the proposal Mr. Nona brought forward showed they had learned from mistakes as they happened in the design of the first Main Street proposal. However, he saw this as a step back and was not sure he could support it.

Member Margolis asked if there was a change to the medical office Building 800. Ms. McBeth said there was no change and that the first phase remained the same except for the removal of the parking deck and the addition of the parking. Member Margolis said her first reaction to the site plan was that it looked less like a Main Street than it did previously. However, her second thought was how much of that was the fact that when government got involved in setting a concept they go from planning to a concept of something that, perhaps, wasn’t even marketable. She thought the slippery spot they got in as a Council was when they were trying to make the decisions. They certainly had to plan and decide what kind of community. However, when they got so specific about this was going to be a Main Street and this was what it would look like was good, if it was marketable. She said in this economy and the fact that there were investments still coming in was something she wanted to move forward on. She said there are businesses in that area now that had been slugging it out for quite some time, and she gave them a lot of credit. She commented she didn’t see anything that she couldn’t support and she wanted to see the building go up. She would have no problem approving this item tonight.

Member Gatt said when he first opened the packet, he was disappointed in the changes because his dream was to see Main Street develop as originally planned and approved. However, the economy was different and so much worse off than it was just a year ago. He said he wanted to see a building built on Main Street because one building would beget another building. He felt the quicker they could approve this and get something that was beautiful, the quicker Main Street would be developed and be a tax liable location for the City; instead of a lot with weeds and crumbling sidewalks. Member Gatt stated he was ready to move forward with the proposal.

Mayor Landry asked if this was approved, when would he start the medical office building. Mr. Nona said the plan was to close with them in September and break ground in the fall. Mayor Landry asked if he was correct that the next building to go up would be the end cap, which was Phase II. Mr. Nona said yes, once they break ground on the medical building they would also break ground on the end cap Phase II and the infrastructure. Mayor Landry said he would echo the previous speakers that he would have preferred to see a parking garage there but what he was interested in more than anything else was the medical building going up there to get people down on Main

Street. Mayor Landry said the next thing he was interested in was the public feature, Phase III, which was on the corner. He stated he would be in support of this tonight but before any other changes were made, he would like to see the public feature because they needed to get offices with workers down there and a green space public feature where people could gather.

Mr. Nona said Phase III would hopefully take place the same time they break ground. He said they had the permit from the MDEQ and were waiting to get the finalization of the closing so they could get the bonding. He said the Landscape Architects were finalizing the plans for the park and they planned to bring it in to the staff. Mayor Landry said then he could support this. Mr. Nona said the change came about because of the economic conditions. They had commitments for both the parking deck and the medical office and because of the lending situation those commitments were pulled out. However, the medical people wanted to proceed and so they were trying to salvage the plan because they also wanted the medical building to come to Main Street.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked Ms. McBeth if she had an answer to his earlier question. Ms. McBeth said there was a limitation in the Town Center District about retail space, which said "no retail commercial building within the TC-1 District should exceed 7,500 sq. ft. except under certain circumstances." She said in the past she thought they had looked at restaurants as slightly different than retail/commercial space and had allowed them to exceed the 7,500 sq. ft. However, if they wanted to mention Subsection 3 and the standards that applied under 3c, then it might be appropriate to note that in this case. Mayor Pro Tem Capello stated he was concerned also with second story retail. Ms. McBeth said it stated "all floors above the first floor occupied by uses permitted in the TC District, no retail/commercial use should be permitted above the second floor."

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he agreed with the Mayor that the park feature needed to be done in the near future. He stated, regarding the park, that he was still not happy with that north east street between the building and the park. He said he went down there all the time and didn’t see much traffic coming out of the apartments in the morning, mid afternoon or evening. He said by connecting that street to that intersection, he didn’t see that there would ever be a traffic problem. He said one of the most dangerous parts of the on street parking was the diagonal parking, because people were backing out and couldn’t see cars, walkers, etc. He said being next to the park, he could easily see children going across from the park to the building especially if there was an outdoor seating area on the first floor, where the retail was. He said children would be running across there, people would be backing out and it was not a good situation at all. He still wanted to see the street moved.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he had a problem with the new parking configuration right on Main Street on the north side. He wouldn’t mind granting two or three rows of parking on a temporary basis until they got something moving across the street because it was going to be dirt or weeds anyway. However, permanently, he would not want to see a long stretch of parking on Main Street and he envisioned that when it was completed there would be a building there, not parking. He said he would try to make an amendment, when a motion was made, saying that parking was temporary until they could accommodate for it elsewhere on the sight. Then relocate it when they were ready to build the other parking so there was no additional cost to them.

Member Mutch echoed what Mayor Pro Tem Capello said regarding the parking along the north side of Main Street. He thought the real problem he had regarding that area was how it would function. He felt Mayor Landry made a good point that the medical office building would be a great traffic generator. However, when looking at where that building was located in relation to the rest of the Main Street development, and to think people would walk several blocks, with Building 4 not even existing until some future date, he just didn’t see that functioning the way they wanted it to. He thought part of the problem in that area would be having that additional parking and if that could be reduced, that would be great. He commented he would like to see the applicant and staff work on the north side of Main Street to create some kind of environment pathway concept that would encourage people to go from Building 1 down to the existing Main Street area. He felt those open spaces and lack of store fronts were really inhibitive because there were hundreds of downtowns across Michigan and America where these gaps really harmed the fabric of the walking environment. He said downtown redevelopment encouraged getting rid of these kinds of parking areas. If the parking was going to be there, it was going to be there but at least they could do something to encourage pedestrian movement instead of having a solid sea of parking along there. He thought Mayor Pro Tem Capello’s suggestion would help and would move it in the right direction.

Member Margolis stated she could not support the motion. She said the idea of telling a medical office that the parking in front of their building was temporary, as a tenant, she couldn’t imagine how she would respond to that that at some point their employees or people coming to their medical office would have to walk from a parking lot across the street. She said she would be willing to make a motion to approve the site plan as it was in their packets. She said there was a sidewalk proposed that ran from Building 1 to Building 4 and she was stunned to think that people wouldn’t walk. Member Margolis said she worked in a downtown area and was familiar with walking and walked to lunch and past parking lots. She understood the desire of Council members who wanted this but didn’t think they could legislate it just because they wanted it. She thought what they were hearing was the market said this wasn’t going to work and she couldn’t support the motion.

Mayor Landry said to Mr. Schultz that he heard Mayor Pro Tem Capello include a façade waiver in the motion, which was item 4 on the agenda and asked if they needed to break that out. Mr. Schultz said yes. Mayor Landry asked if the maker of the motion would accept a friendly amendment to remove from this item the façade waiver. Mayor Pro Tem Capello and the seconder of the motion agreed.

Mr. Schultz said looking at the recommendations of the staff and Planning Commission, he thought the motion took into account most of those or those that they wanted. However, the technical one he thought they should mention was the waiver for the reduction of the building separation between Building 400 and the existing Main Street building. The maker and seconder of the motion accepted.

Member Gatt concurred with Member Margolis in that he could not support the motion because he wouldn’t want to be the tenant and have to tell his people that there would be a different parking lot someday and they didn’t know where. He thought the market dictated the site plan that was being presented tonight and he was ready to move forward with it.

Member Crawford said the project had been critical to this City for a long time. She stated she read through everything and felt that they really needed to get it up and going. They needed the office building to be there but she did agree with Members Margolis and Gatt regarding the parking and she would not support the motion as it read currently. She noted she supported the way it was recommended in the beginning.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said they had to understand that they were not in downtown Detroit or a downtown district; they were in Novi. He said people in Novi would not make that long walk; they would not walk from Novi Road to Market Street to have lunch, particularly in the winter. He said it would make it more difficult to make that walk with that gap of parking that was along Main Street. He said they had been developing Main Street for over 15 years and the whole concept of Main Street was to have stores along the streets. To have it so people would walk down the street and then one store would draw people to the next and to the next and not that they would walk by a sea of parking. He didn’t mind the parking being there temporarily and was looking at just the one and a half rows directly west of Building 4, those rows that abut Main Street. He stated he was saying put them there now and when the development built out it would be time to move that parking elsewhere and put a building there like the plans that had been in place for 15 years showed. He said they were going to throw away 15 years of planning just to accommodate some additional parking because some tenant might not like the fact that he had to park somewhere else. He said to even think about having a parking lot right on Main Street, and throw away all of that planning and effort just because they wanted to build a building on Novi Rd. was ridiculous. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said the building on Novi Road would not support the rest of Main Street like it should. He understood why they had to put the building there as it was an anchor and it was what the economic times was saying but it wouldn’t draw that crowd down to the other part of Main Street and around the corner, it just wasn’t going to happen. He said he was looking into the future and sometime those buildings would be connected and sometimes a connection would be made. However, he was not willing to give that up now. He said he would stick with his motion saying the parking would be temporary and when the rest of the project was developed the parking could be moved because additional parking would be needed. He said they weren’t sure of what they were going to do yet, and suggested addressing that problem when they got there. He said he didn’t want to give up the fact of the building façade now.

Mayor Landry asked if he would consider making his motion a little clearer that only the one and a half rows of parking was what he considered temporary. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said yes, it was just the one and half rows of parking directly to the west of Building 4, which was the green area. He said that gave them enough room to put a building there in the future.

Mayor Landry asked if that was the way the seconder understood the motion and Member Mutch said it was.

Mr. Nona said they had an agreement with the developers of the medical building and closing was predicated on getting revised site plan approval as presented to them now. He said this was the plan they had presented to them; so he was afraid that this condition might complicate conditions for closing. They struggled with this issue when they first came in but to push the project ahead this was the one viable solution that they had. In the future they could revisit this but he was afraid if they put this as a condition, it might complicate the situation with the medical building. Mr. Nona said they didn’t want to lose this opportunity, they needed it, the City needed it and they wanted to proceed with it. He said if they missed this opportunity, he thought they would miss it for a long time.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he understood he wanted to get the building up and Council wanted to get the building up too, but by doing that the flavor of Main Street would be lost. He said they would lose some valuable retail/office space that could be built on that spot, on Main Street, and that was what they needed to do. They needed to create occupancy on Main Street and not fill it with parking. As it stood right now with the building and parking as it was, he felt it would end up like downtown Farmington, a strip center with a large parking lot. He said Farmington was trying to get away from that and Mayor Pro Tem Capello thought they would walk into that same problem. He hoped Mr. Nona could go back to the Beaumont doctors and tell them it would probably be there for quite a while and if not, the parking could be accommodated directly across the street. It would work, or maybe at that point it would be worthwhile to put up another building and a parking structure. He said he was giving the parking to them now and it would be up to Mr. Nona when it was moved, because once he began developing across the street it would be time move and those kinds of decisions would have to be made.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said, based on the recommendations of the consultant, he felt the materials and percentage of materials met what they were looking for in the Main Street project.

Mr. Pearson said currently if a property owner had an approved site plan they could add on to a building as long as it was not any more than 1,000 sq. ft. He commented there had been several times people wanted to add more than that but then would have to go through the traditional, lengthy site plan review process. He said they suggested to the Planning Commission and they concurred that they could provide a streamlined process for making larger investments by going up to 10,000 sq. ft. or 10% of the existing building with Administrative approval. They were just giving people the opportunity to make those modifications, and were also suggesting that the site plan extension increase from one to two years to keep people from having to come back.

Mr. Pearson said in the past few days a small property owner on Grand River Avenue brought them this case. They had an approved site plan for a building and wanted to add a basement for storage. He said that triggered a lot of requirements and right now the Ordinance treated the additional basement storage for that small office user as if it was going to be additional office space, which would require them to double their parking spaces. He said it didn’t seem very efficient or effective. They could go through a variance process but it was his opinion that if it was good for this one case, they should just make the rule and let other people have a chance at it. He said they took the liberty of drafting some language for Council consideration that he thought was germane to this topic. Mr. Pearson commented that they could work on it a little more, with Council’s direction, for a second reading, and adoption. He said it would allow change in parking Administratively, as long as it was not more than 3,000 sq. ft. If it was over 3,000 sq. ft., it would trigger other building code reviews, which could not be changed, so they would have to scale it back to meet those requirements.

Member Gatt said for years they had talked about economic development and making it easier for people to do business in Novi and along comes this small builder/developer and he wanted to put in a basement. So, now he had to go back to Planning and ZBA and it would delay his project for months. Member Gatt said it didn’t make sense and thought Council should allow the Administration to administer small projects like this. He said he fully supported this.

Mr. Pearson said there was a referral to the Consultant Review Committee to look at this contract, which was entered into one year ago. He commented that there were some questions in reviews done by staff and the Consultant Review Committee and thought it made sense to do a one year check. As a result of that, for the time being, they were suggesting that there be these technical clarifications to the existing agreement.

Member Gatt said the Consultant Review Committee met on this subject a couple of times and it was not a unanimous vote to move forward with this project. He said it was a split decision. Member Gatt said the fact was that the City had allocated monies for a study regarding emergency services in the City and they believed if there were changes to be made to the way the ambulance or EMS service was handled in the City, perhaps it would be best to come out in that study. Then Council could look at it and have a say in it. He said the couple of changes proposed were technical changes that had no bearing on the way the ambulance or any other service was conducted in Novi.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello commented he was glad they were moving in this direction and liked the fact that there was some background check conducted. However, he would prefer that the City get the information from them and conduct its own background check, just as was done for a massage license. He thought like any other business conducting business in the City, they should apply for some type of a request for an investigation, do a background check and let the Police and Fire Departments decide whether they qualified or not. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said it would give a little more protection to make sure that these people driving the ambulances and hopefully saving lives were qualified to do that.

Member Gatt said the Fire Chief was notified of the personnel that were working for CEMS and a background check to some degree was conducted. He believed there were laws that prohibited the police from getting involved, as far as using the lien, and that was one of the reasons they made the changes they were proposing tonight.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked Chief Smith what kind of a background check he did. Chief Smith replied they submitted their background information and he looked at the information of the people who would be working in Nov; then he made that approval. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if he did any private background check himself. Chief Smith said twice a year Community brought out all employees working in Novi, and all the on duty people met at Station 4. He said they got to know each other and talked about things of mutual concern. He said they were scheduled to have their second meeting, which was something new that they had started and it seemed to work well. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if he ever looked at the background checks and contacted CEMS because he had questions or issues and thought that someone might not be the right person. Chief Smith responded yes, and there had been some people he had talked to CEMS about that did not work in Novi. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if he was comfortable with the type of check was done and that he did, and Chief Smith replied he was.

Mayor Landry said he didn’t disagree with the amendments as far as they went. He thought the amendments were an improvement over what the City had now, and in that sense he didn’t disagree with them. He said he had a bigger concern and that was a concern with Community EMS itself and that was why he would not support this motion.

Mayor Landry said he was involved in the incident that occurred last fall. He said certain representations were made directly to him by the President of Community EMS and he didn’t follow up with those representations. Mayor Landry said he could not see the City doing business when the President doesn’t follow up with recommendations. He commented he had a bigger problem with Community EMS and would not be supporting this solely because it was Community EMS.

Mr. Pearson said this was the formalization of a policy which enabled the City to have some guidelines for how they wanted to treat local participation for a new State incentive program for high-tech MEGA projects. He said they were encouraging local participation geared toward infrastructure and other tangible things, just to open the door, so companies could access the State incentives like anyone else and get some local support.

Member Margolis said she was definitely in support of this and assumed this wording was going into the policy. She said it talked about funds being allocated for public infrastructure improvements such as drive approach, road curb cuts, impervious asphalt, traffic signage and/or bio swale and rain garden. She wondered why bio swale and rain garden were called out and thought what they called attention to was what was going to be paid attention to. Mr. Pearson said when one of these came up specifically, they asked the engineers what kinds of things were required that typically might fall into the right-of-way. They said a bio swale and those kinds of things in a drainage ditch and applicants were heavily regulated and required to develop pretty sophisticated storm water systems. He said they were trying to draw closer to what they were regulating, going to own, and with the stormwater system, they regulate that and have a license to fix it.

Member Staudt said his biggest issue with this wasn’t the policy. It was having a policy that prohibited opportunities that might come forward that weren’t outlined in the policy. As long as they had the ability, at any time, to use the $100,000 as they saw fit, and the policy wasn’t something they would fall back on and be completely binding, even if an opportunity came forward that didn’t exactly fit the policy. Then he would be comfortable with it. He asked if they could assume that if something came through that was not clearly applicable to the policy, Council would still move forward in considering it. Member Margolis said she didn’t know that that was something, as maker of the motion, she’d comment on but thought it was something that they, as Council members, had to take a look at each time they considered something. She said they had policies to give staff some direction so that when they were out representing what Council was interested in, they would have some idea. Instead of going out blind and promising something, then coming back to Council and finding out Council was not ready for what they represented. She asked the City attorney how binding a policy was on a Council and whether or not she was speaking correctly.

Mr. Schultz said it was a policy and it was to help the staff when talking to people. Obviously, whatever decision Council made on any given project was not going to be hindered by the policy they would adopt here for the benefit of the staff.

Member Staudt said then he could assume that this was more of a guideline than a hard policy. He said that was how he would interpret it, so if that helped staff he wanted to keep an open mind on all opportunities. He commented he would support this because he thought it was a great idea and he thought they were taking a very proactive approach to this. He noted he liked the word guideline better than policy.

Mayor Landry said this would be a policy and they would be telling people this was their policy. He said they certainly hoped to have more rather than fewer companies come that wanted to build in the City but every single company that came wanted the moon. He said to be able to look to a policy and say "our policy is this" was what the Council could offer to them, it was a guideline but also a way to check themselves. However, he didn’t remember anyone in this Administration ever looking at a really big project and saying "no, we can’t do that because we’re hamstrung with this policy." He thought they were all saying the same thing but he would say to Member Staudt that he didn’t think this would hamstring them in any way from doing the right thing at the right time.

Member Mutch said the question he had for Administration was what would be presented publicly. In the past, when they had these policy discussions and adopted a City policy, it had been laid out in a separate document. He said he was assuming what would be presented to businesses that were interested was pretty much everything on page 2, the Incoming Business section. He said if that was the case, would they make any reference to the amount of money that the City had for use to businesses. Or, was it that they had discussed it but it was not going to be a part of the discussion when those businesses come. Mr. Pearson said he had identified that incoming Business described the policy guideline strategy. However, he didn’t think they would want to put the $100,000 out there because the numbers they were talking about were less than that. He said if they put out that number, people would glom on to that and gravitate toward it; also, they wanted to be flexible. He said they had targeted just sort of an idea to go in to this. He said if they had five times twenty that hit the hundred, they would come back and say they had great success, needed more and here’s why. So, he didn’t know that he would suggest putting the hundred out there as a firm thing. Mr. Pearson commented that the idea was they had local participation, Council commitment to follow up on it, and they would find some good projects to make use of it. Member Mutch said he would agree and just wanted to know what they were putting out there publicly and what Council was approving as the City policy.

Member Mutch said the other issue related to language in the policy was the discussion of the participation in only high-tech MEGA projects. He said he looked at the information provided from MEDC and he was not clear on what the breadth of that definition was. The MEDC talked about manufacturing and mining, research and development, wholesale and trade, film and digital media, office operations and certain tourism projects. Member Mutch asked if their focus was specifically on the research and development, or was there some other definition he was missing. Mr. Topouzian explained that the difference between a standard MEGA and a high-tech MEGA was not much other than the fact that it dealt with jobs, how many jobs and the types of businesses. He thought in keeping with how they wanted to attract the high-tech businesses, it was a way to focus on the high-tech end. Member Mutch said some of the documentation talked about just representing the standard MEGA but this was a separate category that the State was trying to focus on. Member Mutch noted the high-tech was a new program, and Mr. Topouzian agreed. Member Mutch said then a business that wanted to see if they qualified would probably have a good idea whether they fell into that category or not. He said those businesses whose projects didn’t meet the high-tech MEGA definition could be MEGA eligible in the sense that they met the broader definition that MEDC had. Mr. Topouzian said they initially just talked about high-tech but it would be Council’s decision whether they opened it up to all MEGA projects. He said what they had been seeing was more of a high-tech end. He said they seemed to be the more stable businesses and businesses with innovative technology and were the types of businesses they would like to see in Novi. Member Mutch said that made sense and he thought most of the standard MEGA categories like mining or tourism weren’t ones that would likely be located in Novi. He said a couple interested him like film and digital media. He said there had been discussions locally and debate across the State about trying to attract more of that business. He thought that might be a good thing to have in Novi, if someone was willing to make a significant financial investment; he wouldn’t want to rule it out. He thought this was a good start and would expect in six months to a year to revisit this to see how it was going. If there were a lot of requests, they could address that or if they found they were missing areas, they could address that as well.

Member Staudt asked if this assumed that Novi had been awarded a grant. Mr. Topouzian said they would work with MEDC and they would set up the application with the business. He said they wouldn’t be the first person in the door with this; it would compliment the MEDC’s package and the local contribution to the application. Member Staudt asked if he saw this happening without an MEDC contribution. Mr. Topouzian said he did not. Member Staudt said he didn’t believe that was a part of the policy. If this was purely with a MEGA project, then that was fine, but they were not trying to do anything on their own outside MEGA. Mr. Topouzian agreed. Member Staudt asked if the policy started with incoming business. Mayor Landry said he believed the policy began with incoming business but the second bullet point said "participation only in high-tech MEGA projects". Mayor Landry said, as he read it, this would only involve projects before the Michigan MEDC that were requesting MEGA grants. Member Staudt asked if that meant it had been awarded. He said it was just not good enough that they were working with them, that they’ve been awarded a package was his question. Mayor Landry said they were just a small piece in this MEGA project, correct. Mr. Topouzian said yes. Mayor Landry said if they were to offer any of these folks just the City’s piece, they wouldn’t come. Mr. Topouzian agreed. Mayor Landry said they needed the City’s participation to get the MEGA. Mr. Topouzian said Novi was kind of the gold star on the paper when all was said and done. Member Staudt said Council would only be awarding dollars, if they were awarded a MEGA. Mr. Topouzian agreed.

Mr. Pearson said they wouldn’t write a check until they got that all cleared because sometimes on sequencing the City might go first and other times go second. He said the fact was that they would just queue it up and not commit or give them the money until they have their high-tech MEGA. He said the City would go very late in the process. Mayor Landry said plus they don’t write checks; they build infrastructure and things like that.

Member Mutch said one of the things Mr. Hayes noted in his letter to Council were issues the City has had with Koala-T, who have apparently been less than quality in their work. He said Mr. Hayes indicated that despite those problems they would be able to do this work. He asked if this would require additional handholding from Engineering, to make sure they provided the level of work expected. Mr. Hayes said there was always some but he expected quite a bit less this year. He said they had really overcome the learning curve as they didn’t have a lot of municipal experience before but they really cut their teeth last year and learned through the school of hard knocks. Mr. Hayes said he was confident they would do much better. He said the quality of their work was OK; it was just keeping them on task and on schedule was the biggest challenge he faced. Member Mutch said as long as Mr. Hayes was comfortable with this he would support it.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked how the decision was made for these particular sidewalks because there were two areas that were bothersome to him. One was on Eleven Mile Road from Meadowbrook going west and he couldn’t see anyone using that. He realized they wanted to fill the gaps but it seemed like there were better gaps to fill with the money at this time. Mr. Hayes said in general the segments in this year’s program were based on recommendations from the Committee and on the Prioritization Report. He said he wasn’t sure where that one particular segment landed but that was an uncompleted segment from the developer. He explained a portion of the amount to complete that segment had been bonded for so they had access to those funds and the remainder the City would have to fund. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said that made sense since their money was available to do it. He asked about Ten Mile Road from Taft to City Hall because there was already a sidewalk on the south side of Ten Mile. He asked if there were streets in town where there wasn’t a sidewalk on either side that should be filled before doubling up on that segment. Mr. Hayes said there were but there was a whole rhythm that the Committee had created that took into account proximity to the schools, major neighborhoods and lack of existing segments on either side of the street. It landed relatively high on the list of priorities.

Member Staudt said he saw the amount budgeted was $330,000 and the expenditure required was $163,000. He asked if they were planning some future budgeted amount for additional pathways or sidewalks. Mr. Hayes said the bids came in very competitive so they did have a buffer left over. The one item that was not included was the engineering to design these plans and that was roughly $30,000 to $35,000. He said with whatever was left over they could add segments as they went but would prefer to wait until they got further into the season to see how they were doing budget wise. However, each year they had been able to add at least a handful of additional short segments.

Member Mutch said one of the things Council had talked about when this came through for engineering was a discussion of installing the mast arm signals instead of the box span wire configuration that was the new design being implemented across town. He said in March the information provided to Council was that the mast arms would cost approximately $92,000 more than the box span. He said that was based on a construction estimate that was higher than the bids came in. He asked if that was still his expectation, even with those lower costs, to have the mast arms as opposed to the box span; it would still be in that ball park. Mr. Hayes thought it would still be in the ball park and probably less if it were competitively bid because there was always a margin of error with construction estimates. He thought it would be lower but close to the $92,000 difference. Member Mutch said to retro fit that in the future, he assumed the cost would be a lot higher than $92,000 and Mr. Hayes agreed. Member Mutch asked if there was any reason other than the cost that they couldn’t implement the mast arm at this time. Mr. Hayes said they would have to alter the design, which would require more time and money to have the engineers go back to the drawing board. He said it would also have to go through Oakland Country again for their permitting process. Member Mutch understood that it was not the cheapest option. He said when they budgeted for this project they budgeted $345,000; it came in at $290,000, which was significantly under the budget by about $50,000. He thought that gave them the ability to consider going with the mast arm. Also, if they didn’t do the mast arm configuration now and decided to do it later, it would cost more money and the inconvenience of doing the work at that intersection instead of doing it now as part of the construction. He said it was an additional cost but was also an investment in the community in terms of the design and character of what they wanted the City to look like. He thought to spend $40,000 beyond the initial budget estimate but recognizing that the construction costs came in a lot lower, he thought it would be a wise investment for the long term. Also, the benefit they would get from having the mast arm signals at that location would be consistent with what they had tried to do across the community. Member Mutch said Providence Park and the apartments across the street at that new intersection had a mast arm configuration, which was a surprise to him. He said when they had previously talked about the mast arm design the discussion was to limit it to the main corridors, but apparently it’s being taken out further, which he thought was good. Member Mutch said he wanted to see the same investment at this intersection because otherwise it would cost more to do it later. Member Mutch said they would have to find the additional funds to pay for it but considering this was a significant intersection upgrade and investment for the future, he thought an extra $40,000 would make sense.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello agreed with Member Mutch and also thought $40,000 was a reasonable amount to spend for the benefit they would get.

Member Margolis said it was interesting they had gone from $90,000 to $40,000 and wasn’t sure where that came from. Mr. Hayes said the bids came in lower than expected. Member Margolis said then it was the difference and he agreed. She said they were really talking about spending around $90,000 more from this bid, correct. Mr. Hayes said yes, approximately and it wouldn’t be more than that. She asked what the cost would be to go back and re-engineer, etc. Mr. Hayes said roughly a few thousand dollars and they liked to hang onto a little bit of money in contingency incase they run into different site conditions. Member Margolis said her tendency was to say no as she couldn’t imagine going back to the drawing board. She felt if they were going to do this they should stay with what they said they would and do the mast arm somewhere else.

She said this wasn’t the kind of intersection where they were going to do those pieces to begin with.

Member Gatt concurred with Member Margolis and said they were talking almost $100,000 more than this bid. If that was money they had to spend somewhere else, he would like to see it spent in a more public intersection than Meadowbrook and Eleven Mile Roads.

Mayor Landry agreed with Members Margolis and Gatt.

Mayor Landry stated the Detroit Water and Sewer Department had raised Novi’s rates 23.8%.

Mr. Pearson said Novi was a bulk customer from Detroit Water and Sewer and they had a formula on which they based rates annually to their customers. The water side of things was an increase of 23% and the sewer side was about 8%. Mr. Pearson said overall the Detroit Water and Sewer based their rates upon their capital costs in any given year and all their customers had gone up again about 12% to 15%, Novi was on the high side of that average. The marginal costs or the difference on why Novi’s rates were higher was based on three things that went into the formula. (1) The distance Novi was from the source of water and Novi was basically at the end of the line. (2) The topography and elevation because it costs more and took more energy to move the water up hill and Novi was at a very high elevation rate. Mr. Pearson said two of the three things Novi had no control over. (3) The peak water demand and that was something that measurements were taken and it fell into the formula. He said last year because of weather conditions, etc. Novi had a high peak demand hour and day relative to some other years, and that peak multiplied against the other two factors compounded and impacted Novi on the order of the magnitude seen tonight. Mr. Pearson said Council had already asked Administration to look at some things that could be done such as shorter term, longer term due to affect that and positively impact the formula. He said they had started a water study in terms of the system and one of the aspects of that was to look at creating some City storage options, which would lower the peak demands. He said they would come before Council with recommendations to do just that. Mr. Pearson said in the preliminary findings it was very doable and very cost effective. He thought the return on that investment would be something Council would seriously want to consider. He said they could also have public education. He noted there was an odd/even water restriction in place all the time. Mr. Pearson said they were meeting with the ten largest customers to talk with them about their water usage to see if there were opportunities, and so they realized the rate structure so they could help everyone and themselves by looking at how they use water. He said they were getting the word out and conservation in a lot of different areas was on people’s minds; so this folded into that nicely. He said they would also eventually have a new water agreement with Detroit Water and Sewer and it would be fair. He said what was offered initially he couldn’t recommend and Council was aware that they were working through some of that language.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said Mayor Kilpatrick was trying to sell the Windsor Tunnel to raise some money for Detroit and maybe now was time to buy the Water and Sewer Department. He said he was serious and Council had talked about it in the past and he thought Oakland County should get a consortium together. He said he thought the rates would continue to go up and Detroit would continue to be in trouble and the Water and Sewer Department would be on the block someday and they should be ready to jump at it.

Member Mutch said Novi was getting hammered by Detroit on these water rates and it’s hitting a lot of communities. However, what was interesting was to really see the disparity even within this area. He said Farmington had less than a 1% increase and Farmington Hills had a 9.6% increase. Wixom had a 13% decrease and the primary reason for Wixom was that they had a huge water tower they used to help flatten the peak demand. He felt that was definitely the direction they wanted to go and it was an investment he wished the City had started several years back. He was glad the Administration was talking to the ten largest users. However, he was looking for more recommendations or policy decisions from City Administration. He said the problem was no matter how much water was conserved by an individual, if users were out there watering lawns during a rain storm or at the peak hours of the day, those choices affected everyone in the system. They might be able to absorb 24% rate increases but many people in this community couldn’t and it would really hurt them. He said they could reduce the peak hour demand and thought the conservation suggestions were good, having discussions with top users was good, but they really needed to push that. Member Mutch said there was nothing to say that they couldn’t keep running up the rate changes each year, if they didn’t get a handle on that.

Member Staudt said for those residents who didn’t think the mess in Detroit didn’t affect them, look at your water and sewer bills. He said the increases were unconscionable and there needed to be fiscal responsibility in Detroit among all the departments. It was a really sad thing that every year Novi was looking at double digit increases in an area where there were $180,000 Administrators and new people coming in with virtually no experience.

Member Gatt said he was at a meeting where Brooks Patterson spoke about this subject. He commented, for Novi residents information, Oakland County was exploring the possibility of building a waterway from Port Huron to Oakland County and getting out of the Detroit system. He said it would be billions of dollars and years away but it was being discussed at very high levels at Oakland County.

Mayor Landry said they also discussed this at goal setting in regard to water towers, etc.

Council entered executive session at 8:30 P.M.

Council reconvened at 9:07 P.M.

Mayor Landry called the regular meeting of the Novi City Council to order. He said they had been in Executive Session to discuss potential acquisition of property, and asked if there was a motion.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:08 P.M.

________________________________ ________________________________
David Landry, Mayor                                      Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

__________________________________ Date approved: August 11, 2008

Transcribed by Charlene Mc Lean