MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1995 AT 8:00 p.m. EDT



The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. with Mayor McLallen presiding.


Council pledged allegiance to the flag.



ROLL CALL: Council Members Crawford (present), Mason (present), Mitzel (present), Pope (absent/excused), Schmid (present), Toth (present) and Mayor McLallen (present)


Present (6) Absent/excused (1-Pope)





ALSO PRESENT: Edward Kriewall - City Manager

Craig Klaver - Assistant City Manager

David Fried - City Attorney

Geraldine Stipp - City Clerk

Les Gibson - Director of Finance







Mayor McLallen stated Councilman Mitzel had submitted a report on sidewalks and asked if he would like it put under Mayor and Council Issues or somewhere else on the agenda.


Councilman Mitzel said he would like it to be added as #3 under Mayor and Council Issues and he requested to add a #4 under the same category which was Roller Dek Hockey.


Councilman Crawford requested that Item #5 be added to schedule a special meeting on June 19, at 7:00 p.m. for discussion regarding the City Clerk.


Geraldine Stipp, City Clerk asked if the appointment of the Senior Housing Implementation Committee could be added as part of Item 10.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That the agenda be approved as amended.


Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously







Mayor McLallen said it was a real pleasure to swear in the new fire personnel.


Chief Lenaghan said this was the Class of 94-1 and there were 11 members who had been trained and were ready to be sworn in and receive their badges. He said three of the members, Sunday K. Dwire, Scott P. Gross and Brian C. Molloy were not present two of them were on vacation and the third had already received an on the job injury and would be off for a while. Chief Lenaghan introduced those who were present:


Matthew J. Blamy Station #1

Andrew J. Copeland Station #3

Thomas W. Greenwald Station #2

Christopher R. Kiczek Station #3

Steven M. Rhea Station #1

Brian S. Waite Station #3

Ted Warthman Station #3

Kae A. Frederick Station #4


Chief Lenaghan said they had been assigned and were just completing their EMT training; Mrs. Stipp issued the oath of office.


Mayor McLallen welcomed them to the City of Novi and said on behalf of the citizens and Members of Council they were wished them great success and thanked them for all the hours that they would give the community in an extremely high level of service. Mayor McLallen said everyone was very, very proud of the fire department and welcomed them.





Mayor McLallen said the next item of business was the presentation of recognition of three of our community members who had given extraordinary service to the community. Mayor McLallen made presentations to David Stec for service on the Construction Board of Appeals.


Mayor McLallen stated the next presentation was to Brenda Evans who was the Director of the Library and the presentation would be made by the Library Network. She asked Mr. Black to introduce his guest.


Paul Black introduced Mr. Harry Cartwright, Director of the Library Network which was their cooperative Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw and Livingston Counties. Mr. Cartwright made the presentation to Brenda Evans.


Mr. Cartwright said he would like to give Council a little back ground of why he was present. He said the Library Network was the largest cooperative in Michigan and it served over 60 libraries in four counties. He said they had provided a shared automation system for member libraries for about 12 years. He said two years ago the decision was made by member libraries that it was time to think about replacing the shared automation system they had. He said the technology upon which the system operated was about 15 years old and was called a proprietary system. He said the automated system only talked to itself it didn't talk to any other automated system. He said it was no longer sold and the equipment it ran on was no longer made. He said it was time for them to start thinking about buying a new system. He said in this day and age of what they hear about the information super highway and the connectivity of various automated systems it was important for the 55 libraries in these counties to have the very latest in technology and the ability to provide electronic information to the people that live in the communities.


Mr. Cartwright said two years ago that decision was made and a task force was appointed and the people that served on it all volunteered. Brenda Evans was one of those volunteers. He said the task force had worked for the past two years, they and it's various sub-committees held over 200 meetings. They did a needs assessment of the 55 libraries, prepared a Request for Proposal, evaluated the proposals, and made sure that it was as open a participatory as it could be for those 55 member libraries who were going to have to pay for the system.


Mr. Cartwright said at the end of this entire process which ended in February when the final award of the contract was made, when the Task Force had to make its decision as to which system it was going to recommend the decision of that Task Force was unanimous. They took their decision, their recommendation to the users of the system and asked them if they agreed and that decision was unanimous. He said what that said to him was that people like Brenda Evans and the other members of that committee did one of the most amazing jobs he had ever seen done in his 35 years as a librarian. He said they made sure every one of those libraries, their boards, their communities and their staffs feel a part of the process. He said by the time they got to the end and had to make a decision they all knew what the right decision was.


Mr. Cartwright said Brenda Evans brought some very special characteristics to this group in that she had worked in a library that had a local area network that understood how that network could be used to provide good library service. She brought that knowledge to the committee and helped it come to what was an excellent decision. He said the total cost of the package was a little over $2.4 Million. He said he thought the group did an amazing job and based on that and on behalf of the Board of Trustees at the Library Network, it's administration and over 60 member libraries he presented Ms. Evans with a certificate of appreciation.


Mayor McLallen stated the next presentation was in recognition of an Eagle Scout award to Jeff Duneske.


Mayor McLallen stated this was one of the true pleasures of being Mayor and she also had the pleasure of attending the rite at which Jeff received his award. She learned that he was the third member in his family to become an Eagle Scout as both his uncle and his Father were Eagle Scouts. She said he was keeping up a terrific tradition.


Mayor McLallen said the Eagle Scouts in our community were an astounding group of young men who really show that the future was on the right track. She said forget what's read in the paper, forget what's heard on the 5 o'clock news this was our future and it was wonderful.



WHEREAS; Scout Jeffery David Duneski, a member of the Boy

Scouts of America, Troop 54 appeared before a Board of Review

and was nominated to be awarded the rank of Eagle Scout; and



WHEREAS; the Eagle Rank is the highest rank achievable in

Boy Scouting, attained by only 2% of all scouts and Jeff is

the 13th Eagle Scout from Troop 54; and



WHEREAS; Scout Jeff Duneske has been active in Troop 54

since June, 1989, serving in many leadership roles including

Den Chief, Quartermaster, Senior Patrol Leader, Chaplain Aide

for the National Jamboree in 1993, and currently the Junior

Assistant ScoutMaster, and he is also a member of the Order

of the Arrow; and



WHEREAS; Jeff's Eagle Project was the planning, organizing and

supervision of 25 volunteers in making 3 picnic tables,

assembling and cementing 2 barbecue grills into the ground,

cleaning and spreading wood chips along the trail and making 4 wooden benches to be placed along the Rouge River in Novi's

Rotary Park; and



WHEREAS; JEFF; has demonstrated his citizenship through his

active participation in scouting, and has been involved in

extra-curricular community, church and school activities. He

is finishing his junior year at Novi High and future plans

include furthering his education at Lake Superior State in the

Fire Science Technology degree program; and



WHEREAS; Troop 54 honored Jeff at a special Court of Honor on


Sunday, April 30, 1995 at Holy Family Church.



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Novi City Council

commends Scout Jeffrey Duneske for his achievement and leader-

ship as an example to our youth and as an outstanding citizen

of the City of Novi.





Le Roy Listen, 21997 Sunrise was present to speak in favor of the proposed widening of Ten Mile Road between Novi Road and Haggerty Road. He believed the project would take a large step toward avoiding the type of problems that had been experienced on Haggerty. He thought the chance to widen the road now would be a step to avoid the accident problems and congestion problems. He felt it would help with traffic around Meadowbrook and the Novi Road intersection. He said this would also go along way towards avoiding pushing traffic onto the other roads which are not meant to take the traffic such as Nine Mile and Meadowbrook. He thought the City should support the project and continue with it.


James Korte, Shawood Lake, said at the last meeting he briefed three points. One of them had to do with the illegal taking of a piece of lake shore frontage owned by the City. He said the City purchased it from Hacker Probst at the same time, around 1986, that the Walled Lake Amusement Park and all of the landing area was brought together. He said there was a meeting on the property today and there were certain people in that greater area that had unfortunately lost lake access through City condemnation around 1987. He said they were paid for their property now they want to take another piece. He stated he talked with Mr. Bugbee on at least 5 occasions and his decision was that they had no right of passage on this piece of City property. He said through Mr. Bugbee, Bruce Jerome and Tony Nowicki the fence was to come down. He said the fence started to come down and Ed Kriewall said to put it back up. He said at the meeting today Ed Kriewall had accepted for the City the liability of a private fence on City property. He said when someone hit that fence that didn't fit City code or sit on deeded lot line the City was liable. He said that was unacceptable and the fence had to come down it was on City property. He said whatever wheeling and dealing was done today can certainly be done publicly at any point. He stated the fence was a liability to the City and he could not understand that a City Manager would accept that liability in the name of the City.


Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Kriewall and Mr. Fried to advise the Council during their reports later this evening on that issue.



Jim Antosiak spoke on behalf of Preservation Novi and said that last month when he spoke to Council he said a report would be out by the end of May regarding the Fuerst Farm. He said they had yet to receive it from their consultants and are trying desperately to get it. He wanted to assure the Council that as soon as they got it Council would get it.


Mr. Antosiak said he was heartened by the news he saw in the paper that the City was considering leasing the Fuerst Farm while they worked on funding and use sources. He wanted to encourage Council to pursue that avenue and would like them to acquire the property and this was the first step. He said they were renewing their promise to work with Council on funding sources. He said the fact that the City may lease the property rather than buy it might make funding more difficult. He thought based on preliminary conversations with foundations and other sources of funds, they might be reluctant to grant on a contingency that the City might purchase the property. He said they would pursue those as hard as they could. Mr. Antosiak wanted to renew their offer to Council and to encourage them to pursue the lease that they had heard about.


Ruth Hamilton, 1245 E. Lake Drive said that she noticed Item #6 under Matters for Council Action - Part I was an appeal for Paul Wagner and she asked if she could speak when Council addressed that item.


Lynn Kocan, 23088 Ennishore Drive felt it would be helpful if Council knew why there was a letter in their packet and there was nothing on the agenda regarding that item. She had anticipated that there would be a discussion item on the agenda regarding a proposed amendment to the City Ordinance to limit the hours of operation of I-1 Industrial uses which were adjacent to residential property. She said she originally brought up the Ordinance last year June 6 at the City Council meeting. She said since that time discussion had taken place in the Ordinance Review Committee which recommended that the request be reviewed by the Implementation Review Committee.


Ms. Kocan said after the first meeting with Implementation Review Committee last July 20 numerous meetings, many of which did not have a quorum in order to facilitate business, were held. She said the amendment was discussed at the December 21 Planning Commission meeting and while there was no consensus from the Planning Commission it was recommended that the City Attorney draft the ordinance. The ordinance would serve as a discussion item for the City Council to provide feedback to the Planning Commission regarding proceeding with the proposed amendment.



Ms. Kocan said the City Attorney did provide the City Staff Planner and the Planning Commission with proposed verbiage on February 28, 1995. She said while she had been told that "these things take time" she didn't understand why this had not been on the agenda since February 28. She said she was told this would be an agenda item in May or at least by the first meeting in June, therefore the reason for her letter.


Ms. Kocan said the residents throughout Novi have expressed their opposition to industries with 24 hour operations abutting residential properties. She said there had been two petitions, one with 289 signatures and another with 207 signatures, opposing this. She said the City Ordinance and the City Master Plan were very specific regarding protecting residential districts. In order to re-enforce and to ultimately enforce those specifics an ordinance limiting the hours of operation for Industrial Districts which abut Residential Districts should be enacted.


Ms. Kocan believed the residents of Novi deserved Council's support regarding their quality of life. She hoped that Council had the complete packet regarding the proposal for the next City Council meeting.


Deborah Bundoff thanked the Council for their decision to have the City Attorney's office and JCK meet with her. She said there was a meeting last week and she was assured that within the next three weeks her questions and concerns would be answered.





1. Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of April 17, Special Meeting of April 20, Special Meeting of May 15, Regular Meeting of May 15, Special Meeting of May 25.

2. Approval of MDOT Third Party Agreement No. ND95-0956 -

Traffic Signal Modernization - Novi Road, Grand River to 12 Mile Road.

3. Approval of Settlement of $5,000 - Philip Dober vs. City

4. Document Acceptance

a. Grading Permit (Parcel 11) Albert Chicorel - $500

b. Grading Permit (Parcel 13) Albert Chicorel - $500

c. Grading Permit (Parcel 14) Albert Chicorel - $200

d. Grading Permit (Parcel 15) Amoco Oil - Gift


Resolution Addington Subdivision No. 2 - Walkway Easement

over Lot 53- A & M Custom Built Homes - Gift



WHEREAS, A & M Custom Built Homes, is the Owner of Certain

real property located in the City of Novi, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, as described in a Walkway Easement attached

hereto and made a part hereof; and



WHEREAS, Owner desires to voluntarily convey (said property;

the rights setforth in said easement) to the City of Novi for public purposes; and



WHEREAS, the City has determined that said conveyance is in the publics interest and benefit.



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City accepts absolute

delivery of the Walkway Easement attached hereto.


5. Approval of Final Payment and Change Order No. 2 - Munro Creek

Channel Cleanout Improvements

6. Renewal of insurance agreement with Michigan Municipal League

7. Adoption of Ordinance 95-157 - Regulation of Activities within




WHEREAS, Section 31-2(a) of the Novi Code of Ordinances

provides for the establishment by resolution of the City

Council of fees for applications for permits construction

activities within City property; and



WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the following fee

to be appropriate for said purposes:


$100.00, plus in the case of utility installations,

.20 per lineal foot of utility installation, and

$20.00 for each utility pole.



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the

City of Novi shall, and hereby does, adopt the following

schedule of fees for permit applications for construction

within the City property:


$100.00, plus in the case of utility installations,


.20 per lineal foot of utility installation, and


$20.00 for each utility pole.



8. Condemnation Resolution and declaration of taking - Hogue

Property - 13 Mile Right of Way




9. Resolution to make offer to purchase - E & M, Inc. - Novi

Road Right of Way




WHEREAS, present conditions in the City of Novi, Oakland


County, Michigan, necessitate the widening of Novi Road

between Twelve Mile Road and Twelve and One-Half Mile Road

in the City of Novi;



WHEREAS, proposed plans showing said relocation and

improvement have been prepared; and


WHEREAS, it has been determined that said relocation and

improvement is necessary for the use and benefit of the

public; and



WHEREAS, in order to construct said improvement, it is

necessary that the City acquire the fee in certain real estate

as described in the original minutes.


WHEREAS, in order to construct said improvement, it is

necessary that the City acquire a grading permit to allow

grading, including the right to remove trees, shrubs and

vegetation as necessary in the judgement of the City, and to

allow temporary occupancy by public utilities upon certain

real estate described in the original minutes.



WHEREAS, it has been determined to be in the best interest

of the City of Novi to offer to purchase the above-described

fee interest and the above-described grading permit from the

owners of such property.



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor of the City is

hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, a good

faith offer to purchase a copy of which is attached hereto as

Exhibit "1", calling for the payment of $67,900.00 for the

subject property interests. The above amount has been

established as just compensation for the acquisition of the

property, based upon an appraisal of the property.



BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that after the execution of the good

faith offer to purchase by the Mayor, the good faith offer to

purchase shall be submitted to the owners of the property.



BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all resolutions and parts of

resolutions insofar as they conflict with the provisions of this resolution be and the same hereby are rescinded.



10. Resolution to make offer to purchase - Michigan Cemetery

Association - Novi Road Widening



WHEREAS, prsent conditions in the City of Novi, Oakland

County, Michigan, necessitate the widening of Novi Road

between Twelve Mile road and Twelve and One-Half Mile

Road in the City of Novi;



WHEREAS, proposed plans showing said relocation and

improvement have been prepared; and



WHEREAS, it has been determined that said improvement,

it is necessary that the City acquire the fee in certain

real estate described in the original minutes.



WHEREAS, in order to construct said improvement, it is

necessary that the City acquire a grading permit to

allow grading, including the right to remove trees,

shrubs and vegetation as necessary in the judgment of the

City, and to allow temporary occupancy by public utilities

upon certain real estate described in the original minutes.



WHEREAS, it has been determined to be in the best interest

of the City of Novi to offer to purchase the fee interest and grading permit as described in the original minutes from the

owners of such property.



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor of the City is

hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, a good

faith offer to purchase, a copy of which is attached hereto as

Exhibit "1", calling for the payment of $97,800.00 for the

subject property interests. The above amount has been

established as just compensation for the acquisition of the

property, based upon an appraisal of the property.


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that after the execution of the good

faith offer to purchase by the Mayor, the good faith offer to

purchase shall be submitted to the owners of the property.


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all resolutions and parts of

resolutions insofar as they conflict with the provisions of

this resolution be the same hereby are rescinded.


11. Award bid for demolition of structures on city owned 12 Mile

property to Momrich, Inc. in the amount of $6,600.00

12. Award bid for automatic doors to Dor-o-Matic in the amount of


13. Award bid for Pavement Striping to Continental Contracting in

the amount of $34,082.25.


Councilwoman Mason removed #8.


Councilman Toth removed #11.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That the Consent Agenda be approved including the corrected minutes from May 15 and April 17 with the exception

of Item #8 and Item #11.


Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously






1. Resolutions - Truth in Taxation and adoption of 1995-96 Budget


Mayor McLallen said the Council had been working on this since early April, the public hearing was held and at this time the Council could move forward.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford


That the Truth in Taxation and the 1995-96 Budget Resolutions be approved.





Councilman Toth said he reviewed the budget resolution and the revised budget. He assembled some of the data to determine why a millage increase would be needed. He said he wanted to show Council a different side of the proposed budget and the proposed increase of $553,000 and some of the things it contains.


Councilman Toth said if the budget increase was passed the City could fund a $351.00 coffee cup academy because it was good public relations for the Police Department. He said the City could purchase the Community Development Director $5,000 worth of furniture and that was not government issued furniture. It was $5,000 for a desk, table and a few chairs. He said an existing land use study could be funded for another $12,415. He said the City could also fund a Housing Stock and Condition Study. He said Merit Plan B for $25,125 could also be funded and Merit Plan A was already in the budget for $42,000. He said they could also fund a driveway replacement for the Fire Department, some new communications equipment for the Council Chamber and the City could provide some additional funds for the Planning Commission.


Councilman Toth said he wanted to look at some of the budget facts and figures that were not normally seen at their meetings.

He said buried within the many, many pages of the proposed budget were seemingly small amounts of money requested by each department. He said by themselves they are relatively small but when they are totaled and compared against the total number of full time City employees they provide some interesting data that needed to be looked at more closely.


Councilman Toth said the total overtime in the proposed budget was $365,197 based on the number of employees that the City currently had that was $2,167.34 for each employee. He said it didn't seem like a lot but there were a lot of employees that didn't get overtime.


Councilman Toth said the longevity costs which creep up every year in the budget were $234,537 or $1,392.00 for every employee in the City Hall and most of those don't get the longevity.


Councilman Toth said another that creeps up at a steady rate were conferences and workshops. He said currently they are $97,535 or $579.84 for each employee in the City and most of those employees don't go to the conferences and workshops.


Councilman Toth said memberships and dues was $35,212 or an average of $208.97 per employee and they don't reap the benefits of membership and dues.


Councilman Toth said miscellaneous was $169,148 or $1,003.85 for each employee. He said miscellaneous covered a few things like running the recycling center and belonging to the recycling group at an additional $74,000.


Councilman Toth said the total of all this was $901,629.00 and the average just on those five figures was $5,350 per employee and that was not counting salaries.


Councilman Toth said he was not saying overtime couldn't be used but they were proposing to add 9 employees on this particular budget and no cut in the overtime. He said the longevity issue had not been addressed but many other cities had addressed it.


Councilman Toth said the Police Chief stated publicly before the Council that approximately 30% to 50% of each officers time was spent filling out paperwork. He said a 50% reduction of this effort would be the equivalent of putting 3 to 5 police officers on the streets and in the subdivisions at no additional cost. He said instead of equipping the police cars with video and computerizing the paper work trail the Council was considering funding the $351.00 Coffee Cup Academy because it was good public relations.


He said regarding the City Computer program the City of Oak Park was in the process of setting up their administrative computer network and after three bidding attempts and for $350,000 they have one network with 50 computer stations. Councilman Toth said our Computer Committee replaced the old Data General computer with a brand new Avion computer and are currently installing four networks, purchased 73 computer work stations and 4 color lap top computers. He said this included new printers, fiber-optic cables, etc. all for less then $350,000. He said the Computer Committee in about 1 years time had done an excellent job for the City Council, City Administration, residents and business people. He said the City Administration decided to play politics with the Computer Committee and the City Council because they thought the Council would increase the millage to pay for continuing the Computer System Upgrading program and also finance a few other little goodies. Councilman Toth's answer to the Council and the City Administration was to finance it or forget it. He said the Council charged the Computer Committee with the task of preparing a sound, five year computer upgrading program and proposed cost over a five year period. He said the data was presented to Council last year before any money was requested or spent and again this year to show the expenditures and the needs for the next 4 years. He said both the City Council and the City Administration need to actively support the project with financing and support so this government could move into the modern world or start buying a lot of turkey feathers and ink pots. He said finance it or forget it.


Councilman Toth said because of some concern by the Council Members the City Administration was reviewing the present salary structure and compensation program and would be reporting back to the Council. He said this was like asking the Fox to count the chickens in the hen house. He said they should either form a

group of City taxpayers to take the task under study and then provide Council with some recommendations or contract it out with some independent company to supply appropriate data.



Councilman Toth said based on all he had seen in the budget and all the above figures there was no way he could support increasing the taxes to pay for some of these goodies. He said either sit down and make up a good budget that addresses all the issues properly or forget it as far as he was concerned.


Councilman Schmid said Councilman Toth might have just read his first campaign speech. He said it distressed him a little bit. He said he sat with Councilman Toth who he respected very much, for several meetings of the budget over the last several weeks. He said he could assure those who just heard his statement that he did not bring up probably 3/4 of the items that were talked about this evening. He said never once was it discussed in budget sessions where they were supposed to be discussed. He said Councilman Toth chose to come this evening, after sitting through a budget hearing the other day whereby in theory Councilman Toth with the majority of Council had agreed to pass the budget. He said if one would listen to Councilman Toth, and it was unfortunate that Councilman Toth made this statement this way, they would think the City was irresponsible in providing a budget to the citizens of Novi. He said that was not the case. Councilman Schmid said he could go through each one of his items and talk about them but it was not fair just to throw out a figure. For example overtime, much of the overtime was spent in the police department and there was good reason for that. He said court time and many other facets cause overtime in the police department but instead Councilman Toth chose to take that figure and put it over all the employees in the City of Novi. He said very few employees in the City of Novi generate overtime. He said longevity had been in the City for a number of years and the City Council had worked to get rid of it and in fact any new employee coming to the City no longer had longevity.


Councilman Schmid said this could go on and on but he thought it was only fair that the citizens of Novi get at least partial flavor for what was mentioned here in the budget. He said he was quite surprised Councilman Toth came forth with this because a few days ago he and Council members had made a tentative decision to pass the budget based on what was in the budget. He said he wouldn't feel so bad about this except 3/4 of the items that were discussed by Councilman Toth were not discussed in 6-10 budget meetings that literally took hours and hours. He said he was disappointed and that many things Councilman Toth said had some merit, perhaps.


Councilman Schmid said regarding the $300 coffee cups, he did not support that item either but it was not $300 coffee cups. It was a program the police department puts citizens through. He said it was an extensive program with many, many hours of activity and the City did buy a coffee cup for probably $1.50.


Councilman Schmid said he was making this statement because he was disappointed. It made Council look bad and more particularly he was concerned with his position; if the rest of the Council didn't feel any alarm about this that was fine but to make those statements and not having said a word in the budget sessions was disturbing.


Councilman Schmid said the Computer Committee in 1994 had spent $350,000 plus. He said they plan to spend almost $400,000 in 1995 and the five year plan puts it at almost $2 million or perhaps more. He said Councilman Toth would suggest that the City would fold up and die if the computers were not bought. He said Council faced that issue and said let's spend $385,000 in 1995 and the committee did a wonderful job and they were one of the better committees that the City ever had and one of the fastest spenders. He said they do spend a lot of money but computers are expensive and Council agreed to do it.


Councilman Schmid said he made these statements only because he was a little alarmed, at least from his standpoint. He said he would not want the citizens at large to think that all these things were not looked at carefully.


Councilwoman Mason said she would not vote for the budget for many of the reasons that Councilman Toth talked about and she was not disappointed in anybody. She said government was about health, safety and welfare and she said that in all of the budget sessions. She didn't feel that the budget was gone over with a fine tooth comb and thought there were a lot of items that were just over looked and pushed through during the talks. She said she could only vote for something that would be a benefit for every single citizen in the community. Councilwoman Mason said when there are 500 new residential homes with those taxes in the community the figures should be able to be worked a lot better.


Mayor McLallen stated that this had been a long, very difficult process and she echoed Councilman Schmid's concern that the citizens understand that this was not pulled out of the sky. She said the Administration did present a series of numbers and through a very extensive series of meetings this Council went through about a 12 inch document and interviewed every single department head. She said they constantly heard the need for more staffing and in those areas where Council felt it was appropriate they encouraged that staffing. She said while they would obviously like more staffing they felt that the citizens were not comfortable with a greater increase in tax. She said they tried to position the staffing in those areas and sought the Truth in Taxation. She said Truth in Taxation meant yes, an increase in taxes and the net increase this Truth in Taxation would bring to the citizens was less then .3%. She said the entire tax package would generate $14 Million to service a community of 40,000 people. She said it was less then a 3% increase over the operating budget of the City in the last year and the bulk of the money would be involved in salaries and direct services. She said there was always a way, and Councilman Toth did bring up a good idea even at this late date, about instituting a citizen committee to overview certain new initiatives. She said it was a late date and that by State law they had to pass a budget now. She said it was a compromise; the budget contained things that some Council Members want and that some Council Members didn't want. She said in the spirit of compromise she felt it was a sound budget and the citizens of the community were well served. She said it was a learning process and every year they learned more about themselves but she thought it gave the citizens the level of service that they expected. Mayor McLallen said, quite frankly, she thought the citizens expected a higher level of service but Council was not comfortable levying a tax that would deliver that level of service. She said the only way to improve it was to keep studying ways to deliver with what they had.


Mayor McLallen stated that she was very much in favor of the budget as a whole and would encourage her fellow Council Members to vote in favor.


Councilwoman Mason questioned Mr. Fried regarding the Mayor's statement that by State law the budget had to be passed at this time.


Mr. Fried said that was his recollection.


Councilwoman Mason asked if the budget was not passed and Council extended and paid warrants as they came due was that allowable.


Mr. Fried said the warrants that were coming due now are coming due under the prior budget and resolution had been made allowing those so they are OK. He said it would be a problem in the coming fiscal year when there wasn't a budget and no resolution authorizing spending the money. He said there were problems, very serious problems.


Councilwoman Mason said they could be done individually.


Mr. Fried said they could be done individually but they wouldn't be under a budget and the State Statute required that a budget be filed.


Councilwoman Mason asked how many days past the last budget did they have to file a budget.


Mr. Fried did not have the exact date but would get it for Councilwoman Mason. He said it becomes a very important matter as to how the City could operate this coming fiscal year without a budget.


Yes (4-Mitzel, Crawford, No (2-Mason, Toth) Absent (1-Pope)

Schmid, McLallen) Motion failed


Mayor McLallen stated that in order to pass a budget that entailed the spending of public money there must be a vote of 5 members of Council.


Mayor McLallen explained that Council could take the issues into five separate issues and vote on each of the funds separately and then reach the actual budget.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Crawford


That the Library Fund go to Truth and Taxation and the additional millage would be .022 and would generate $61,000 for the Library and the bulk of it would go to technology.





Councilman Toth said said there were four elements of the budget laid on the table and a resolution covering all four elements. He asked if it required four separate resolutions if they were to be passed independently and could Council pass a partial budget.


Mr. Fried said in his opinion they could not but that was an opinion he had not researched to give a formal answer. He said he had great concerns when Council made a piece meal budget. He said that was not a budget.


Mr. Fried said if Council was just talking about Truth in Taxation that was fine.


Mayor McLallen said they were talking about Truth in Taxation in the four funds.


Mr. Fried said as long as it was just Truth in Taxation that was fine.


Councilman Mitzel said they had spent 4 hours going through this exact same process on May 25 with the same motions and all the motions were to bring this forward to this meeting. He said those motions passed 5-1 that night with Councilwoman Mason dissenting and Councilman Toth voting in favor of it. He said with the current situation it would probably take more than 4 hours to get through this item tonight. He said he didn't see a resolution of that happening tonight.


Councilman Mitzel said he would support going through the Truth in Taxation resolutions but he didn't see reaching resolution on the budget. He said after the Truth in Taxation resolution he thought Council should move on to the rest of the agenda and go on with business.


Councilman Crawford said Council had spent several meetings, several hours of which were at the last one and there was consensus that this would be brought forward tonight in this manner and it looked like there was a budget. He said for years he felt Council should go above Truth in Taxation and was certainly pleased that this year it finally looked like Council was going to. He felt that it was irresponsible not to levy some of the authorized millage. He said Council was digging themselves a very deep hole in this City by not doing it. He felt that Councilman Toth mentioned many of those items, as Councilman Schmid did, out of context. He said they were there but there was a good explanation behind all of those. He said if Council did not pass every one of these Truth in Taxation measures they would have another no vote for the budget.


Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously



It was then,


Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel


That the Parks and Recreation Fund go into Truth in Taxation at the amount of .0409 which would raise approximately $59,000 for the Parks and Recreation Depart-



Yes (4-Schmid, Mitzel, No (2-Mason, Toth) Absent (1-Pope)

Crawford, McLallen) Motion carried


Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Fried if it was only the budget that needed 5 votes.


Mr. Fried said that was correct. He said only the budget needed 5 votes because that was resolution involving spending money.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That the remaining Truth in Taxation issues which are the Police and Fire Fund raising $48,000 and the General Fund which would raise $385,000 be approved as presented.


Yes (4-Mitzel, Schmid, No (2-Mason, Toth) Absent (1-Pope)

Crawford, McLallen Motion carried


Mayor McLallen said there had been a majority of Council that had moved to go to the Truth in Taxation level in the four funds presented. She asked Mr. Fried how to proceed with the budget.


Mr. Fried said there were 5 members of the Council needed to vote on an appropriation measure. He said the budget contained an appropriation measure and unless there were 5 votes of Council they could not proceed with the budget. He said the Charter required the budget to be adopted by the third Monday in May. He said Council was in violation of their Charter if they did not adopt a budget. He said it was the responsibility of the total Council to pass a budget and included those who vote against it and those who vote in favor of it.


Councilwoman Mason said if Council was supposed to pass the budget by the third Monday in May and they didn't pass it by then, what happened.


Mr. Fried said they didn't pass the budget. He said Councilwoman Mason knew why the matter wasn't brought up on the third Monday in May. He said there was a very tragic accident with a member of the Council.


Councilwoman Mason said the fact was that not later than the third Monday in May the Council shall by resolution adopt a balanced budget for the next fiscal year regardless of the reasons it was not done. She asked what the consequence was now.


Mr. Fried said Council was in violation of their Charter and there was a State Statute that required adoption of a budget.


Councilwoman Mason said Mr. Fried didn't have the State Statute on hand to advise Council of the date.


Mr. Fried said that was correct.


Mayor McLallen said it was a very serious situation that Council had come to and there had been much discussion. She asked those dissenting Members of Council if they had any suggestion to move this forward.


Councilwoman Mason said contrary to what Councilman Mitzel had said or any of the other members this budget was not beaten up, thinned out and the majority of Council sat here and agreed with Administration for a lot of these increases that were in the budget. She said these people who support this community have a right to health, safety and welfare. She said they had talked about Parks and Recreation taking $144,000 extra and spending it for a small majority of the population. She said nothing was resolved because 4 members of the Council said that was what Administration wanted and that was what they wanted. Therefore, she would not be bullied or pushed into passing a budget that was not thinned out and not done properly. She said Council had overlooked the fact that they had changed the contract with the police and that there would probably be a large amount of overtime. She said Council had looked at some of the important structural things that had to be done. She said Council had pushed them all aside for special interests and it was because the citizens were too busy to sit at the table and to get a copy of the budget. She thought every citizen should have a copy of the budget before it was passed. She said she could not spend peoples money this way because it was not discussed properly. She said because she was gone for two weeks and because of the other problem that Council had that was no excuse for sitting in the activities room instead of in Council Chambers where citizens could come in. She said a good majority of the Council wanted to hide in the activities room and push this budget through and then come to Council on Monday night and try to embarrass her and Councilman Toth into doing what was not correct.


Councilman Toth said he could only second what Councilwoman Mason said. Many of these things were discussed in the activities room. He said they didn't have four votes to change those but Council needed five votes to pass the budget. He said there are many things in the budget he had talked about many times again and again and again. He said Councilman Schmid said he didn't bring these things up. He said everyone of the items listed on the memo he passed out he brought up. He said he was working seven days a week, he studied this Friday, Saturday and Sunday and took the time to prepare this so all his figures would be right. He said this was a condition that he thought was ridiculous. He said Council was spending money like it was nothing. He said Council was going to ask these people and it's only a little bit of an increase and next Monday the school board was asking for a little more increase and next fall they would ask for more. He said the State, County and every body was asking for a little increase and what was happening was none of this was getting resolved.


Councilman Toth said the items on his memo he had asked about time and time again. He said the overtime was a ridiculous situation and he had requested detailed figures. He said there were individuals in the City who were getting $10,000 and $15,000 and more in overtime and others are not getting anything. He said it was not fair.


Councilman Toth said they had talked about the longevity issue but had never sat down and decided. He said the City paid its people well and they get an excellent benefit package totally paid for. He said the City paid for the retiree's insurance. He said this Council voted for an increase in retirement that would not come due until next year on next years budget. He said they sat here and spent this money and he asked what was going to happen to his kids and their kids when they try to come and live in Novi and suddenly found out they couldn't afford it.


Councilman Toth said now they are asking him to pass this. He said he had watched every one of the figures creep up for the last nine years and nobody had sat down to address it. He said the Council had never sat down, with the exception of a few individuals, to discuss this. He said he had turned in memo after memo to Council. He said it was ridiculous to spend this kind of money and not get the accounting that should be gotten from these individual departments. He told Council to sit down with someone that understood budgets; he stated that he happened to know budgets pretty well.


Mayor McLallen stated that Council was at an impasse and a very sad one for the City of Novi. She said it was a City that should be very forward looking and should be able to find consensus on this issue and at the moment it appeared there was none. She said they would now move forward with the agenda and asked Mr. Fried to provide Council with guidance later in the evening.


Councilman Schmid said he believed that Council should vote on the budget and asked if that was proper.


Mr. Fried said absolutely it needed to be voted on.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Crawford


That the 1995-96 Budget Resolution as submitted be



ROLL CALL: Crawford Yes, Mason No, Mitzel Yes, Pope Absent, Schmid Yes, Toth No and McLallen Yes


Yes (4) No (2-Mason, Toth) Absent (1-Pope) Motion failed



2. Presentation of Main Street Streetscape and approval to seek bids


Mayor McLallen said the dollar value of this project was

$1,471,707 and would be paid for by the sale of municipal bonds.


John Beckett of Beckett-Raeder was present to make the presentation. Mr. Beckett advised Council of the material in their packets.


Mr. Beckett said the project would be funded for with bonds and supported by a Special Assessment District and that process was underway. He said as soon as the bonds had been sold construction could begin and he was anticipating that bids would be taken some time later this summer with construction this fall and next spring.


Mr. Beckett said by necessity a good portion of the Main Street road had to be constructed before the amenity package could begin. He said that project was also underway and slated to begin construction in the near future.


Mr. Beckett said the estimated budget was $1,400,000. He said that was not the total SAD, the total SAD was somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,700,000 the difference being made up by fees, interest and other costs being associated with the process.


Mr. Beckett said the project had been ongoing for some time.

He said it had been viewed initially and was still viewed as a distinct opportunity for the community which was enabled by the TC-1 Ordinance to create a downtown focus for Novi. He said it would be consistent with some of the other older downtowns in the area notably Northville, Plymouth and Ann Arbor where the downtown becomes the focal point for the central area of the City. He said this one would be created from scratch but they believed the process had shown that it could be successful. Novi could in the future have a downtown area which would distinguish it from other areas and would be a decidedly pedestrian area. He said on-street parking would be available and wide sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian activities. He said there would be considerable pedestrian amenities and opportunities for special events, activities and other community goings-on. He said that was the way Main Street was envisioned and obviously would be created with the construction of buildings that would form the street. He said it was a 70 foot wide right-of-way with the facades of the buildings right on the right-of-way lines so the public space consisted of road, parking and pedestrian sidewalks. He said in that sense alone it was consistent with what most people associate with a downtown area. He said the streetscape boundaries were from Grand River Avenue to Novi Road and the length of the streetscape was approximately 2,200 feet which was close to a half a mile. He said the three main compliments that made up the streetscape were the entrance to the District from Grand River Avenue, the initial 1/2 block area which was more vehicular in nature than the rest of the Main Street area so that the detailing of that portion of the plan was more conducive to what would be expected in a vehicular area.


Mr. Beckett said the trees being suggested were larger and there were no shopping opportunities on either side of the street; the pedestrian activity in the area would be expected to be much less limited then in the rest of the district.


He said they were proposing a brick screen wall along the side of Market Street which would separate the streetscape from the existing fire hall properties. Mr. Beckett said on the other side of the street in addition to what they were proposing were the larger trees and the concrete sidewalk for the streetscape. The remainder of the development was slated to be completed this summer by Vic's Market as part of their requirements and obligations under their site plan approval.


He said the major element in this area was what had become known as the tower which was located at the intersection of Grand River Avenue and Market Street. He said it was intended to be a distinctive focal point and identify the district so that people driving along Grand River Avenue would be presented with the identity that it was the Main Street district.


Mr. Beckett said the second area of the streetscape was the pedestrian streetscape and that included the remainder of Market Street to the intersection of Main Street and virtually the entire length of Main Street to Novi Road. He said the basic characteristics of the area were retail, entertainment and office opportunities located on either side of the street right at the right-of-way line. This was consistent with what was seen in other downtown areas. He said the public space included the sidewalk, street and the amenities for pedestrians. He said it was a consistently developed area with a repetitive pattern of elements that shore up the entire length. He said some of the features of it were areas of special paving and in this case they were recommending a clay brick paver as well as concrete sidewalk which was the predominant material in the pedestrian area. He said they were recommending that special treatment be developed at the pedestrian crossing points which were the mid block areas and the intersection areas. He said in those areas the parking would be removed and the sidewalk expanded to about 20 feet in width as compared to 12 feet in the area where parking existed. He said it was the area where they were trying to encourage pedestrian crossing of the street. He said that was the rational for the use of brick and the special paving was to designate the areas of important pedestrian concentration or movement. The remainder of the streetscape would be concrete.



He said the trees are a small scale tree within the pedestrian area, flowering in nature and small enough to fit within the 12 foot sidewalk area without causing obstruction problems. He said where the sidewalk extensions occur the trees would be larger and located within planters that would be raised and would function as bench and seating areas.


Mr. Beckett said the third major area of the streetscape was the intersection of Market Street and Main Street and was envisioned as both the visual and the activity focus of the district. It was an area that would become the focal point of traffic in either direction on Market Street or Main Street. It was also the area they envisioned for major activities in terms of special events, festivals, parade marshalling areas and the like. He said the pavings in the area suggest the importance with the predominance of brick in the area as compared to other areas and also the inclusion of the special features. He said they were recommending a trellis structure which would be a foreground to the informal park that occurred at the corner, basically a wetland and passive use area. He said the trellis would be the central focus of that quadrant of the intersection and would be draped with wisteria or other flowering vines with a center component that would be roofed. He said it would be an area where band performances, etc. could take place. In general this was a space where significant gathering could take place.


Mr. Beckett said the common special elements of almost any streetscape tended to be the tree plantings, special lighting and attention to paving patterns to provide, designate and signify important areas.


He said they were envisioning three types of trees and three ways of handling the trees. He said Type A, which would be a large shade tree, was most characterized by an 8 ft. square brick planter that would double as a bench. He said these would be in the brick paved areas or the expanded sidewalk areas. He said they had the duel feature of the special paving and the opportunity for planters and pedestrian seating and concentration on those areas.


He said the second kind of planter was a simple curve with a large tree and occurred in the more vehicular areas or specifically the entrance into the streetscape area from Grand River and also the initial entrance in from Novi Road. He said the base of each of these planters could be filled with seasonal flower displays or other special landscaping that the tenants association would care for on an annual basis. He said the management and maintenance of the streetscape would be by an association of tenants in the buildings.



Mr. Beckett said the third tree was a smaller flowering tree which was consistent with the more lineal areas of the streetscape along where the parked cars were because of the relative narrowness of the sidewalk. He said the trees would be located within metal sidewalk grates and would be barrier free so that there would be walking access up to the trunk of the tree.


Mr. Beckett said the lighting would be coordinated with the designers for Vic's Market and the designers for the buildings of the streetscape; they jointly selected a pendant type fixture. It would be 16 foot high and high enough to provide a level of lighting consistent with and safe for the entire streetscape right-of-way. He said this was the only fixture that would occur within the streetscape. He said they would be located approximately 70 foot on center and would occur in a repetitive pattern consistently related to the trees throughout the streetscape.


Mr. Beckett said there were two types of single pendants which would be the majority of the fixtures, and the opportunity for a double pendent which would be in the special pedestrian areas or the brick paved area.


Mr. Beckett said the concept in summary was that they had really focused the detailing intensity within the areas where they expected pedestrians would naturally occur and within those same areas that they were trying to encourage pedestrian crossing and gatherings.


Mr. Beckett said the brick wall that would be along the entrance from Grand River Avenue that separated the fire station from the streetscape and also a section on Novi Road adjacent to the existing structure again the detailing would be consistent with other elements of the streetscape.


Mr. Beckett showed Council the engineering drawings and explained the various amenities.


Mr. Beckett showed Council drawings of the general character of the tower that would be located at Grand River Avenue and the entrance into the streetscape project. He said it was a significant architectural element approximately 32 feet in height, masonry structure that could be walked through and would double as a shelter for bus stops, taxi cabs, pick-up, etc. He said it provided protection from inclement weather as well as being a significant visual feature to identify the streetscape. He said the pylons and trellis were all part of it and were similarly detailed to the one that currently existed at the foot of Main Street in front of Vic's Market.



Mr. Beckett said at some point the district would probably develop a logo or some sort of visual identification or signage that would become its trademark and keystone. He said that would be located on the tower as the basic designation for the Main Street District.


He said regarding phasing of the project, the road construction would be underway soon and it would be necessary to complete the majority of the road, the curb and gutter before any major work could be done on the amenities. He said until the buildings were built it would be very difficult to complete the entire streetscape. Mr. Beckett said what they were proposing was that the amenities funded by the SAD would consist of half of the sidewalk and then as each building was built the second half of the streetscape would be built at that time. He said there would be an agreement with the developer to guarantee that this happened. He felt it was the only reasonable way to protect the investment that would be going into the streetscape prior to actually building the buildings. The bids that they would seek and receive would only include half of the paving but would include all the other amenities the planters, trees, all of the work at the intersection and entrance.


He said regarding the level of detailing and investment in a streetscape they had done several around southern Michigan and felt that this one was comparable to or exceeded those in terms of the amount of investment that was being put into it. He said the projected cost was approximately $675 per lineal foot of road for strictly the pedestrian amenities. He said that was comparable to what they had spent in other communities for the entire streetscape including the construction of the street. He said with the special amenities shown in this plan the trellis, tower, brick and iron screen walls, the extensive expanse of brick compared to most streetscapes and planters all added up to be a very significant and quality streetscape.


Mayor McLallen said the issue before Council was approving the authorization of putting together the bids for the streetscape. She said there was a letter in Council packets from Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone outlining the process that was being followed. She said these bonds would be paid back through the SAD.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That bids be sought on the Main Street Streetscape.





Councilwoman Mason said she would not vote yes and if Council looked at the notice to issue the bonds it said that "in case of the insufficiency of the special assessments the principal and interest of said bonds shall be payable from the General Fund of the City lawfully available for such purpose." She said that the City was putting its neck out to do the bonding and it was the City's credit. She said they were doing a streetscape across a piece of property that the City gave them and it was worth a million dollars. Then the City would have to take back and maintain it once it was dedicated to the City. She said if for some reason Main Street was not developed or if the corporation went bankrupt or out of business would the City have to pay for the bonds from the General Fund lawfully available for such a purpose.


Mr. Watson said no and what would happen was the county which handled delinquent tax assessments would commence proceedings to go after the property itself. He said as with any Special Assessment District the security for the payment of those special assessment taxes was the property. He said by entering into a Special Assessment District the property owner was in effect putting that property on the line. He said what would happen was the county would front that money and then go after the property.


Councilwoman Mason asked why does this "Official Notice to Electors and Taxpayers of the City of Novi of Intent to Issue Bonds secured by the taxing power of the City and right of referendum thereon state that in case of the insufficiency of the special assessment the principal and interest of said bonds would be payable from the General Funds of the City lawfully available for such a purpose."


Mr. Watson said because the City pledges its full faith and credit as an additional security and by doing so they get the best bond interest.


Councilwoman Mason said it was using the City's credit. She asked if Mr. Chen could obtain the bonds by himself at this price without the City's AAA credit.


Mr. Watson said he didn't think so.


Councilwoman Mason asked why it was in there if it didn't mean anything.


Mr. Watson said it wasn't that it didn't mean anything it was additional security for the bond holders.


Councilwoman Mason said it was three years before the county came after delinquent taxes.


Mr. Watson said that was correct although the county paid those taxes as they came due.


Councilwoman Mason asked if that also had to do with bonds.


Mr. Watson said no the county would pay the taxes and the City would pay the bonds from the taxes.


Councilwoman Mason said the City would have to pay the bonds from the taxes.


Mr. Watson said that was correct they would be paid from the funds the City received from the county.


Councilman Mitzel asked if other than just the tower structure was there going to be anything there to make it pedestrian friendly. He was concerned about the usability of what they had because he saw the Town Center on the north side and there was a nice fountain on the corner one could drive by and look at but there was no place to sit there. He said there were nice benches along Grand River and Novi Road and bike racks no one used because they were along the road. He was curious if there was going to be any other feature of the tower other than the tower. He asked if there would be statutes, benches, some sort of attraction, a chime on the hour or was it just a large tower for a future logo.


Mr. Beckett said they hadn't considered a chime on the hour although that sounded interesting. He said the intent of the tower was to provide an identification for the Main Street Project. He said the scale of the tower was approximately 32 ft. high and about 20 ft. square. He said it did offer the opportunity for some shelter and he felt that was one of the reasons why some of the other areas on Grand River were not used. He said Grand River was a hostile environment for pedestrians. They thought by providing some shelter and essentially enclosed space it could be used for a bus shelter, taxi cab pickup, etc. He suspected there would be a telephone there and there was always the opportunity for information kiosk use of this structure. He thought compared to other elements on Grand River Avenue the fact that it was a protected structure and it did offer some shelter there would be a very real use that the structure could be put to.

Councilman Mitzel said he would rather see money used to provide things such as fountains on the pedestrian plaza. He would like to see amenities where people could gather around as opposed to a large tower on Grand River. He understood he was just one voice and it had been through many design committees and such but he encouraged Mr. Beckett to look into at least a chime or something. He said he knew many old fashioned downtown areas had that.


Councilman Mitzel said in many of the drawings it's referred to as Market Street and he knew the Administration had provided a letter saying Market Street wouldn't be the appropriate name. He said he knew it could be dealt with later except if the bids include certain signage that would be manufactured with the name Market Street. He asked if that had to be changed or could it be dealt with later.


Mr. Beckett said it could be dealt with later. He said they would anticipate resolution of that by the time its time to fabricate the signage.


Councilman Mitzel asked at which point did Council need to iron out a maintenance agreement regarding the maintenance of the streetscape and especially the tower, fences, and extra snow plowing that would be required because of all the bump outs.


Mr. Watson said that should be done as a part of the exchange agreement and Special Assessment Agreement which was scheduled to be before Council in two weeks.


Yes (5) No (1-Mason) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried



3. Request to discuss a possible amendment to the Consent Judgment (Briarwood Partners vs. Novi) to allow for a veterinary Clinic in Briarpointe Plaza


Lee Walter was present representing the Briarwood Partners.

Mr. Walter said Dr. Parker was also present and had done a lot of research on this and he had answers to questions that Council asked the last time they were in front of Council.


Dr. Parker briefly reviewed for Council what their proposal was for the veterinary Clinic in the Briarpointe Plaza located at 10 Mile and Beck Road. He said in one of the 1,600 sq. ft. areas they wanted to locate a small animal clinic which would serve the members of the immediate community and the subdivisions surrounding the area.


Dr. Parker said they would be doing small animal work only.


Dr. Parker said they had done a survey of the residents in the area. He advised Council that they all had a copy of the latest figures from that survey. He pointed out a typo under "Supported or Did Not Oppose" it should have read 503 instead of 506. He said there were 525 surveys distributed either by mail or in person from the heads of the Associations of the local subdivisions. He said they had 126 come back which was a 24% response and out of that 126 there were 104 or 83% that supported their clinic and there were only 22 or 17% opposed. He said if Council totalled the number of surveys distributed vs. the support or did not oppose Council would see there was an overwhelming 96% that either "Supported or Did Not Oppose" the clinic. He thought the survey results stood for themselves and said he had copies of the questions they asked if anyone was interested. He said the survey along with the letters that Council had in their packets plus one additional letter he had from Dr. Steven Goldman supporting the clinic, showed very strong support from the people who would be using it.


Dr. Parker said another point he wanted to address was that the B-3 Zoning in the City of Novi was extremely limited. In fact, when he looked for other B-3 Zoning in the City that was practical, meaning to go out and buy a piece of land and to erect a clinic, he found it would be financially impossible for them to do. He said if Council would notice that 3 out of the other four veterinary clinics in the City are located in strip malls and shopping centers. He said there was a very good reason for that and that was it cost a lot of money to put up a building and run a veterinary clinic and it was just financially impossible to do it out of a free standing building nowadays. He said 20 years ago it was a different story but nowadays it just couldn't be done.


Dr. Parker said another thing he wanted to address was that there was a reason there wasn't a 7-11 located on that corner. He said the center was meant to be an upscale professional looking facility with the types of businesses that would suit the needs of the community members. He said there were certainly a lot of pet owners in the area and there would be a lot more and they wanted to take care of their needs. Dr. Parker said it was their personal point of view that with all the building that was going on they knew that people who have cats and dogs didn't like to travel a great distance to take care of their animals and the anxiety that they would feel by the time they arrived at the clinic. He said most people would like to go to a clinic in the immediate area and that was why they had chosen to locate in this area.


Dr. Parker addressed a couple of concerns that had come up the last time he was before Council. He said one was the matter of pet waste on the sidewalk and so forth. He said out of all the other veterinary clinics in the area none of them has the nice wooded area or grass area that was available for pets to eliminate on. He said apparently there had been no problems with waste in the Meadowbrook Plaza which was virtually all concrete. He said he was not aware that there was a problem with any of the other veterinary clinics. He said there would be people to police the area to pick up any pet waste that might accumulate. He said most of the time that was something they would want to see in the clinic as a sample anyway. He said they would pick it up or they would have the owners pick it up.


Dr. Parker said the last issue he wanted to address was there seemed to be some concern over the sidewalk and apparently that issue had been dealt with. He said the piece of sidewalk that was missing was not really a direct concern of the clinic.


Dr. Parker said he would be happy to address any other concerns that Council might have regarding their clinic.


Mayor McLallen said Dr. Parker was before Council because after researching the City for other appropriate sites he had come up financially empty. She said his only recourse to this particular site was to request reopening the Consent Judgment and the permitting of this use in this site. She said it did not address the zoning issue it merely permits an adjustment of the Consent Judgment.


Councilman Schmid said this had been before Council on at least one other occasion perhaps more and it could get into some motion but it should not. He said this was in an area of the City where a lawsuit was brought by the owner of the land and developer, it went into court and the court settlement was made with a Consent Judgment. He said it was a zoning question and it turned out to be B-1 Zoning. They said that corner could be used with commercial but only with B-1 uses. He said he wasn't against veterinarians but the question was that Council had insisted that all veterinarians go in the B-3 zoning. He said as a matter of fairness, Council would have to look at whether or not it would be fair to allow Dr. Parker or the developer to use the property for a use that was not within the ordinance in a B-1 zoning. He suspected that everyone on the Council could make an argument that a small veterinarian clinic would not harm that particular subdivision but the fact of the matter was the ordinances were made, passed and thought out in some detail and it clearly stated that a veterinarian establishment was not allowed in that zoning. He said for that reason he would have a difficult time supporting a veterinary clinic in this Center unless Council felt it should go back and change the ordinance. He said when the next veterinarian came forward and wanted to go in a B-1 Zoning or another unallowable use came before Council he didn't know how the Council would turn them down.


Councilman Schmid said there were veterinarians in the City and competition was healthy. He said they could get to the Meadowbrook Shopping Center veterinary Clinic in 3 to 5 minutes.


Councilman Schmid said this was a simple issue to him. He said it was a zoning matter and this did not fit in this zoning. He said the Consent Judgment should not be opened up and Council should not set precedent.




It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason


That the Consent Judgment be reopened to proceed with an amendment to allow the use of an out patient veterinary clinic for small animals and require the construction of a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along Beck Road, on the site with appropriate ramp type curb cuts.





Councilman Mitzel said he made the motion based on the fact that this was a small animal vet clinic and there was one similar to it up at the north end of town that the ZBA recently granted a variance to allow the building to be 20 feet from a residential property line. He said as far as he knew there had never been a problem with that site or that clinic. He said the information tonight indicated that the neighboring residents didn't have a problem with this.


Councilman Mitzel said in addition it was a Consent Judgment development so if Council was willing to open it up to allow this use and improvement of the site with a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along Beck Road he thought it could be a win for the area.


Councilwoman Mason asked Mr. Fried if once Council opened a Consent Judgment and allowed this in this zoning whether it created a problem for Council if somebody else came forward in that situation.


Mr. Fried said it did not. He said it was only opened for this particular instance.


Councilman Toth said he happened to know several of the veterinarians who live and work in the City and had been to quite a few of them. He said they all run a decent operation and he had no problem with a veterinary operation in a B-1, B-2 or B-3. He said they were well run businesses, they were not really the problem that some other businesses were and he liked the idea of the sidewalk even though it had nothing to do with this issue. He said he would support the motion.


Councilman Schmid said it was obvious that this might pass and he was distressed when one says they are not concerned about the zoning and what should be put in it. He said if that was the case the zoning should be changed. He did not think it was correct for Council persons to say they had no problems with particular things in a particular zoning when they were not allowed. He said that was why there were zoning ordinances in the City and that was how the City was built.


Councilman Schmid said maybe it was a good use but it would have to fit in the zoning. He said it was true that this was opened up but Council was setting a precedent and he could not imagine this Council telling the next one no. He said the sidewalk had nothing to do with this issue and JCK would have put it in at their cost or the developer would have put it in at his cost. He said Council should look carefully at this and not set a precedent, not because they were against veterinarians but because they should go back to the ordinance and change it. He said Council should not deal with these individual cases.


Mayor McLallen said Mrs. Stipp, City Clerk handed her an update dated June 5 on the issue of the sidewalk. It said "the sidewalk going between Briarwood and Roma Ridge was under construction with the remainder being installed in accordance with approved plans. She said the curb drop remained to be completed.


Councilman Toth said Councilman Schmid brought up good points and if the clinic serviced large animals he would definitely not want it in the B-3 area. He said for residential use and basically small domesticated animals that would go to the clinic his personal opinion was, and he didn't serve on the Ordinance Review Committee, but when the time came he might make a suggestion to the Ordinance Review Committee.


Councilwoman Mason pointed out that would address Ten Mile Road and Beck Road; it said "the final site plan for the project proposed only sidewalks along the Ten Mile Road frontage. Our records indicate that section of sidewalk has been placed. Our December, 1994 inspection of the site indicates that the ramp at Beck Road has not yet been constructed but is required."


Mr. Walter said there was never any sidewalk going in on Beck Road. He said the trees were right where the sidewalk would be and there was no way to put a sidewalk in there. He said it would be right through that wooded area.


Councilwoman Mason said this particular one said "Our December, 1994 inspection of the site indicates the ramp at Beck Road has not yet been constructed but is required."


Mr. Walter said that was correct and he was out there to work and put the sidewalk in but did not make the curb cuts so he had to come back and do that.


Councilwoman Mason said Mr. Walter was correct it was not required on Beck Road.


Mr. Walter said Ten Mile was done and Cider Mill was done.


Mr. Walter said he didn't do it because Councilman Pope asked him to he did it because the weather was right and he could do it.

Mayor McLallen asked Councilman Mitzel to indicate precisely where the sidewalk that he was interested in should be.


Councilman Mitzel said along Beck Road. As Mr. Walter and the memo stated the original site plan only had a sidewalk on Ten Mile. He said he was making it part of his motion to require the sidewalk along Beck Road.


Mayor McLallen asked if there was pedestrian access from Scarlet down to the site.


Councilman Mitzel said he was talking the entire frontage.


Mayor McLallen asked if he was talking about through the woodlands.


Councilman Mitzel said it didn't have to be through the woods; it was the same situation as on Ten Mile. He said the woods were on the corner. He said they were able to do it on the Ten Mile side and there was flexibility within the Design and Construction Standards to get the sidewalk through along Beck Road.


Mayor McLallen said she was under the impression that there was a way for people to get from Scarlet to the site on a sidewalk.


Mr. Walter there was. He said the sidewalk ties into the shopping center coming down from Scarlet and then there are a group of trees there that go right out to the road right-of-way.


Mayor McLallen said she was still unclear. She asked Councilman Mitzel to clarify.


Councilman Mitzel said the site was a corner. He said Ten Mile had a sidewalk going all the way to Beck Road and the only issue was the ramp curb cut. He said he was talking about the Beck Road side. He said there was a sidewalk that went from Scarlet down to the entrance but there was no sidewalk from the entrance connecting down to Ten Mile. He said his motion stated that the entire frontage of the site along Beck Road would have a sidewalk.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Fried if he was correct in saying if that was Council's condition to open it up and the developer didn't agree then there was no change in the Consent Judgment.


Mr. Fried said he could attach any condition he wanted to it.


Councilman Schmid pointed out that 22 people, probably people who border the shopping center, voted against this. He stated he hoped each Council Member that voted realized that 22 people said they really didn't want to look out their windows at a veterinary clinic. He said the last time they talked about many things such as odors and he didn't want to get into that because he thought it was a zoning issue this time. He said there were many, many negatives and that was why it was in a B-3.


Yes (5-Mitzel, Mason, No (1-Schmid) Absent (1-Pope)

Toth, Crawford

McLallen) Motion carried



It was then,


Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel


That the sidewalk be under construction before they

open the Clinic.


Yes (5-Mitzel, Mason, No (1-Schmid) Absent (1-Pope)

Toth, Crawford,

McLallen) Motion carried



4. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment 18.534 - Requested by Marty

Feldman - RM-1 to B-3 and P-1 Districts - Property located

south of Grand River and East of Novi Road


Stanley Tkacz, owner and architect of the AIT Design Group was present representing Mr. Feldman as it related to the rezoning and conditional zoning of the RM property to the south of his present facilities located on the south side of Grand River Avenue.


Mr. Tkacz said they had appeared before the Planning Commission on the third of May at which time there was a rather lengthy discussion of elements related to this project. He said the summation of which was that the north 45 feet be allowed under B-3 as buildable or construction of building addition. He said the remaining 210 feet could only be used for parking but of the 210 feet 46 feet would be constructed as a rather elaborate landscape berm and screened area between a screened wall, a berm and the apartments to the south. He said those elements had been placed upon the documents in Council's packets.


Mayor McLallen stated there was a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission. She said it contained three conditions and the City Attorney had outlined his position on conditional zoning and that it must be reasonable. She said the Planning Consultant recommended the same issues that the Planning Commission did. The Planning Commission's was that the north 45 feet be available for B-3 and the remaining be used only for parking of cars and that there be a berm and a wall on the south and the west side. She said the berm and the landscaping would comply with City standards and the berm and the wall would receive Administrative review and no dumpsters or trash permitted in this area.


Mayor McLallen said this was an essentially landlocked piece of property for which many other options had been brought forth and nothing had been able to come to fruition.


Councilman Toth stated that Mr. Rogers gave this a positive recommendation on June 5 but in the letter of April 24 he recommended rezoning the entire parcel B-3 stating that the P-1 District only allowed 24 hour parking.


Mr. Rogers said the Notice for Hearing was for the property to be rezoned from RM-1 to P-1 or any other suitable zoning district.


Councilman Toth said the Ordinance Map showed two parcels one from RM-1 to B-3 and another from RM-1 to P-1.


Mr. Rogers said that was true. He said it wouldn't be appropriate for the purposes that Mr. Feldman wanted to use the property for. He said the Commission considered those classifications and then recommended that the entire area go to B-3 with those specific conditions attached in their recommendations. He said this was not site plan review; it was merely conditions that would be looked at when and if a site plan came in.


Councilman Toth said the amendment proposed to Council was two separate parcels and two different zonings.


Mr. Rogers said that was only one parcel and that this property that was before Council was a 4 1/2 acre parcel and it sat behind a 4 1/2 acre parcel that was already zoned B-3. He said it had no street frontage, the only access was through Mr. Feldmans's property and it was vacant.


Councilman Toth said 18.534 showed two parcels existing zoning RM-1 rezoned to B-3, a second parcel existing zoning RM-1 rezoned P-1. He said this was on the front of the packet of material that he received and the request was for two rezonings.


Mr. Rogers said it was one parcel and the petitioner requested this particular division of his property into two different zoning classifications. He said upon review and study of the ordinance and what he intended to use it for, it was concluded that only B-3 zoning would permit it. He said it was comparable to what was needed for a new car dealership. Marty Feldman's had always been B-3. Mr. Rogers said the recommendation to Council was to establish this for B-3 for the entire district. He would not concur that it be B-3 without these conditions because of the proximity of the house.


Councilman Toth said it was a 265 foot by 791 foot parcel going from RM-1 to B-3. He said that was Mr. Rogers and the Planning Commission's recommendation.


Mr. Rogers said yes, subject to those conditions.


Councilwoman Mason said she remembered there was a proposed zoning on December 21, 1992. She said it was to rezone and put a new addition 270 foot away from the existing Fountain Park Apartments. She said it was turned down and she was wondering if the intention of this was the same thing.


Mr. Rogers said that was his concern of having a structural addition added to the rear of the existing dealership. He said it was his understanding that a second dealership was going to be built on Grand River where the cars are parked now. The cars would be parked in back. He said in his report he did not concur that any structural encroachment into this present RM-1 property be allowed. He said a case was made by Mr. Feldman and Mr. Tkacz that because of the floor plan and the circulation plan they had to have 45 foot depth of the structure. He said into this B-3 proposed area up to 45 feet be used for a structural improvement. He thought that it would be part of a bump shop operation which was presumably partly in the building at that location now.


Councilwoman Mason said that was not what it said in the material. She said basically it was the same thing as 1992 was before Council now except that it was denied for several reasons. She said at that time Mr. Rogers didn't agree with any of that.


Mr. Rogers said use of the RM-1 property for vehicle parking he had no problem with if it had the proper berming that was required.


Councilwoman Mason asked if they could park on the property without making it P-1.




Mr. Rogers said no; they could not park on the RM-1 property particularly if it were employee parking, customer parking and storage of new car parking. He said that had to be B-3 zoning comparable to the permitted use up on the B-3 frontage on Grand River.


Mr. Rogers said ten years ago he was before the Council recommending that the B-3 property be extended back the 660 feet or so comparable to the NCC zoning to the east which did go back 600-660 feet. He said at that time the Council denied this one area and also the area behind Belle Tire and left it at the 300-330 foot depth. He said the property had since then been vacant. He said he was concerned at one time whether the property could be used for residential and Mr. Brody, owner of Fountain Park Apartments, expressed to him no interest in buying the property from Mr. Feldman to expand Fountain Park.


Councilwoman Mason said this was the very same proposal now as it was in 1992 and asked why Council would change it and make it any different now than it was then.


Mr. Rogers said that was her decision and that the facts were different now. He said they were intending to come with an extension of the building only up to 45 feet south of the present building line. He said he didn't recommend that but the Commission did with a 5 to 2 vote that they allow that one small extension. He said the parking on the balance of the property he would recommend only if there was a substantial screening berm that had been reviewed with Fountain Park.


Councilwoman Mason suggested that Council should have the 1992 minutes and be able to compare the two before any decisions were made.


Councilman Mitzel said it did state a 75 foot extension of the building. He said Mr. Rogers spoke to how this related to the Master Plan for multiples on this particular part of the parcel that was proposed for conditional B-3. He said the front part of the site was Master Planned for NCC but was zoned B-3.


Mr. Rogers said the Master Plan designation of the non-center commercial included B-3 zoning.


Councilman Mitzel asked if the Master Plan designation did.


Mr. Rogers said it was not comparable to the NCC zoning classification.


Councilman Mitzel said therein was his confusion because the NCC zoning stated it was only B-1 or B-2 uses and not B-3.


Mr. Rogers said the NCC went down to Pheasant Run, Mobil Oil, Novi Auto Mall and that was all proposed for NCC future land use.

Mr. Rogers said it was not inconsistent and that the property in back was recommended for multiple family future land use on the Master Plan. He said if the zoning went forward by any action Council took then he would recommend there be an amendment to the Master Plan to recognize the extension of the commercial and eliminate the multiple family designation.


Councilman Mitzel questioned Mr. Fried concerning the preferences of conditional zoning which was recommended by the Planning Commission which was B-3 subject to conditions, merits of that as compared to changing the P-1 Ordinance to allow this type of parking as a special land use and rezoning in that nature.


Mr. Fried said he understood the question to be if a conditional zoning was preferred over changing the zoning ordinance to provide for this sort of thing. He had difficulty changing a zoning ordinance to accommodate one person or piece of property.


Councilman Mitzel said he was speaking of the P-1 zoning district which was not utilized in the City and was provided for parking of vehicles for less than a day. He thought that since it was a parking district already, under a special land use scenario it could be utilized for parking similar to what was being proposed. He asked whether that was a better route as opposed to a conditional zoning where on the map it showed as B-3.


Mr. Fried said if he were reviewing this and it was starting out from the beginning he thought he would take Councilman Mitzel's tact.


Councilman Mitzel said if the City Ordinance was provided for a PUD mechanism was that equivalent to a conditional zoning.


Mr. Fried said no.


Councilman Mitzel said it was his understanding that some municipalities would use a PUD agreement for exactly what was proposed tonight. The site plan would actually be entered in and what was actually proposed with all the conditions of the parking and expansion would be entered in and it would be PUD as opposed to being conditional zoning.


Mr. Fried said PUD was a conditional zoning.




It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason



That the request be postponed to allow the Planning Consultant, Planning Commission and Planning Department

time to explore the merits of P-1 amendment to allow

this type of parking as a special land use.





Councilman Schmid said this did come before Council in 1992 and was rejected. He said it had a long history whereby the land was not zoned B-3 back when Mr. Feldman build his facility for good reason. It was to protect Fountain Park Apartments behind the development. He said long discussions were held by very concerned Council people that there would be a space between extensive use of a dealership with body shops and so on and Fountain Park. Therefore, the area was not allowed to be rezoned and it remained RM-1. He said the last time this was before Council he was concerned about the body shop. He said the doors opened to the rear and he was concerned about the noise. He said it was still his concern and if it was used for parking he could agree with some form of zoning to go to parking because it had to be used. He said he didn't think parking would have a great impact on Fountain Park. He asked if there was any way that the doors would not open to the back towards Fountain Park.


Mr. Rogers said there was a little bit of the Fountain Park II project to the west that juts up and he knew the paint and bump shop issue was being discussed. He said they had to have that function and additional space to put it on the east end of the building but was told that a new dealership was going to go there.

Councilman Schmid said he was surprised they could squeeze another dealership in there.


Mr. Rogers said they would take all the parking along Grand River and put it in back.


Councilman Schmid said he would not support it this evening because of the increased facilities of the body shop and intrusion on residential to the rear. He said he could buy parking of the nature that they were suggesting or additional assurances that the body and paint shop would not in any way, shape or form impact the apartments behind them.


Councilwoman Mason asked who the new dealership would be.


Mr. Rogers said it was Mr. Tkacz.


Mr. Tkacz said it would be a new executive or luxury automobile dealership. He said it was with the General Motors Corporation of the luxury class which would be built to the east. He said it was the intent of the program as presented in Council's documents.


Mr. Tkacz said it was the addition to the back which was the request for 43 feet of building structure because of the way the present facility was built. He said 14 years ago when this facility was constructed 72 feet was built as the vehicle recondition area which had the paint spray area and the internal section of parts and parts storage. He said the request for the 43 feet was to add 70 feet, 30 foot on the existing B-3, 43 feet in order to gain 12 additional stalls. He said there was to be no paint equipment within the new 73 feet area. He said at present there were 5 over head doors along the southern wall of the property line. He said if it changed there would only be one and all parts would come in from the side.


Mr. Tkacz said as Mr. Rogers said in the original proposal a number of years ago all the property to the east was zoned 600 + foot depth that did the same thing as the B-3.


Yes (5-Toth, Mitzel, No (1-McLallen) Absent (1-Pope)

Schmid, Mason

Crawford) Motion carried


Mr. Rogers asked for clarification. He said the Implementation Committee or the staff and himself would look at the P-1 District and set up a special land use arrangement for this type of parking. He asked if that was correct.


Mayor McLallen said Councilman Mitzel's intent was to re-evaluate the P-1 zoning to answer the question of the extended term parking for commercial vehicles.


Mr. Rogers said that was the one thing Councilman Mitzel would like them to look at.


Councilman Mitzel said that was the intent of his motion.


Councilwoman Mason asked Mr. Rogers to also pick up the December, 1992 minutes and compare them with this.


Mr. Rogers said he would and asked if there was any encouragement for this development to encroach into the RM-1.


Councilwoman Mason said no.


Councilman Schmid said they would have to look at it.


Mr. Rogers said they would come back with some alternatives.


Mr. Tkacz asked if Council was rewriting the whole P-1 District just to do this. He asked if that was what they were saying. He asked if that was the information he should take back to his client that Council was totally rewriting the zoning book under the P-1 District just to accommodate the back parking. He said that was what he was drawing from this meeting.


Mr. Fried said that might very well be the answer but Mr. Rogers wouldn't give him the answer tonight. He said they had to look at the ordinance, look at the problem . . .


Mr. Tkacz said they were looking at a 6 to 12 month period to rewrite a zoning section.


Mr. Fried said no.


Mr. Tkacz said he worked in 9 states and 3 countries and knew what it took to rewrite a zoning with public meetings.


Mayor McLallen said the Council had postponed this issue while the ordinance was looked at.


Councilman Schmid said he needed a point of clarification. He said he thought a recommendation that in this particular case it would be a better fit if any changes of an ordinance would be in the P-1 as opposed to conditioning B-3.


Mr. Fried said they intended to look at the ordinance and if it was more in line with what the proposal was instead of making it a conditional rezoning to make it an ordinance rezoning.


Councilman Schmid said he would not have chosen to redo the whole ordinance.


Councilman Mitzel said he intended to examine the possibility of a special land use within that district as a better option than B-3 with conditions.




5. Ordinance 95-120.03 - Amendments to Massage Parlor Ordinance

I Reading


It was then,


Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Toth


That the Ist Reading of Ordinance 95-120.03 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-10 AND 20-52 OF THE NOVI




WITHIN THE CITY OF adopted with the changes recommended by Council.


Yes (5-Toth, Crawford, No (1-Schmid) Absent (1-Pope)

Mitzel, Mason

McLallen) Motion carried



6. Appeal from Paul Wagner of decision of the Assessor regarding

lot splits - East Lake Drive


Mayor McLallen stated that Mr. Wagner owned parcels of property that he wanted to assemble.


Paul Wagner said there are four lots 60, 61, 62, 63 that were 50 foot lots on East Lake Drive and they were on the road side and also go through the same width of 200 feet on the lake side. He said they were proposing that the 4 lots be made into 3 lots. Instead of being 50 foot lots, Parcel A would be 66 feet, Parcel B would be 66 feet and Parcel C would be approximately 68 feet. He said it would also go through to the lake side to be equal to the same dimensions.


Mr. Wagner said there was a letter from the Assessor in Council's packets that had approved the road side because they were large enough for him to do. He had approved that split but because the lake side was by ordinance less then 6,000 sq. ft. he did not have permission to approve that split because it was smaller.


Mr. Wagner said what they were proposing was that Council would allow the split on the lake side so that they would be selling Parcel A and Parcel D together and Parcel B and Parcel E together and Parcel C and Parcel F together. He said it was simply to make them larger instead of having 50 foot small lots.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth


That the request be approved that three lots would

be created Lots A, B and C confirmed by affidavit.





Councilman Crawford stated he moved for approval because apparently according to the documentation Parcels A, B and C came under the ordinance and were approvable. He said it was just the additional lake side parcels and due to the nature of most of those parcels around the lake it makes sense to include those.


Councilwoman Mason said he had to divide them up this way because he couldn't build on 50 foot lots.


Mr. Wagner said they were allowed to build on 50 foot lots there.


Councilwoman Mason said she thought they had to have 65 foot or a variance.


Mr. Fried said it was a non-conforming lot and the ordinance provided that it could be built on. He said the language of Section 2502 paragraph 2, said "in any District where single family dwellings are permitted a dwelling may be erected on any single lot of record at the effective date of the adoption of the ordinance" even though it didn't meet the R-4 zoning which was 80 foot, 10,000. He said it went on to say " if two or more lots, a combination of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage and single ownership are of record at the time of passage or amendment of this ordinance and if they don't meet the requirements for lot they can be developed provided the minimum lot width is 60 feet and the minimum lot area is 6,000."


Councilwoman Mason said that was correct so therefore he couldn't build on a 50 foot lot so he had to combine lots.


Mr. Fried said yes if he owned more than one of the lots.


Councilwoman Mason said then he was taking two lots and splitting them into three on the lake front.


Mr. Wagner said that was correct.


Councilwoman Mason said this was creating one extra ingress and egress even if it was pedestrian.


Mr. Fried said he didn't intend nor would it be permitted to build a house on those parcels on the lake side. So they are just part of the ownership of the street side.


Councilwoman Mason said there were only two and now they are being split into three.


Mr. Fried said there were four.


Mr. Wagner said he was making four 50's into three 66's.


Councilwoman Mason said they were just trying to match it with the piece across the street.


Mr. Wagner said that was correct.


Mr. Fried said Mr. Wagner had to submit an amended affidavit to comply with what he was telling Council he was going to do so that it could be recorded so Council knew that the lake side lots would be used with the other lots. He said the affidavit didn't spell that out.


Mr. Fried said there would have to be one legal description of Parcel A & D as a combined lot and one legal description for Parcel B & E and one for Parcel C and F. They need an affidavit to that effect that they would be used in that combination.


Councilman Toth said if Council made a motion to approve the lot split that should be subject to exercising the full intent of the affidavit.


Mr. Fried said they would be required to file a affidavit with that requirement in it.


Councilman Crawford said that was the intent of his motion. He said he certainly didn't think there would be six separate lots there. He said three lots went from one side of the road to the other side of the road and that he would not build on the lake side.


Mr. Fried said his motion was clear. He said he would have to file another affidavit in accordance with the ordinance.


Mayor McLallen restated the motion:


That the lot splits be approved creating Lots A, B, and C based on the discussion that would include an affidavit confirming that these are only lots A, B and C.


Mayor McLallen said based on the discussion at the table and the motion as stated by Councilman Crawford the end result of the motion would be to create three lots, A, B and C confirmed by affidavit. She asked if that was the intent of the motion.


Councilman Crawford said it was.


Councilman Mitzel said technically there are 6 lots.


Mr. Fried said with the lot split they would have one legal description combining Lot C and F, Lot A and D would have one legal description, and Lot B and E would have one legal description.



Councilman Mitzel said that would be different than the rest of East Lake Drive.


Mr. Fried said that was correct.


Mr. Wagner said they told him at the County that because the road went in between there would be different sidwell numbers. He asked if he could make a suggestion that Council make the lot Parcel A and Parcel D the combination of those two which would have different legal descriptions be one lot. Also, Parcels B & E which would have different sidwell numbers be made into one lot. He said the same thing would be accomplished. He thought there would be a problem because the County wouldn't issue a sidwell number with the road in between.


Mr. Fried said the affidavit would specify that Parcel A and D would be used as one lot. He said whether there are two sidwell numbers or not was immaterial to Council.



Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously




7. Resolution - Transfer of Ownership of Resort Class C license

from Momantom Investment Group (Shield's Pizza) to Anbe

Investments, Inc.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth



That the request from ANBE INVESTMENTS, INC. to transfer

ownership of 1994 12 Months Resort Class C licensed business,

located at 42100 Grand River, Novi, MI 48375, Oakland County,

from MOMANTOM INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. be considered for approval. It is the consensus of this legislative body that the application be recommended for issuance.





Councilman Schmid asked what the use was going to be.


Allen Barnett, 31140 Wellington Drive, representing Evelyn Barnett and Anbe Investments said it was to be an up scale sports theme gathering place restaurant and eatery. He said it would feature large screen TV's and a gathering spot for the community and families. He said it would be a place that after the softball games they could show replays, enjoy their fine food and comfortable atmosphere.


Mr. Barnett said it would be called the Library Sports Pub and Grill; it's a place where the core would be extensive books and a place that everyone would be comfortable walking into.


Councilman Schmid said it was the second or third time this had come before Council. He asked if it was not so that when a license was transferred or issued that they must come forward with what the facility would be and have some renderings, etc. He said he thought this was in the ordinance. He said until a minute ago he had no idea if it was going to be a sports bar or a pizzeria.


Mr. Kriewall said he thought it would be the same operation as before. He thought it would be a Shield's.


Councilman Schmid said he also thought it would be a Shield's when he didn't find anything in the packet.


Councilwoman Mason asked if it was in the Shield's location and if anything would be changed on the exterior.


Mr. Barnett said it would be in the exact same place and nothing would be changed on the exterior.


Councilwoman Mason said then he was just coming in for his sign square footage which was the same as Shield's. She said they were not doing anything to affect the exterior and the interior had to meet police and fire codes and the building restrictions and that was not in Council's hands.


Mr. Barnett said that had been signed off.


Councilwoman Mason said they were coming because it was part of the ordinance saying they were buying the liquor license from Shield's and was that OK with Council.


Councilman Schmid said Councilwoman Mason was accurate but it was not consistent with the ordinance. He said when they are bringing in a new facility they had to come in with the intent of the use, type of use and Mr. Barnett was talking about a sports bar and several other things which are probably very compatible. He said the ordinance clearly stated that Council should know these things up front before a new license was issued or a license was transferred. He knew this was true for a new license but assumed it was the same for one transferred.


Councilman Schmid said it was very important that Council knew what went into the restaurant. He said there was a very, up beat and expensive furniture store in that facility and he would not want to jeopardize that with some activity that would not be amenable to that.


Mr. Fried said Councilman Schmid was absolutely right, the ordinance did require it and Council didn't have it.


Councilman Crawford withdrew his motion because he wasn't aware that an extensive review was needed to do this. He asked Mr. Fried to read that portion of the ordinance.


Mr. Fried said "transfer of any existing liquor license covered hereunder shall be subject to each of the requirement, criteria and procedure, including fees, set forth in this article for the granting of a new license. At the meeting the applicant should be prepared to discuss the following:


1. Cost Estimates for the building, furnishing and fixtures

as part of the proposal.


2. Site Plan information, including landscaping and other

aesthetic features of the proposal.


Councilman Crawford said that was enough and that he would withdraw his motion as he was not aware of all that.


Councilwoman Mason asked if the majority of Council granted a liquor license to someone on Lake Drive who didn't even have an address during the period of this Council. She said now Council was saying when someone transferred a license Council would put their feet in the fire. She said Council better look at what they are doing here because they did not hold that during the time Council allowed someone to take a license without an address and no building.


Mayor McLallen said the attorney had advised Council that they were not in compliance with the ordinance and it was most difficult to have brought Mr. Barnett to Council and to have done this. She said at this point the motion had been withdrawn and until there can be a proper presentation . . .


Mr. Fried suggested the applicant meet with the planning section. He said they had done this before and could advise him of exactly what he had to do and he could come back to Council.


Mayor McLallen said Council would attempt to get this item on the next agenda.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason


That the transfer of ownership of Resort Class C license from Momantom Investment Group to Anbe Investments, Inc. be postponed until June 19.


Councilman Mitzel also strongly encouraged the Administration to follow the ordinance and be consistent with it. He said this had been an ongoing problem with liquor licenses. He said Councilwoman Mason was correct Council had not been consistent but he believed a few months ago Council went through the same issue. He said someone came forward and Councilman Schmid brought up exactly the point that was raised tonight. Councilman Mitzel said he had brought it up before to open the ordinance and check the criteria. He said the packet information that was supplied on a regular basis on this type of subject had not been following the ordinance. He said something had to be done because this was embarrassing to bring . . .


Mr. Kriewall said they had written a memo to Planning after the last time and he didn't know what happened.


Councilman Mitzel apologized to the petitioner for bringing him before Council tonight.



Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously



Councilman Toth said he was very patient and asked to be recognized during this discussion. He said Mayor McLallen completely ignored him and ignored him again. He said either put on a pair of glasses or find out where he was at the table. He said this had happened time and time again and Councilman Schmid was correct. He said this department had continued to do this to Council. He said they should understand the ordinances. He said it was a bad reflection on the department and the City as a whole. Councilman Toth said this poor fella came in here and he had supposedly received all the information and applied and filled out the forms. He felt that Mr. Kriewall should take it upon himself to make sure that it didn't happen again and perhaps have some weekly quiz on the ordinance to find out if the staff understood what they were supposed to be doing.


Mr. Kriewall said they did write a memo to the staff and didn't know what happened. He thought the presumption was that it was the same operation and they were just changing owners and names.


Councilman Toth said someone should be chewed out tomorrow morning because if it comes up again we are really going to be tied up about this.







8. Road Program Discussion/Taft Road Update and possible bid

award for Wixom Road and Eleven Mile Road


Tony Nowicki informed Mayor McLallen that the remaining funds available for this program were approximately $23 Million and the projected costs for building the roads with the exception of the current proposals for Taft Road come to $24 Million.


Mr. Nowicki said at the March 27, 1995 meeting Council reviewed the Taft Road issue and charged the Administration with a number of tasks. Those tasks included the development of the Taft Road Extension Conceptual Design Alignment #8 to further define and accurately pin down the estimated construction costs.


He said Council also requested that the Administration seek bids for the 11 Mile Road paving from Wixom to Beck, and Wixom Road paving from 10 Mile to 11 Mile Road. Council also requested a roadway bond financial update.


Mr. Nowicki said the Taft Road Extension was reviewed by JCK and Associates and they had a comprehensive report which was included in Council's packets. He said the bottom line was that they had identified construction costs exceeding $10 Million and approaching $11 Million.


He said they identified a couple of sensitive areas with respect to the environment and that detailed report was also in Council's packets.



Mr. Nowicki said Garey Foyt was present to answer any specific questions Council had regarding their development process on this particular estimate of cost.


Mr. Nowicki said they had bid two projects, Wixom Road and Eleven Mile Road and a detailed cost breakdown for the bids was included in Council's packets. He said the 11 Mile Road paving from Wixom to Beck came in at $809,554.85. He said Wixom Road came in higher at $1,708,437.84. He said both of the projects consisted of a 24 foot bituminous pavement, concrete curbs and gutters and drainage.


Mr. Nowicki said regarding the Roadway Bond Program there was a financial update which was included in the packets. He said essentially there was a total projected revenue for the entire bond program at a little over $23,189,402.21. He said if they went through with the actual costs plus the estimated costs for the entire remaining bond program factoring in the Taft Road cost of the alignment that was originally costed out at approximately $3.1 Million, the total anticipated expenditure was $24,708,821.13. He said it was a little bit short.


Councilman Mitzel said if Council were to award the 11 Mile and also the Wixom bid there would still be $1.9 Million remaining.


Mr. Nowicki said there was approximately $1,882,386.00 left.


Councilman Mitzel said then that was what would really be available for Taft Road.


Mr. Nowicki said that was correct.


Councilman Mitzel asked if there was an alignment that fell within that price range.


Mr. Nowicki said that was correct.


Mr. Kriewall strongly recommended that Council move ahead with the two projects that were bid. He said they were part of the original bond issue voted by this community for construction. He said they had gone through an extensive design process and right of way acquisition on these projects. He said there might be some arbitrage problems in the road bonding program if these funds are not expended. He said he thought it made all kinds of sense and logic to move ahead with these projects at this time. He felt it was to the best interest of the community and we knew all along that we would probably have to vote additional funds for any of the Taft Road Alignments other then some of the alignments west of the C & O Tracks. He felt coupling the remaining funds with a future bond issue would be the proper way to proceed. He said if the projects are ready to go he would hate to have an optimum construction season missed and he thought Council should move ahead with the bids.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Toth


That the Wixom Road paving be awarded in the amount bid of $1,708,437.84 to South Hill Construction Company and the Eleven Mile Road paving in the amount of $809,545.85 also to South Hill Construction Company.







Councilman Schmid said he was troubled greatly that Taft Road would not be built with the bonding monies and that the money had been expended and Taft Road would come in last place when it should have been well up on the agenda.


He said he was further alarmed by the report from JCK who did a great job of telling Council that the DNR would not allow the #8 Alignment and he did not believe one word of it.


Councilman Schmid said it seemed that if the DNR allowed M-5 through hundreds and hundreds of square feet of peat, more then this would ever hit, that they would not be that upset about going through this particular configuration. He said Mr. Foyt spent considerable time saying that the DNR would never allow this to go through.


Councilman Schmid said this seemed to be a continuation of a hardball planning on Taft Road. He thought it was unfortunate that it started out clear off in the western part of Taft Road which delayed this project 2 or 3 years. He said it should have been built somewhere near the #8 recommended road. He said he would bet several months salary that the DNR with the influence that JCK had would accept this yet JCK continued to suggest they would not. He thought the other two roads ought to be built at this time but he thought this was caused by unnecessary and inappropriate delays on Taft Road. He said he didn't know if the City and citizens would come up with another bonding issue. He said this put the old pressure package on again; if Taft Road was wanted more money would have to be spent. He said there was probably enough in the original bonding proposal to do this had it been done in a timely fashion. He said he would support the motion but thought JCK better start talking to the DNR because it's going to go through some swamp land.


Councilman Toth said the prices looked good to him and asked Mr. Nowicki how they looked to him.


Mr. Nowicki said he conducted a real cursory review of those particular bid prices and some of the unit prices were significantly below some of the other prices submitted by the bidders. He said they did have some concerns but as long as the contractors post sufficient bonds he was willing to take the risk.


Councilman Toth said the contractor had done other work in the City and there had been no problems that he was aware of.


Mr. Nowicki said that was correct.


Councilman Toth said he would support the motion.


Councilwoman Mason said she would not support the motion for the very fact that the total project would be $24 Million and there was only $23 Million. She said contrary to what Mr. Kriewall said Council never thought they were going to run short of those roads that they planned to do. She said there was something wrong here. She said if we felt we were going to run short why didn't we bond enough.


Mr. Kriewall said one of the key reasons it over ran had to do with the Decker Road excavation it was $1 Million more than the original estimates for construction on that particular project. He said the total road program ran a million dollars over on one project and that was why they delayed the bid momentarily to analyze it further to see whether they could scale it down.


Councilwoman Mason said then there was $2.9 Million.


Mr. Kriewall said that was correct.


Councilwoman Mason asked what the least expensive alignment was for Taft Road.


Mr. Kriewall said $2.9 Million.


Councilwoman Mason asked if that was in the best place.


Mr. Kriewall said no.


Councilwoman Mason said we either over spent or under bonded.


Mr. Kriewall said when a bond program was put together you don't get into specific engineering. Fortunately, by the time you would vote again on another bond issue you would have defined the route for Alternate #8. He said the left over funding in the bond issue should certainly support the total engineering costs and soil analysis to at least get the Taft Road Extension on the shelf and it should be able to roll rather quickly.


Councilwoman Mason said but no money to build it.


Mr. Kriewall said no money to build it because it was going to cost.


Councilwoman Mason said so spend all the money on engineering, borings and no money to build it and go back to the people.


Mr. Kriewall said the problem was the cost had gone from $2.9 Million to $10 Million now.


Councilwoman Mason said she would not support it because the Taft Road Connector was out on the streets now.


Councilman Mitzel said it might be true that the original proposal for the Taft Road Connector could be done but it seemed to be the least favorable from a traffic standpoint from the residents views expressed at the recent public hearings. He hoped Council didn't spend $1.9 Million for engineering for the remainder part of Taft Road. He said Alignment #8 was similar to Alignment #9 but #9 was a little shorter because it would connect to the existing West Road further south and utilize more existing pavement. He asked if that would be a significant cost reduction and was he correct in saying that the main part of the cost of that alignment would be along the railroad tracks further south in the swamp area or the wetland area.


Mr. Foyt said most of the money in the $10-$11 Million was in the peat excavation.


Councilman Mitzel said looking at the cross sections they seemed to be closest to the river by the railroad tracks there.


Mr. Foyt said they thought originally by tucking it close to the railroad tracks they might be able to utilize some of the ballast that the railroad put had gone in years ago to build a track. He said when they did the hydro survey of the area, they never found the ballast even though they were tucked up right against it. He said the railroad track was sinking and the railroad company comes through every few years to add ballast to raise it. He said they checked with the railroad company and they had no records even in house of when they built that. He said there was somewhere between 13 and 15 foot on the average of peat that would have to be removed.



Councilman Mitzel asked how it compared to the Decker Road Project.


Mr.Foyt said from the old existing Decker Road which was now probably where the center line of Decker Road was to the east was the only area they had to remove the peat. He said in that area there was a wedge underneath those further two east bound lanes for around 8 to 1,000 feet. He said the peat average excavation was anywhere from 5 to 10 feet. He said this would be going down the complete cross section for roughly about 13 to 15 feet for a longer distance. He said that was what they were finding on the soil surveys.


Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Kriewall when the Taft Road Extension Committee was set up and Council said it was a 6 month committee with a 60 day report. He asked Mr. Kriewall if he felt that within that time frame he would be able to have the final alignment recommendation.


Mr. Kriewall said yes.


Councilman Crawford said he saw a request for bike paths on Wixom Road and on 11 Mile and asked where it came from. He said he was under the impression that there was no consideration of bike paths particularly on 11 Mile between Taft and Beck.


Mr. Nowicki said he thought it was an inquiry of costs and he thought it came from the Council table.


Councilman Crawford said he did not remember that. The discussion he remembered way before this project was constructed

when Council was acquiring right of ways he thought the impression of everyone, particularly the residents, was there would be no sidewalks along 11 Mile between Taft and Beck.


Mr. Nowicki said that was correct.


Councilman Crawford said if that was the case why did we ask what it would cost.


Mr. Nowicki said a Council Member had asked for that information.


Councilman Crawford said one Council Member asked and we go through all this trouble because one Council Member asked for something.


Mr. Nowicki said he thought it was at the March 27 meeting and again his memory may be faulty but he thought it came up at the meeting.


Councilman Crawford said he didn't remember that.


Councilman Mitzel said during the March 27 meeting when Council went to seek approval for bids he raised the question about safety paths. He said at the meeting it was mentioned that it should not be part of the bids but if Council wished as a general item, to get a general cost idea, that Administration would prepare it. He said Council did not object and it was not part of the bid.


Councilman Crawford said there had been some time spent and he assumed expense when the residents on 11 Mile particularly understood that there would not be any bike paths there. He said he would vote against the motion. He said he would be prepared to vote for the Wixom Road project but would not vote for 11 Mile between Wixom and Beck. He said he would vote against the motion unless it was separated.


Councilman Toth said he thought the prices were very good and would not get any lower. He said if Council considered this at a later date it would be at a much high cost for the residents. He said the total project was about 7% over budget which was not too bad. He thought that in the best interest of the entire City both of the roads should be paved. He said remember if other roads are paved they have a tendency to take some of the traffic off other paved roads. He said he had a problem forcing all the traffic onto a few major streets in Novi and they get all the congestion and all the traffic.


Councilman Toth said he thought it was a very good contract, good bid, good price and a very good effort on the part of the Council and he would support it.


Councilwoman Mason said Councilman Toth didn't know if they were good bids because he didn't do it for a living. She said he was making it impossible to have the Taft Road Connection go through. She said any company that earned this kind of money from any City certainly would be crazy to raise their prices if a project was put off. She said she felt the same as Councilman Crawford she would vote for one but not the other because the Taft Road Connector had to be done.


Yes (4-Toth, Mitzel, No (2-Mason, Crawford, Absent (1-Pope)


McLallen) Motion carried


Councilwoman Mason asked if the vote had to be 5.


Mr. Kriewall said it was 4 and it was already appropriated in the bond issue.


Councilwoman Mason asked Mr. Fried how many roads the money was appropriated for in the bonds.


Mr. Fried said $24 Million for all the roads that the City was going to do.


Councilwoman Mason asked how many that was.


Mr. Fried said he didn't know and that it was not appropriated for any particular road. It was appropriated for road building purposes.


Councilwoman Mason said in a sense Council had just defeated the fact that Council asked for bonding for X amount of roads and cannot complete X amount of roads. She said there was one hanging out. She wanted to know the legal ramifications of that. She said Council asked specifically for 10 roads, voting on these two roads meant only 9 roads could be done. She said the people voted for 10 roads and now someone was saying the tenth road couldn't be finished.


Mr. Fried asked if she said the ballot question was that $24 Million would be spent for ten roads. He asked if that was the ballot question.


Councilwoman Mason said she didn't know if that was the ballot question.


Mr. Fried said he didn't believe it was the ballot question but would check it out.


Councilwoman Mason said if it was not it was false advertisement by this City to say ten roads would be done with the money received and only 9 are being done. She said this was very serious and it was the people's money paying back those bonds.


Mr. Fried said he would check the ballot question.


Councilman Mitzel pulled the ballot question up on his computer and read "August 8, 1990 the following proposition will be submitted to the electors of the City of Novi at said election. Street and Highway Bonding proposition: Shall the City of Novi, County of Oakland, Michigan borrow the principle sum not to exceed $18,800,000.00 and issue as general obligation unlimited tax bonds therefore the purpose of defraying the City's share of the cost of paving, repaving, repairing, widening and improving streets and highways within the City including necessary rights of way, curbs and gutters and proper drainage facilities therefore.



Councilwoman Mason said so it's OK and Council was saying there was nothing wrong with the ballot question but it was OK to go out and go door to door the way we did to do ten roads specifically written down to every house in this community and make them think they were going to have all the roads. She said since it didn't appear on the ballot it was OK to do that. She didn't think so. She said it might legally be OK but it was wrong to do that to the public.


Mr. Fried said he was not talking about the morals of the thing he was talking about the legality of it.


Councilwoman Mason said it was immoral. She said the City could go out and bond for anything then and fool the public.



9. Ordinance 95.45.22 - Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance -

Safety Paths to Schools - I Reading - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND





It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth


That the I Reading of Ordinance 95.45.22 - Amendment



Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously



10. Appointments to Economic Development Corporation, Police and

Fire Needs Committee and Taft road Committee and Senior Housing



Mrs. Stipp, City Clerk was asked to tally the ballots

for the above committees.



11. Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 440


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel


That Warrant No. 440 be approved.


Yes (4-Crawford, Mitzel, No (2-Mason, Toth) Absent (1-Pope) Schmid, McLallen) Motion carried




Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court said since the money had been approved for Wixom Road and 11 Mile and there was still $1.8 Million left over he would like to see the Council come forward quickly with how the rest of that money could be spent. He said apparently the language was in very broad and general terms. He asked if they could identify a project or two or three that could have some immediate and lasting effect and be funded through this remaining money.





Councilman Mitzel stated he submitted a written report on several committees and if there were questions, feel free to ask.





1. Neon Signs

2. Flags


Mayor McLallen brought this issue before Council. Mayor McLallen said these issues kept coming up in the community and they needed to be settled. She said there were several letters from a variety of businesses on the neon signs. She said they are existing in several locations around the City. She said members of the Chamber of Commerce asked that the issue be readdressed. She said she would like to send both packages to Ordinance Review for an update.


Mayor McLallen said the issue of flags had gotten farther than the ones in front of Vic's Market. She said it had gone into the automotive industries who were receiving the Quality 1 awards from the various automotive manufacturers. She said manufacturers wanted them to fly the flags but if they are already flying the United States flag and the Michigan flag several of the manufacturers have won more than one award so then they are in violation of the ordinance. Also, the issue of very large flags. She said she would like to group the whole package together with Council's consent and send it to review.


Councilman Schmid said they could go to committee but he disagreed. He said she mentioned the ones about the manufacturers and Council didn't tell Chrysler, GM or Ford what to put on their cars. He felt the manufacturers shouldn't tell Council how to handle the signs either. He said he saw the letter from the Chamber and he thought there had been some neon signs throughout the City against the ordinance. He said he would oppose it but he also recognized that they could go before the committee and discuss it and it would come back to Council. He said it was good that the Mayor brought these Chamber things to Council but he thought the City had an excellent sign ordinance and didn't feel it should be tampered with.


Councilman Mitzel asked if it was including banners also. He said he had a concern with banners that the City had around the Civic Center for "a community event that says enjoy Novi year round or in Spring." He said he still had not been able to figure out how that was a community event and yet no one else was allowed them. He was not advocating either way but thought there was a lack of consistency.


Mayor McLallen stated she would encourage that discussion also.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford


That the issues of Neon Signs, Flags, Banners, etc. be sent to Ordinance Review Committee for an update.


Yes (4-Mason, Toth, No (1-Schmid) Absent (1-Pope)

McLallen, Mitzel) Motion carried



3. Sidewalks


Mayor McLallen stated this came from the fact that there was $50,000 in the current budget to be spent.


Councilman Mitzel said back in May Council voted to utilize the money this year and he had been working with Mr. Nowicki. He said Mr. Nowicki put together a memo that outlined four possible projects that would provide some immediate connections between existing paths or in areas of schools. He said all four projects did come to more than $50,000.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason


That Council direct the Administration to proceed with

implementation of the Taft Road Safety Path, Willowbrook

sidewalk, 13 Mile Road Safety Path and the Ten Mile Road

sidewalk between Jamestown Drive and the Civic Center light

costing approximately $35,000.





Councilman Mitzel said the 10 Mile Road sidewalk was $48,000 if it was done from Taft to Jamestown. He said the section from the light to Jamestown was estimated around $5,400. He said that would allow Jamestown, Cedar Springs and Novi Heights to safely get to the traffic light to cross to the parks and the schools.



Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously




4. Roller Dek Hockey


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford


That the City Administration be directed to prepare a

Request for Proposals for the Roller Hockey facility to come

forward to Council for Council action at the July 10 meeting.





Councilman Mitzel said Council had a legal document, a good idea of the site and how it could be utilized and if there was a Request for Proposal there might be someone that would come forward to provide the recreational facility in very similar nature that Council agreed to.


Yes (5-Mitzel, Toth, No (1-Schmid) Absent (1-Pope)

McLallen, Crawford Motion carried



5. Schedule a Special Meeting June 19 at 7:00 p.m.


Mayor McLallen stated Item #5 was brought by Councilman Crawford requesting that Council set a special meeting at 7:00 p.m. June 19 to discuss the issue of a new City Clerk.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That a special meeting be held June 19 at 7:00 p.m. in the activities room to discuss the issue of City Clerk.





Councilman Mitzel asked if there was an executive session scheduled for that time and was advised there was not.


Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Fried to provide Council with guidance on acceptable practices or procedures for this process that Council had to go through. He said it was the first time they had to go through a process like this and it would help if he could provide some guidance on how to give a recommendation or directing the Administration to do certain activities through the selection process from this point to the final. He asked that he provide Council good direction at the Committee stage. He said it was a little confusing now that it was at the full Council stage.


Mr. Fried said that he would.


Yes (6) No (0) Absent (0) Motion carried unanimously





Mr. Kriewall said he had a response to Mr. Korte's earlier questions regarding the fence that was installed on Lots 41 and 42 on South Lake Drive which is City property.


Mr. Kriewall said apparently some neighborhood residents went there to ostensibly beautify this small section of City property. He said they built a decorative fence along South Lake Drive and the matter was referred to the City attorney by the Ordinance Department and DPW. He said the City attorney researched it and ordered that the fence be removed.


Mr. Kriewall said he was contacted by a Mrs. James who was apparently responsible for installing the fence and she indicated her intention of possibly conveying to the City the rights to the fence and that she would sign off and it would become City property.


Mr. Kriewall said the meeting was held today and Mr. Bugbee from the City Attorney's office was present along with Mr. Nowicki and himself and several residents from the neighborhood.


Mr. Kriewall said at issue was the closure of a small City parcel, two tiny lots on the lake and the exclusive use of those lots by area residents. He said they met and there was a good exchange from several neighbors in the area and the bottom line was that Mrs. James would convey by letter any rights or interests she would have in the decorative fence. He said the City could certainly maintain it as a decorative fence. He said there were traffic and liability questions raised and Mr. Nowicki would look into those. He said there was a question about an existing fire hydrant in that area and if it would have proper access by fire trucks and that would also be looked into. He said they didn't think there would be a problem with either of those issues and felt that the fence could probably remain subject to investigating those two elements. He said they would also explore designating those two lots as a mini park operated by the Parks and Recreation Department.


Mr. Kriewall said everyone seemed to be receptive to this and the only outstanding issue was one of the lots in that general area when they were assembling the property for the hotel project there was a condemnation. He said the City condemned certain access rights by homeowners in the area over some of those lots that the City had purchased. He said those residents indicated they would like to purchase or have new access rights assigned over one of the other City lots to compensate for the rights that they lost when the condemnation went through. He said they were compensated for that.


Mr. Kriewall said part of the exchange had to do with the equity of if the City were to provide free of charge access rights to a certain area of homes and if it was fair to the rest of the community. He said the more they talked about that with the City Attorney it might be a question of balance. He said they decided not to pursue the creation of another access easement over the existing lots. He said the only other issue remaining was the possibility of exchanging Mrs. Pembrook's lot for one of the other lots that the City had. He said they would pursue that over the next few weeks and come back to Council with recommendations and alternatives.


Mr. Kriewall said the meeting was very friendly. There wasn't total agreement by everybody but there seemed to be general agreement that the fence in question initially could remain on the two City lots as a decorative entity.


Councilwoman Mason said that was a totally different story than the citizens told her. She said no one agreed to leave fences on City lots to allow just a few of the people to use that property. She said most of the people said if they were going to fence off something for Mrs. X then fence off something for Mr. X over here. She was glad Mr. Kriewall thought it went good but the citizens didn't think it was good.


Mr. Kriewall reminded Councilwoman Mason that there were two factions fighting over this and there was not total agreement. He said most of the residents had accused Mr. Korte of meddling in their affairs and complaining about every little thing that occurred up there.


Councilwoman Mason said she would too if someone blocked off two City lots for just my family to use.





Mr. Fried said he had looked at the State Statute regarding budgeting. He said the City must adopt a budget and the Finance Director suggested that the budget be adopted on the June 19 meeting and not later than that. He said if the budget was not adopted by July 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year, the Council would not be allowed to expend any monies. He said if any money was spent without a budget it was a violation of the State Statute and any Council member who condoned it or any Administrative officer who did that would be subject to civil liability for the amount expended.


Mr. Fried said he was urging Council to adopt the budget at the June 19 meeting. He said he also looked at the Charter and he found that his advice to Council was wrong. He said in regard to the Truth in Taxation it required 5 votes not 4. He said as a result the resolutions were not adopted properly and they are still before Council.


Mr. Fried said they must act on Truth in Taxation and the budget. He said it was a very serious matter. He said the Finance Director suggested that it was almost imperative that Council adopt that budget June 19 so tax bills could go out. Mr. Fried said if they don't go out pursuant to that budget then there was going to be a loss of finances to the City as a result of that delay. He said these are matters that Council should take some action on at the June 19 meeting.


Councilwoman Mason asked Mr. Fried to get her the information regarding penalties by State Statute if the budget was not passed.


Mr. Fried said he would send it to her.


Councilwoman Mason said regarding the budget as far as she was concerned all the City had to do was bring everything into alignment with the money they have. She said then the budget could be passed. She said there was no sitting down and rehashing; she said bring it down where it belonged and she would have no problem voting for it.


Mr. Fried suggested that Councilwoman Mason convince the other five members of the Council.


Councilwoman Mason said she was not a lobbyist. She said there was so much money and that was all that could be spent.


Mr. Fried said someone on the Council should lobby for a budget.


Councilwoman Mason said someone on the Council should get City Administration to reduce all their costs so they fit within the money they have.


Mr. Fried said the Statute was Section 20 of the Statute that made it a civil liability to expend that money.


Councilwoman Mason said basically if the budget was not passed no money could be spent.


Mr. Fried said until the budget was passed the City couldn't even pay for the help.


Councilwoman Mason said there was no penalty for a Council person who morally couldn't vote for a budget that was spending more money than what they had.


Mr. Fried said as long as that Council person votes not to spend, any money there would not be any liability on that Council persons part.


Mr. Fried asked how the employees would be paid.


Councilwoman Mason said City Hall had to do something about that.


Councilman Mitzel said there was one fund that did pass. He said the library was a separate motion and it was 6-0 to go over Truth in Taxation.


Councilman Mitzel asked for an opinion on how many votes it would take to implement the FAC-3 Retirement Benefits. He said that last year Mr. Fried had said it took 5 votes because it was appropriation of money. He said the basic scenario was on May 1 during a budget study session a vote was taken 4-3 to grant those benefits. He spoke to Mr. Fried over the phone and he mentioned it would take 5 votes because that would be part of the budget. He said at the last budget session Council was informed by City Administration that it was not in this year's budget because there was a one year lag time and it would be in next years budget. He asked how many votes did it really take given that lag time and the potential of committing the future Council to the money.


Mr. Fried said the lag time had nothing to do with it.


Councilman Mitzel said his concern was that if Council signed up they had committed but yet there had been no 5 votes until after they had committed in the budget the following year.


Mr. Fried said the fact that it was 4-3 in discussion sessions didn't mean anything. He said it was what was in the final budget that counted.


Councilman Mitzel said until a budget was adopted with FAC-3 in it a 4-3 vote did not grant that.


Mr. Fried said absolutely not.




Councilman Toth said Council had basically four possibilities:


1. The current budget could be passed and extended out for another year.

2. The budget could be passed without any increase as proposed.

3. The budget could be passed with the increase.

4. Pass a totally new budget.


Councilman Toth said there were four possibilities that the City Administration had now. He said they could have four resolutions proposed and they could meet any one of those four requirements and have those ready. He said it did not mean that Council had to pass a budget of $19, $20 or $30 Million. He said that the State requirements were that there be a working budget in place whether it was $500 or a $1,000.


Councilman Toth said the budget could be a barebones budget if necessary and could be amended throughout the year if necessary.


Mr. Fried said Councilman Toth was absolutely correct.


Councilman Toth said there were many, many ways this could be worked on. He said there was no way he wanted to see this pressure concentrated that the Council had to approve a budget that required a tax increase. He said that was not a requirement by State Law.


Mr. Fried said the only requirement was that there be a budget, that Council lived within that budget and that it be a balanced budget.


Mr. Kriewall said he wanted to make a recommendation. He said when they presented the budget to City Council it was presented as a balanced budget under Truth in Taxation but it was not their recommended budget. He said he would recommend to Council one of the budgets that was already recommended to them which was simply eliminating $350,000 from contingencies. This would address Councilwoman Masons concerns about not having to meet with all of these study meetings again and adopting the budget not going above Truth in Taxation eliminating $350,000 from contingencies and that was the other alternative that they presented to City Council.


Councilwoman Mason asked if he meant reduce the General Fund.


Mr. Kriewall said yes.


Councilwoman Mason asked what percentage would be left in the General Fund.


Mr. Gibson said 10% would still be there.


Mr. Kriewall said all that would have to be done would be to remove the $350,000 from contingencies and they could adopt the budget without going above Truth in Taxation.


Mr. Gibson said that was exactly right. He said they increased the property tax revenues by the amount of Truth in Taxation, the additional amount, and put the offset on the appropriation or expenditure side and contingencies for $350,000. He said if Council wanted to bring the General Fund down to Truth in Taxation they could very easily remove that amount out of contingencies and it was at the Truth In Taxation level.


Councilwoman Mason asked what would be left in contingencies.


Mr. Gibson said it was an adequate amount.


Councilwoman Mason asked how much.


Mr. Gibson said he thought it was around $263,000.


Councilwoman Mason asked what the contingencies would be used for.


Mr. Gibson said the $350,000 that was talked about they had in mind for computers.


Councilwoman Mason asked if he was saying to eliminate the computers.


Mr. Gibson said that was correct and Mr. Kriewall agreed and said it was presented that way.


Councilwoman Mason said no.


Councilman Crawford wanted to remind a member of Council that six days ago there was consensus after many, many meetings, after countless hours, after many department heads were there once if not twice. He said this was discussed and discussed and to come in at the eleventh hour and take many of those issues out of context, grand stand and hold up a budget when there was consensus six days ago was an improper way to conduct Council and an improper thing to do to this City. He said they had a responsible budget and are asking for mere tenths of mils to fund some of these funds that had been already authorized by the public. He said they were not going out hog wild and increasing taxes that were not authorized. He said it was a minor amount and it had not been done in several years. He said Conncil continued to erode the base in the General Fund, Police and Fire Fund, Library Fund and in the Parks and Recreation Fund because Council had not levied Truth in Taxation.






8. Condemnation Resolution and declaration of taking - Hogue Property - 13 Mile Right of way


Councilwoman Mason removed Item #8 so that she could vote against it.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Crawford


That the Condemnation Resolution and Declaration of

taking - Hogue property - 13 Mile Right of Way be approved.



WHEREAS, present conditions in the City of Novi, Oakland

County, Michigan necessitate the improvement of Thirteen

Mile Road near Meadowbrook Road in the City of Novi; and



WHEREAS, proposed plans showing said improvement have been

prepared; and



WHEREAS, after evaluating the plans, it has been determined

that said road improvement is necessary for the use and

benefit of the public; and



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the authority vested in

the City of Novi by law, that it is hereby declared and determined that it is necessary to improve Thirteen Mile Road in the vicinity of Meadowbrook Road within the City

of Novi in accordance with the proposed plans showing said

improvement, and that said improvement is necessary for the

use and benefit of the public; and



BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City manager is hereby

authorized to execute the Declaration of Taking, which is

attached hereto; and



BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, declared and determined that it is

necessary to acquire and take an easement and the fee simple

estate to certain property located in the City of Novi,

Oakland County, Michigan, and more fully described in the Declaration of Taking attached hereto, without the consent of the owners thereof, for the purpose of improving Thirteen Mile Road, as above described, and that acquisition of said easement and fee interest in said property are necessary for the use and benefit of the public, and that a good faith written Offer to Purchase said easement and fee interest in said property has heretofore been made, all in accordance with the requirements of Act 87 of Public Acts of 1988 of the State of Michigan, as amended.




BUGBEE P.C., is hereby authorized and directed to institute

condemnation proceedings pursuant to MCL213.51, et seq.; MSA

8.265(1), as amended, for and on behalf of the City of Novi,

against the owner(s) and other parties in the interest in

said property necessary for improving Thirteen Mile Road as

hereinbefore described.



BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all resolutions and parts of

resolutions, insofar as they conflict with the provisions of this resolution, be and the same hereby are rescinded.


Yes (5) No (1-Mason) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried



11. Award bid for demolition of structures on City owned 12 Mile

property to Homrich, Inc. in the amount of $16,600.


Councilman Toth said Item #11 said to award the bid for demolition to a Momrich, Inc. in the amount of $6,600. He said the backup material that he had stated that it was Homrich, Inc. and the bid amount was $16,600.


Geraldine Stipp, City Clerk said there was an amended agenda.

Councilman Toth said he did not receive an amended agenda and the agenda that he had was awarding $6,600 to a different company.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel


That Council award the bid for demolition of structures

on City owned 12 Mile property to Homrich, Inc. in Carlton, Michigan in the amount of $16,600.





Councilman Toth said his assumption was that was the correct company based on the material in the packets.


Councilman Schmid asked how accurate that assumption was.

He said that was quite a difference between $16,600 and $6,600.


Councilman Toth said it was signed by Ms. Kalinovik, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Klaver.


Mrs. Stipp said that it was the correct amount.


Councilman Schmid asked where the buildings were.


Mr. Kriewall said they were on the Gazier parcel on 12 Mile which was about a 10 acre parcel and had about 4 buildings between Dixon and the tracks.


Yes (5) No (1-Mason) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried




Senior Housing Committee


Arnold Rzepecki 6 Mitzel, McLallen, Crawford, Schmid, Mason Toth

Helen Stabler 6 Mitzel, McLallen, Crawford, Schmid, Mason Toth

Peter Hoadley 6 Mitzel, McLallen, Crawford, Schmid, Mason Toth

Jeanette Snyder 6 Mitzel, McLallen, Crawford, Schmid, Mason




Police and Fire Needs Assessment


Andrew Dempsey 5 McLallen, Schmid, Crawford, Toth Mitzel

Gary Kelber 5 McLallen, Crawford, Toth, Mitzel, Mason

Debbie Meyers 4 Mason, Schmid, Crawford, Mitzel

John Connelly 4 Mason, McLallen, Toth, Mitzel

John Chambers 4 Mason, Schmid, Crawford, Toth

Helen Stabler 3 Schmid, Toth, Mitzel

John Alban 3 Mason, McLallen, Schmid

Kevin Crain 3 Mason, Schmid, Crawford

Lori Harris 3 Mason, Crawford, Mitzel

Mike Watza 3 McLallen, Crawford, Toth

Gary Elfner 2 McLallen, Mitzel

Donald Shaffer 1 Schmid

William Barnard 1 Toth


Mrs. Stipp said there were 5 people who received 3 votes each so Council would have to re-vote. She said a total of 2 people were needed out of those five.


Councilman Crawford asked if Helen Stabler had just been appointed to the Senior Committee.


Mrs. Stipp said that was correct.




Taft Road Route Determination Committee



Gary Zack 6 Mason, McLallen, Schmid, Crawford, Toth


Michael Condon 5 McLallen, Schmid, Crawford, Toth, Mitzel

Brad Bach 4 Mason, Schmid, Crawford,Toth

Ruth Hamilton 4 Mason, McLallen, Toth, Mitzel

Martha Hoyer 5 Mason, McLallen, Schmid, Crawford, Mitzel

James Korte 2 Mason, Toth

Joseph Sutschek (Ramco) 1 McLallen

Michael Reeves 2 Schmid, Crawford,


Mrs. Stipp said she thought both groups were represented and the Martha Hoyer was representing the South Lake Area and Gary Zack was representing the L.A.R.A. group and the rest are residents.




Economic Development Corporation


Denise Jenkins 4 Mason, Crawford, Toth, Mitzel

Katherine Cosentino 4 Mason, Crawford, Toth, Mitzel


Mrs. Stipp stated that not everyone voted.


Councilman Crawford asked if Council needed a recommendation from the Mayor and a motion to accept the Mayor's recommendation on Economic Development Corporation.


Mrs. Stipp said yes.


Mayor McLallen nominated Denise Jenkins and Katherine Cosentino.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel


That Council accept Mayor McLallen's recommendation of Denise Jenkins and Katherine Cosentino for the Economic Development Corporation.



Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously




It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason


That Council appoint Kevin Crain to the Police and

Fire Needs Assessment.


Yes (4-Crawford, Mason, No (2-Toth, Mitzel) Absent (1-Pope)

Schmid, McLallen)









1. Letter from L. Brooks Patterson Re: SMART Municipal Credits

2. Resolution received from L. Brooks Patterson Re: SMART Municipal Credits

3. Letter from James Korte Re: Ivy Leaf Walkway Vacation

4. Letter from David Fried Re: Relationship of Lou Bugbee

to Deborah Bundoff

5. Resolution from Oak Part Re: Support of SB 119

6. Letter from David M. Fried Re: Paragon Properties vs City

7. Letter from George W. Kuhn Re: Reduction in Sewer rates -

Walled Lake Sewer

8. Letter from John L. Grubba Re: SMART Resolution

9. Letter from David M. Fried Re: Business of Special Meetings

10. Resolution from City of Birmingham Re: Funding for School

Crossing Guards

11. Letter from Lynn Kocan Re: Ordinance No. 95-18 - Restrict

hours or operations of I-1 uses adjacent to certain residential districts





There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:25 a.m.












Date approved: