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 Pro Tem Carolann Ayers, Councilmembers Kevin Hartshorne, Jerome Mittman, and Thomas Swigart

Absent: None

A. Citizen Comments None

Consent Agenda Item 4J "Request to Solicit / International Order of Alhambra" was moved to the main agenda as New Business 9K.

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

Approve City Council Minutes:

Regular Meeting of May 17, 2004

Approve Bills List: Checks #37632 to #37725, #37726 to #37817, and #37818 to #37871

Receive Board and Commission Minutes:

Beautification Commission: 4/20/04

Board of Zoning Appeals: 5/5/04

Housing Commission: 4/14/04

Planning Commission: 5/4/04

Receive Departmental Reports:

Fire Department: 2/04, 3/04

Youth Assistance: 4/04

Disposal of Used Equipment / Housing Commission

Proposed Amendment to Irrigation System Contract / Northville Senior Community Center

Proposed Duplicate Tax Bill Fee

Request to Close Streets / Dorisa Court / June 12, 2004

Proposed Amendments to the 2003-04 Budget through March 31, 2004 and Investment Report

At the special FY05 budget meeting of April 26, 2004, City Council reviewed the Water and Sewer Fund financial analysis and the proposed rate structure. In addition to the analysis, other key factors were considered when evaluating the proposed rate increases, which included:

Maintaining an acceptable level of working capital funds.

The ability to absorb a portion of the annual rate increases from the City’s two system suppliers.

Rate requirements of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

The five-year capital improvement plan which identified over $960,000 of proposed projects through FY07 that could be accomplished without issuing debt.

Closely monitored water loss.

The institution of the dual water meter program.

The fact that Water and Sewer Fund connection fees have not been adjusted since June 1, 1999. Based on a review of that fee schedule, a moderate rate adjustment was proposed, including a deposit requirement for items performed on a time and materials basis.

The proposed water and sewer rate adjustments include:

Council Comments / Discussion: Questions were raised pertaining to the City’s reaction time to water loss. An explanation of the water loss calculation was offered and it was noted that the leak detection survey performed in April 2004 indicated that the system was tight. The City reacts within 90 days of a water loss, and time delays were attributed to City billing cycles and the timing of the Detroit Water and Sewer Department (DWSD) billings. Changing to a monthly City billing cycle might decrease the water loss reaction time to less than 90 days; however, a recent survey of water bill customers indicated very little interest in moving to a monthly billing cycle.

Larry Parks, 632 N. Center Street, questioned how to speed up the response time with Detroit Water and Sewer Department. It was responded that DWSD is on a monthly billing cycle and that the information is received as timely as possible.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Mittman to adopt a resolution authorizing the rate structure proposed for Water, Sewer and Service Charge Rates and Connection Charges, with an effective date of July 1, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.

Northville’s annual Independence Day Parade is scheduled for Saturday, July 3, 2004. The Northville Central Business Association (NCBA) proposes to rent and install five inflatable children’s structures in the Bandshell area and in the area west of the Bandshell. It is hoped that this attraction would provide additional reasons to stay in the downtown to enjoy the day, shop and dine.

To hold a children’s play area in this location requires the area west of the Bandshell to be closed to traffic the day of the parade. The children’s play area would be open to the public from 8:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. The NCBA would be responsible for the cost of renting the inflatable structures and providing adequate insurance coverage at no expense to the City. It was stated that recent communication from Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority (MMRMA), the City’s insurer, determined that this type of event required minimum insurance coverage in the amount of $3 million general liability, naming the City of Northville as an additional insured.

Council Comments/Discussion: This was viewed as a worthwhile event for the children. However, it was requested that the NCBA coordinate with Mill Race Village to insure that there is no competition between events.

Motion Mittman, seconded by Ayers to approve the closing of the area west of the Bandshell to traffic on July 3, 2004, from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to allow for the placement of four or five inflatable children’s structures, with the submission of a certificate of insurance from the NCBA in the minimum amount of $3 million general liability, naming the City of Northville as an additional insured, prior to the event. Motion carried unanimously.

At its regular meeting on May 3, 2004, the Northville City Council authorized its staff to commence negotiations with Northville Township to provide emergency dispatch services for the City. It was suggested that the City Council consider calling a special meeting on June 10, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering the draft agreements.

City Council received and filed the June 6, 2004 letter from John and Pam Dodge, 47209 Dunsany, expressing support of the proposed consolidated dispatch operation. It was noted that the proposal was not on the agenda and that City Council would not be considering the proposed agreement this evening. The Mayor opened the meeting for brief citizen comments.

Larry Parks, 632 N. Center Street, questioned whether the special meeting would be open to the public. Answer: Yes.

Jim Long, 400 Fairbrook Ct., questioned whether the Police Department would continue to operate out of the building. Answer: Yes. Mr. Long commented on his personal experience in contacting the City and Township Police Departments, noting his feeling that there is a distinct difference in the level of service provided by the City. He supported maintaining the City dispatch operation.

Stuart Goldberg, 442 Randolph, questioned the history of the consolidated dispatch concept. The Mayor provided a brief review, citing key factors of continued budget constraints that prohibit hiring an additional dispatcher, the use of police officers to assist in staffing the dispatch operation, and concern with the City’s current lock-up facility. It was stressed that the City and Township use different methods to record response times, which has created a misunderstanding that the dispatch consolidation would result in increased response times to City resident. It was reiterated that the Township has pledged that calls to the dispatch center would be prioritized based on incident and not location. A final comment stated that a detailed review was planned for the special meeting.

John Shier, City police officer and POAM President, commented that the City has often been compared to "Mayberry," questioning why the City cannot remain as such. He stated he would support a millage increase to fund a City dispatch operation.

Brief discussion followed, with an explanation of Headlee limits/rollbacks and the effects of Proposal A on dedicated millages.

Robert Benedict, 121 West, questioned the financial motivation involved in this decision. Answer: This information will be discussed in detail at the special meeting.

Stephanie Ruiter, 433 Dubuar, questioned whether the public would have the opportunity to hear from Police and Fire Department personnel. Answer: Yes.

Jeffrey Jacobs, 1033 Glenhill, felt this was a quality of life issue and requested the City Council explore alternate solutions.

Resident, 20895 Clement, commented that if he wanted to receive Township services he would have purchased his home in the Township.

Gunter Albrecht, 350 S. Wing Street, commented on the City’s willingness to spend money to purchase property to give to the post office in order to retain the post office within the downtown and also questioned the logic of surrendering police services to the Township. Answer: The City has never agreed to purchase property to give to the post office for its expansion. The City spent a lot of time working with the post office to find a solution that would not overly expand the post office into the neighborhood. In 2002, the City and post office reached an agreement to keep the retail operation in the City and move the distribution operation to the Township. It was reiterated that dispatch was the only service being considered for consolidation.

James Street, 1056 Allen, requested information for community review prior to the City Council voting on this issue. Answer: Draft copies of the proposed contract, along with information previously presented to the City Council, would be available for public review prior to the special meeting.

Mary Ellen Patterson Hollis, 114 Walnut, requested the City Council explain the "road of no return." Answer: It was countered that there was not a "road of no return." The City could reconstitute any service if needed. Review procedures will be included in the proposed contract and the City would have the ability to end the contract if it is not satisfied with the service.

Nancy Chiri, 835 W. Main Street, questioned whether the City explored sharing dispatch technology with the Township. She also questioned if there were other areas or services that could be cut in order to save the City dispatch operation. Answer: Many hours were spent reviewing the budget, in which significant cuts were made and other cuts to services were implemented.

Further City Council comments noted that the City Council has been reviewing the Police Department dispatch operation and has discussed the benefits of a consolidated dispatch operation in open meetings for approximately three years. The City is unable to fund the dispatch operation to the level that is generally acceptable, including increased personnel and upgraded equipment. As such, the City Council directed City staff to work with Township staff to prepare a proposal for presentation to the City Council and Township Board of Trustees.

Mike Freedland, 537 W. Main Street, supported maintaining small town service and felt that comments made by City Council this evening suggested that the Council already has made the decision to consolidate the dispatch service.

Joan Noonan, 21300 Stanstead, stated that she has been a resident for many years and finds the City dispatch to be an excellent service. She supported placing this issue before the voters.

John McKee, City of Northville Fire Department, questioned the special meeting forum. Answer: It is likely that the proposed contract would be reviewed in detail, professional staff would review the impact to their Departments, the meeting would be open to public comments, and City Council may/may not vote on the issue.

Tammy Sortor, 131 N. Rogers, questioned why the City Council was not placing the issue before the voters.

Norm Frid, 374 N. Rogers, had questions pertaining to the Township employment of the City’s two dispatchers and expressed concern that the final consolidation decision would be a "closed door decision." Answer: Professional staff would explain personnel information in detail at the special meeting. It was reiterated that the proposed dispatch consolidation has not and would not be a closed door decision.

Suzanne Jones, 132 Walnut, stated that this is an important and emotional issue impacting more than 6,000 residents. She suggested that the City Council place the issue before the voters.

Rita Svenson, 505 Rouge, suggested that the City print a "retain/consolidate City dispatch services" question on the water bill as an unofficial voting mechanism.

Mark Trudeau, 501 W. Cady Street, supported the police and dispatch staff and expressed concern that the consolidation might not adequately protect the businesses and merchants.

Susan Hatch, 19836 Irongate Ct., noted that a very large crowd was present this evening and suggested that the City Council consider holding the special meeting at the Hillside Middle School auditorium.

Denise Robaczewski, 504 N. Center Street, noted that the City and Township Police and Fire personnel often back up each other and questioned why this concept is not being considered for the dispatch operation.

Angela Litwin, City of Northville Police Officer, stated that she is proud to work for the City, proud of the Department’s one minute response time, and felt that City personnel had a greater knowledge of the City streets, businesses, and residents. She stated that the report of a suspicious person on City streets/neighborhoods would be of greater importance to City personnel than to Township personnel.

Toni Genitti, 132 E. Main Street, requested that the City Council wait another week to allow more time to get the word out to the residents that a special meeting would be held to discuss the proposed consolidated dispatch operation.

The City Council directed the City Manager to contact City and Township staff to schedule a special meeting in July to discuss the proposed consolidated dispatch operation and proposed agreement, and bring the special meeting request back before the City Council at the June 21, 2004 regular meeting. It was noted that the June 21, 2004 meeting would set the date, time, and location for the special meeting and would not be a meeting for discussion of the pros and cons of consolidated dispatch or the proposed agreement. A final comment from City Council expressed uncertainty on the community’s commitment to accept continued requests for millages and Headlee overrides in order to retain the City dispatch operation.

In November 2002, voters approved the issuance of $1,375,000 in general obligation bonds for renovations at Allen Terrace. The renovation work covered by J.S. Vig Construction Company is substantially complete and the projects were completed within the overall budget. As such, the following change orders were recommended:

The deduct includes the architect fee included in the original J.S. Vig construction contract, but was paid directly by the City to the architect, as well as the field office budgeted under General Condition, which was not needed.

This deduct represents the difference between the budgeted project contingencies ($89,524.00) and the construction-related charges for unforeseen circumstances ($50,878.71)

The credit received from these change orders would be applied to the parking lot project.

Joe Vig of J.S. Vig Construction reviewed the scope of the project, stating that the project came in 3.4% below budget and that, overall, residents seemed very pleased with the renovations. He acknowledged the professionalism, contributions, and dedication of the Housing Commission and Allen Terrace staff during this project.

Council Comments/Discussion: Questions were raised regarding the warranty periods and further explanation of the change orders was requested.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Mittman to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of ($50,470.00) and Change Order No. 2 in the amount of ($38,645.29), and authorize the City Manager to sign the change orders on behalf of the City. Motion carried unanimously.

The City received a request from Donald Samhat to relocate the house located at 132 Orchard to Lot 28 of the Scott’s Cloverdale Subdivision located on Orchard Street. This house is one of two houses being proposed for demolition by Our Lady of Victory for their school relocation and expansion project. In researching the possibility of relocating the house to another lot, the house moving company conveyed to Mr. Samhat that the house was wider than the roadway. The house moving company contacted the affected utility companies and was informed they would not temporarily remove the utility poles and lines running along the west side of the road. The proposed house relocation would require the removal of five trees on the east side of the Orchard on public right-of-way and significant trimming of one tree on the west side of Orchard.

The "Moving of Buildings" ordinance does not address tree removals. However, Article IV, "Trees, Plants and Shrubs in Public Places" of the Code of Ordinances allows tree removals if done by resolution of the City Council or by the order of the City Manager. The City Manager has denied the tree removal permit request; therefore a request is being made to City Council. If approved, the applicant would be required to replace the trees with new trees in the size and species acceptable to the City Manager.

Donald Samhat offered photos of the house and affected trees and was available for questions.

Council Comments/Discussion: Questions were asked regarding the ownership of the house and the number of trees to be removed at the new site. It was responded that OLV owns the property (lot) and has conveyed the house to Mr. Samhat. The number of trees to be removed at the new site is dependent upon the setback requirements and the area needed by the house moving company to navigate the house into the new lot.

Discussion took place regarding the timing of the house moving and the tree removal request. Concern was expressed that approving the tree removal request was premature and that the appropriate time to address this issue was when the OLV school project received final approval. It was countered that there was no reason to delay the tree removal decision as the OLV school project was granted a special use permit and the project would move forward. It was also stated that approval of the tree removal might be predicated on getting more trees of a substantial size on this street, with a suggestion that replacement trees be of a substantial size, with a preferred replacement ratio of three new trees for each tree removed.

Additional questions were raised regarding the delivered condition of the house and the possibility of finding an alternate route for moving the house.

Mr. Samhat agreed to defer to City staff to set the size, quantity, and number of replacement trees needed. He agreed to post all necessary bonds to assure the payment and planting of the new trees.

John and Joy Colizzi, 841 W. Main Street, noted that the proposed Our Lady of Victory School project has not received final approval and suggested that City Council delay acting on this request in order to give area homeowners time to comment on the proposed tree removal.

A resident comment requested that the City Council direct Mr. Samhat to communicate to the property owners on what will happen with the tree removal and replacement. It was responded that notification would be done by the Department of Public Works per City policy.

Motion Mittman, seconded by Ayers to approve the relocation of the house at 132 Orchard Street to Lot 28 of Scott’s Cloverdale Subdivision and approve the removal of five trees on Orchard Street, subject to reaching an agreement with the City Manager as to the number, species, size, and location of the replacement trees. Voice Vote. Yes: Mittman, Ayers, Johnson. No: Hartshorne, Swigart. Motion carried.

City staff has reviewed the cemetery fees for Rural Hill Cemetery and proposed changes that would go into effect on July 1, 2004. The proposed changes establish a cost difference between grave sites in the older portions of the cemetery and those in the new developed areas. The changes also set aside funds for future capital improvements. Though the revenues from the new rates would increase for cemetery operations, the majority of the proposed fee increases would go toward future capital improvements. Staff compared the City’s existing and proposed rates with those of other area cemeteries. With the exception of the City of Plymouth, Northville now finds itself at the top in public cemetery fees and similar to many privately owned cemeteries.

It was noted that the City has experienced a drop in lot sales, which was attributed to its higher fee schedule. While this slows the need for capital improvements, it also negatively impacts the annual operation revenue, subsequently increasing the cemetery’s dependence on the General Fund. It was also noted that the proposed rate adjustments would add revenue to the Cemetery Operations and Maintenance fund. However, the proposed increases might result in decreased lot sales, having a negative impact on this fund. It was anticipated that approximately $15,000 could be set aside annually from new lot sales for future capital improvements at Rural Hill Cemetery.

Council Comments/Discussion: Concern was expressed in raising fees too high, which might negatively impact sales revenue. Questions were raised pertaining to the impact of eliminating certain services, with a suggestion that a report be developed to determine which services might be reduced. Staff responded that cemetery mowing and trimming would be the likely reduction.

Brief discussion ensued on determining if former residents should be allowed to pay the resident rate. It was noted that this determination is made by the Cemetery Sexton, with the suggestion that this policy be formalized. Further discussion focused on the fee schedule and the rate structure for City, Township, and non-resident fees. City staff was commended on the conditions of the cemetery.

Motion Mittman, seconded by Hartshorne to approve the proposed Rural Hill Cemetery Fee schedule with the following modifications:

Standard Lot Old: Per Grave – fee to remain at $650 for City residents.

Standard Lot Old: Per Grave – fee to increase to $2,100 for non-residents.

Standard Lot New: Per Grave – fee to increase to $2,500 for non-residents.

Further, the new cemetery fees would be effective July 1, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.

On May 3, 2004, City Council approved a contract for the reconstruction of Springfield Drive and Lexington Court. As the contract price for the projects was below the approved budget, City Council requested that City staff explore the possibility of utilizing the remaining funds for additional street improvements. An amount of $107,145.75 remained and it was suggested that the funds be allocated as follows:

$42,145.75 Project contingencies, with unused funds being reprogrammed to the Taft Road Reconstruction Project.

$40,000.00 Additional Change Order to the Springfield Drive project to reconstruct the exit lanes on Morgan Boulevard on the east side of Taft Road.

$25,000.00 Additional concrete/sidewalk replacement/extensions (proposed for N. Ely, Griswold near the City park, Fairbrook Street near the gas station, and possibly River Street.)

Motion Swigart, seconded by Hartshorne to:

Approve a change order to the Springfield Drive Reconstruction project in the not-to-exceed amount of $40,000 to Tiseo Brothers, Inc. for the reconstruction of the exit lanes of Morgan Boulevard east of Taft Road.

Allocate an additional $25,000 for concrete/sidewalk repairs and extensions.

Establish a contingency fund of $42,145.75 for possible overruns on 2004/05 street improvement projects. Motion carried unanimously.

In 1997, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) retained Gibbs Planning Group to develop a comprehensive Commercial Planning Study for downtown Northville. The study has been a valuable tool over the past seven years in continued efforts to revitalize and strengthen the downtown. On May 25, 2004, the DDA met with Mr. Gibbs and discussed emerging challenging downtown issues such as the possible transition of Northville Downs into a "racino," development of nearby "lifestyle centers," parking matters, and appropriate retail mix in the central business district. City staff solicited a proposal from Mr. Gibbs to assist in addressing some of the above matters. The proposal provides for:

An inventory evaluation of commercial centers competing in Northville.

Economic growth models to forecast likely changes to the downtown tenant mix, rental rates parking, density, and sales.

A written report on specific observations, recommendations and guidelines regarding the impact of the "racino," pedestrian movement, parking, and building design.

Address surface and on street parking and recommend parking management and expansion strategies.

The study would commence within 30 days of authorization and tasks completed within 120 days of commencement.

Proposed fee of $14,500.

The FY 2004/05 DDA budget allocated $50,000 for Planning and Design Studies for the downtown.

Council Comments/Discussion: Discussion ensued regarding support of the study, the need for new ideas and insight to meet the challenges being faced by the downtown, and the need to have updated information pertaining to developed and undeveloped square footage.

There was discussion regarding the 1997 Gibbs Green Report, with concern expressed that this report did not adequately address solutions to alleviate the parking shortage. There was concern that the new Gibbs report might become a blueprint for development without addressing parking concerns. It was responded that the City did not implement all of the 1997 report recommendations. The purpose of the report was to make recommendations and the City determined whether to use the information and recommendations provided. It was pointed out that Mr. Gibbs has extensive knowledge in parking needs for retail, retail/office, and residential uses and the new report would address parking issues. Further discussion followed regarding parking management, parking expansion and parking decks, and the concept of liner buildings on Wing, Main, and Dunlap streets.

Additional discussion centered on the importance of determining if Northville should be a "town" or a "city" with the suggestion that the proposal include the methods to be used in involving the community. There were comments supporting strategic planning and it was suggested that the strategic planning and development process be expanded beyond the DDA board, through the use of focus groups and other efforts to determine the vision of the City. It was responded that Mr. Gibbs did offer to implement focus groups as part of the process; however, this would increase the cost of the study. A comment noted that it was unlikely that the community would reach a consensus on determining the vision of the City.

A final comment expressed reluctance to accept a proposal from a sole source with the suggestion to entertain proposals from other planning groups as well.

It was suggested that the DDA expand the scope of the project to include focus groups as part of the planning and development process and the inclusion of a retail market study.

In 1996, the City Council adopted a "Resolution Governing the Use of the Scout and Recreation Building." The resolution restricted building use to the City Council, City Boards and Commission functions, Senior Citizen programs, and rentals from non-profit organizations. On April 19, 2004, the City Council granted permission to the Arts Commission to use the Scout and Recreation Building for arts related programming. In order to provide additional revenue to cover the building operating expenses, it was proposed that the Arts House be available for community rentals when not in use by those organizations.

Motion Hartshorne, seconded by Swigart to approve the request to allow community rentals of the Arts House when not in use by the Northville Arts Commission and the Parks and Recreation Department. Motion carried unanimously.

City staff outlined the proposed rental fees for Parks and Recreation facilities for FY2005. The rates were reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission on May 12, 2004 and were approved by the Township Board of Trustees at their May 20, 2004 meeting. Over 20% of the Parks and Recreation operating revenue is received from facility rentals.

Council Comments/Discussion: Questions and comments on the "per game" rate for field use, the need to track costs for new development, the need to track building use, and questions on resident and special event rates. There was concern that building rates might be too high, which would leave the rooms vacant. The importance of setting rental fees that offer a realistic view of the facility cost was reiterated.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Mittman to approve the FY2005 rental rates for Parks and Recreation facilities. Motion carried unanimously.

In 1980 the City adopted by reference the Water Supply Cross-Connection Rules of the State Department of Public Health. Although the City is responsible for following cross-connection rules, since 1981 the Wayne County Division of Environmental Health has provided these inspection services and has made annual reports to the State of Michigan. The City has limited input and knowledge as to how Wayne County carries out this program and charges assessed to the City have ranged from $6,000 - $9,000 per year. The County appears to be working with 1981 data, inspecting approximately 73 accounts and recent reviews indicate that there is now as many as 130 accounts requiring inspections.

Hydro Designs, Inc. submitted a proposal to perform this work for Northville to keep the community in full compliance with state and federal cross-connection laws. The proposal is for three years and would cover all industrial, commercial, and institutional establishments, yet remain within the City’s proposed and projected annual budget of $7,000 per year. Hydro Designs, Inc. has performed this type of service for other communities as well as provided training throughout the state through the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality training programs. Staff noted that Hydro Designs, Inc. has provided excellent references.

Motion Hartshorne, seconded by Swigart to direct staff to discontinue cross-connection control services with Wayne County and award a contract to Hydro Designs, Inc. of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, in the amount of $6,996 per year for three years to perform an on-going Municipal Cross-Connection Control Program. The change would be effective July 1, 2004, beginning with the new FY2004/05 budget, subject to contract review by the City Attorney and review of insurance requirements by Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority, the City’s insurer. Motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Pro Tem Ayers reviewed the City Manager’s performance evaluation, which was conducted through individually written critiques by each Council member. The assessment range is 4 - above average and 5 - outstanding. The City Manager was given a combined score of 4.7. The report gave the following assessments:

Organizational Management = 4.6

Fiscal Management = 4.8

Program Development and Follow Through = 4.4

Intermediate/Long-Range Planning = 4.5

Intergovernmental Relations = 4.5

Relationship with Public = 4.9

Relationship with Employees = 4.6

Relationship with Mayor and City Council = 4.8

Professional Development = 4.6

Personal Characteristics = 4.8

It was stated that City Council was pleased with the City Manager’s excellent performance in the area of "Relationship with the Public," particularly in this time of contentious issues.

The City received a request from the Manresa Caravan of the International Order of Alhambra to conduct its annual canister drive to solicit funds for mentally impaired children. The fundraiser is scheduled for Saturday, June 19, 2004, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., with a rain date of June 26, 2004. Solicitation locations include:

- Main and Griswold - Main and Center

- Seven Mile and Center/Sheldon - Center and Dunlap

- Eight Mile and Center - Seven Mile and S. Main

The organization would provide a certificate of insurance, naming the City as an additional insured.

Council Comments/ Discussion: Council expressed concern with the Eight Mile and Center solicitation location, citing Eight Mile Road traffic volume, traffic speed, and volunteer safety as primary concerns. It was suggested that the volunteers be allowed to solicit on Center Street only. It was also suggested that the Charitable Organization Solicitation Policy be amended to prohibit soliciting on Eight Mile Road.

Motion Hartshorne, seconded by Mittman to approve the request of the Manresa Caravan of the International Order of Alhambra to conduct a canister fundraiser on Saturday, June 19, 2004 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m., with a rain date of Saturday, June 26, 2004, with the exception that volunteers stationed at the Eight Mile and Center location only be allowed to solicit on Center Street. Motion carried unanimously.

Swigart stated that he serves as the 35^th District Court liaison and recently observed Judge Gerou’s courtroom. He noted that the Court offers facility and operation tours to interested persons/groups.

Mittman noted that he would be out of town and not available for the June 21, 2004 City Council meeting. Brief discussion followed pertaining to City Council participation in the Independence Day Parade.

B. Staff Communications None

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

Respectfully submitted,

Dianne Massa
City Clerk