City Council Minutes

Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:30 p.m. in the Northville City Hall Council Chambers, 215 West Main Street, Northville, Michigan.

Present: Mayor Christopher Johnson, Mayor ProTem Carolann Ayers, Councilmembers Kevin Hartshorne, and Thomas Swigart.

Absent: Jerome Mittman (excused).

On February 12, 2001 Connor and Evan Grant assisted an elderly woman who had fallen in her driveway and had been lying there for about two hours. The boys offered first aid assistance and called 911. Mayor Johnson, Chief Petres, and Chief Allen presented Connor and Evan Grant with Citizen Commendations recognizing their mature and exemplary actions in assisting Ms. Araminta Ellison.

Angelo Badalucco, 21090 Boulder Circle, expressed concern with the condition of the railroad right-of-way as it pertained to brush debris.

Mary Ellen Patterson Hollis, 114 Walnut, was concerned with the amount of tree trunks and logs in the river behind the Phoenix Development.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Swigart to approve the agenda and consent agenda as presented. Consent agenda as follows:

City Council Minutes:

Regular Meeting of February 20, 2001

Approve Bills List: Checks #20226 - #20395

Receive Board and Commission Minutes:

Historic District: 1/17/01

Housing Commission: 1/19/01

Planning Commission: 11/7/00, 11/21/00, 12/19/00, 1/16/01, 2/6/01

Youth Assistance: 1/9/01

Receive Departmental Reports:

Youth Assistance: 1/01

Planning Commission: David Mielock

BOCA Appeals Board: James Allen (reappointment)

Building Authority: Philip Smith (reappointment)

Senior Citizens Advisory Council: Shirlee Marshall (reappointment)

Proposed Award of Landscaping Services Contract for Parks and Recreation Properties

Proposed Purchase of Industrial Washer Extractor

At the regular meeting of February 20, 2001 City Council introduced for first reading the proposed Sidewalk Café and Outdoor Seating Ordinance. The ordinance was drafted in an effort to establish permit procedures, uniform standards, operating requirements, and fees for the private use of public property. Included with the first reading, Council requested the following modifications:

Section 74-173, removing the Historic District Commission approval requirement and authorizing city staff to review permit applications for establishments within the Historic District using Historic District guidelines, with appeal to the Historic District Commission.

Section 74-175, allowing establishments that serve alcoholic beverages the opportunity to offer Sunday outdoor service for food and non-alcoholic beverage consumption.

The City Attorney reviewed the ordinance and specifically addressed the issue of governmental immunity, advising the City is not immune from liability for permitted use of its sidewalk and that charging a fee for this use does not affect this liability. The City Attorney advised a revision of Section 74-17(h), in order to strengthen the City’s insurance requirement.

Mary Poole, Poole’s Tavern, 157 E. Main St., requested clarification on the insurance coverage amounts and the difference in fees for establishments serving or not serving alcoholic beverages. Further comments included opposition to the fee schedule and the restriction of no alcoholic beverages served on public property on Sunday. Ms. Poole is supportive of an ordinance, subject to removal of fees and Sunday service restrictions.

Steve Calkins, 317 W. Dunlap, stated he was opposed to both the ordinance and the proposed fee schedule. Further comments stated that outdoor seating enhanced the downtown, the eating establishments, and offered an amenity to encourage people to frequent the downtown eateries as opposed to restaurants in surrounding communities. Mr. Calkins questioned defining the outdoor season time period and felt the market should dictate when businesses decide to offer outdoor seating.

Beth Beeson, 504 W. Dunlap, stated she was opposed to the sale of alcohol on public property for private gain unless the establishment was subject to a fee. Further comments stated the proposed fees, when looked at from a daily basis, appeared minimal.

Beverly Berardo, Northville Chamber of Commerce, stated that the outdoor cafés set the City apart from surrounding communities as well as encouraging people to come to the downtown. Further comments stated the large fee discourage outdoor seating.

Jessica Poole, 320 Fairbrook Ct., requested clarification on the use of public property.

Jim Long, 400 Fairbrook Ct., stated he is opposed to the square footage fee as it is another tax on business owners. Further comments stated support of standardized application procedures and operating standards and that outdoor seating provides a friendly atmosphere.

Greg Presley, 412 W. Dunlap, stated he agreed that the market should determine the outdoor seating season time period and questioned the April 1 to November 1 time period. A further comment stated that outdoor seating is comparable to closing streets for special events for the greater good of the people.

Robert Vonbuskirk, 254 Linden, stated that Sunday business in the downtown is very slow to non-existent and that other communities seem to be more viable.

Andy Genitti, 529 Horton, supports continuing to have the City Council review outdoor seating requests on a case-by-case basis as opposed to adopting an ordinance.

Further comments from citizens who were not identified focused on opposition to the ordinance and the proposed fee structure, comments that the proposed fee is another tax, and that the process to administer the outdoor seating ordinance, from permit application to enforcement, is of no additional cost to the City.

Council Comments / Discussion: Discussion took place on the use of public property and the proposed ordinance. Key discussion items included:

The fact that sidewalks are public property and the Council has a responsibility to determine whether the taxpayers should be compensated for use of their property for private gain. A further comment stated that anyone can use public property; however, when the property is used for private gain, the public’s access is restricted.

City Council has a responsibility to maintain the sidewalk for public use and assess the potential for further liability to the City with the placement of tables and chairs on sidewalks and rights-of- way.

Outdoor seating and sidewalk cafés increase the size of an establishment as well as the number of patrons, thus increasing the need for parking, yet additional parking credits are not assessed.

The proposed ordinance simplifies the process for establishments to apply for an outdoor seating or sidewalk café permit and offers a uniform standard. It was further clarified that the ordinance was structured to incorporate previous City Council approval conditions and practices, including the outdoor season time period of April 1 to November 1.

It has been the wish of the DDA to have more businesses open on Sunday as well as in the evenings during the week. Businesses that are open in the evening would assist in keeping the downtown viable.

A comment suggesting the DDA reduce the 2 mills assessed to DDA district businesses, in an attempt to provide tax relief.

A comment to consider the option of not adopting the ordinance and continue the current practice of City Council approval of outdoor seating requests on a case-by-case basis as opposed to having an ordinance with uniform standards and requirements.

After further discussion, Council proposed the following ordinance modifications:

Less restrictive language to allow establishments that do not serve alcoholic beverages the flexibility to determine when to offer outdoor seating. Further, tables, chairs, and snow must allow 42" of available sidewalk for pedestrian traffic. During the winter months, tables and chairs should be removed every evening (Sections 74-173(d) and 74-175(f)).

Language to set a date for placing and removing rails for sidewalk cafés serving alcoholic beverages.

Modification to allow Sunday outdoor service for alcoholic beverages after Noon on Sunday.

Modification to allow sidewalk café and outdoor seating permits to be approved by the City Manager, without the need for Council approval.

The proposed ordinance, with the modifications, will be placed on the March 19, 2001 City Council agenda.

The Sidewalk Café and Outdoor Seating Ordinance requires the City Council to establish fees to cover the cost of administration, oversight, actual use of public property, and possible violations. Staff reviewed the fees and fines from other communities and proposed the following fee schedule:

Non-refundable Application Fee: $35

$.15 per square foot of occupied space per month / non-alcoholic beverage establishment

$.30 per square foot of occupied space per month / alcoholic beverage establishment

Ordinance violation fees starting at $25 for the first offense, with an increase to $100. Subsequent offenses beyond the third offense would be referred to the District Court.

Terry Marrs, 45730 Fermanaugh, stated he found it difficult to quantify the fee and felt the Council should encourage other businesses to offer outdoor seating.

Jim Long, 400 Fairbrook Ct., stated the DDA voted 7:2 in opposition of a square footage fee.

Greg Presley, 412 W. Dunlap, stated the taxpayers are compensated when the right-of-way is leveraged for the public good. A further comment stated that pedestrian traffic in the downtown is minimal and the City should use the right-of-way as a tool to encourage people to frequent the downtown establishments.

Council Comments / Discussion: Discussion centered on the proposed fee schedule, the fee schedules of other communities that allow sidewalk cafés, the fact the public property is being used for private gain, and whether taxpayers should be recompensed. There was a sense of needing to balance the use of public property for private gain with adopting a fee that would allow businesses the opportunity to recoup the fee in a reasonable amount of time. There was a suggestion to retain the application fee of $35 and reduce the square footage fee to $.15 per square foot for all businesses. A further comment stated that a small, informal survey of residents indicated they felt a fee for use of public property for private gain was appropriate.

After further discussion, Council consensus determined that a fee structure should not be adopted before the adoption of the Sidewalk Café and Outdoor Seating ordinance.

A. Proposed Municipal Building Window Replacement Project

As part of the establishment of goals and objectives and allocation of undesignated racetrack funds within the Public Improvements Fund, the City Council authorized the solicitation of bids to replace the Municipal Building Windows, with the following results:

Paliside Window and Door $68,650.00

Gala Construction $92,986.25

Triple M Builders $92,394.00

Andrew Lawrence Construction $89,300.00

Northville Lumber $86,290.00 (alternates)

As the base bids exceeded the budgeted amount of $67,100 for this project, City staff and the City’s consultant reviewed alternative bids submitted by Northville Lumber Company for $71,640 and $64,576. Both alternate bids meet or exceed the specifications at a lower cost than the base bid of the other vendors. However, additional repairs may be needed over one window in Meeting Room A. The repair cost is not reflected in any of the submitted bids and may require a budget amendment should the repair work exceed the budgeted amount.

Council Comments / Discussion: Questions centered on the unit factors, energy efficiency, and the installation schedule (none at this time). Further discussion focused on the damage to the area surrounding the window in Meeting Room A and the possibility of additional repairs. It was noted that Dave Mielock has served as the City’s consultant on this project at no charge to the City.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Hartshorne to reject all base bids received as all bids exceeded the City’s budgeted allocation. Motion carried unanimously.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Swigart to select the alternate bid from Northville Lumber Company in the amount of $64,576 for the installation of Andersen "Simulated Tru-Divided" windows. Motion carried unanimously.

On June 5, 2000 City Council awarded a contract to ABC Paving for specified improvements to Lexington Boulevard from Taft to Eight Mile Road. The project was completed in the fall of 2000 and fulfils the City’s commitment to accept and improve this roadway. During construction, project changes were made which increased the construction cost to the City, requiring a final balancing change order of $22,501.81. This amount has been added to the original contract amount of $104,478.00, bringing the final contact amount to $126,979,81.

Motion Hartshorne, seconded by Swigart to accept the recommendation of McNeely and Lincoln Associates, Inc. to approve Change Order #1 increasing the Lexington Boulevard Improvement Project to ABC Paving of Trenton, Michigan, by $22,501.81 to $126.979.81. Motion carried unanimously.

Several years ago, the City approved the placement of a communications tower on the City Yards site at 650 Doheny Drive. AT&T owns the cellular facility and has requested a power upgrade from Detroit Edison, which would result in the placement of a new underground line from an existing pole on Gerald Avenue, through City-owned property, to a new pad-mounted electric transformer located adjacent to the cellular tower. Detroit Edison requested the City grant an easement across City property to the tower location. The easement request is across easement areas the City has already granted to AT&T, so there is no additional impact to the City.

Motion Swigart, seconded by Hartshorne to approve a 110-foot by 10-foot easement for Detroit Edison to cross City property located at 650 Doheny Drive. Further, the Director of Public Works is authorized to sign the easement document on behalf of the City. Motion carried unanimously.

Swigart stated the Parks and Recreation Commission was seeking City Council affirmation of the current operational policy as more groups are requesting the City offer additional funding in order to decrease program costs to participants. Brief discussion followed regarding the exploration of a recreation district and the suggestion that a comparison of fee structures from surrounding communities might be necessary. It was the Council’s consensus that the City’s role is to provide the facilities, and a significant funding increase would constitute cuts in other areas.

B. Staff Communications None.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Dianne Massa

City Clerk