REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI
 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2002 AT 7:30 PM
NOVI CIVIC CENTER – COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:38 PM.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: First Grade Girl Scout Troop #3075

Leader: Kim Richmond

ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Bononi, Council Members Capello, Csordas-absent/excused, DeRoche, Landry, Lorenzo-absent/excused.

Mr. Klaver requested that Items 14 and 16 be removed from the agenda and rescheduled for March 4th when there would be a full council.

Matt Quinn, attorney, asked that Item 3 be removed and delayed for 30 days.

Member DeRoche added under Mayor and Council Issues #1 Gun Restriction Ordinance for clarification on scheduling.

Member Capello added under Mayor and Council Issues #2 Detroit Water Rates for 2002 to direct the administration to bring justification for the water rates.

Mayor Clark thought the rate increases were actual increases passed onto us by the City of Detroit.

Mayor Clark presented a proclamation on the retirement of Police K-9 Colonel. Officer Mince and Colonel began their K-9 Unit on November 28,1996. Mayor Clark detailed the events Colonel was used, which totaled 956. Officer Mince and his partner Colonel were responsible for forfeitures of $146,397.00. Chief Shaeffer spoke about Officer Mince investing his own time and money in acquiring and training Colonel. Colonel would retire at home with Officer Mince and his family.

Lee Lewis, 49225 W. 11 Mile Road, noted he lived on one of the properties that would be improved by this project and spoke in support of continuing the planning of the project. He felt the septic fields were no longer a good idea and were only a temporary fix and the city sewer was a permanent solution. Mr. Lewis said sewers already surrounded them but they did not have any access to them. He was a proponent of Alternate #2, the grinder pump and the forced main. Mr. Lewis appreciated his many conversations with Bruce Jerome, as he had been extremely helpful in putting the proposal together.

Clay Tierney, Sierra Drive resident, spoke on Public Hearings #2 and #3. He felt these sanitary sewers were desperately needed because this is an older subdivision and the septics needed to be replaced. Mr. Tierney said many of the residents were in favor of this.

Christine Michael, 25925 Sierra Drive, asked Council to address:

1) Sierra Drive is in the City’s Neighborhood Street Resurfacing Program and would the Council consider scheduling the resurfacing of Sierra Drive in the construction area which would potentially save the property owners $30,000 to 40,000.

2) The sewer is proposed to be installed deeper than would be required to serve the properties within the district to ensure that the sewer could service the balance of the subdivision at a future date. Would the City pay the extra cost associated with the extra depth?

3) Would the City be willing to construct one or both the utilities and collect the reimbursement from the property owners at the time of connection to the system?

Ms. Michael provided Council with handouts including a septic system life expectancy study and she read a letter from Gordon Lang Septic Systems. She also read a Detroit Free Press article dated April 23, 2001, describing an Oakland County program that provides $25 million available over five years for water and sewer upgrades. She asked if the City had requested money from the Oakland County program, if so where it was used and if not why? She felt the current SAD process didn’t work as it pitted neighbor against neighbor. She was willing to invest in a permanent solution but was not able to exercise that option because she is forced to work through a process requiring 51% of the SEV to agree with her. The process is democratic but it is not fair regardless of what side you are on. A win/win situation exists if Council is willing to look at the situation with out of the box thinking. Several cities have developed alternatives to the SAD process and she asked Council to look at cities such as Southfield and Redford Township for examples. Lastly, cited memo to former City manager Kriewall from Bruce Jerome in which he described the cycle that was used in the City of Southfield to eliminate the SAD process but still provide the sewers. The City would like to see the retirement of all septic fields. If this is true give the residents the financial incentive to do so. Bring the utilities to the properties that currently cannot access them and allow homeowners to connect with incentives such as waiving connection fees, etc. if they connect right a way. Don’t make the connection mandatory but allow those who feel they don’t need to connect to opt out until their system fails. Even if only 1/3 of the property owners connect right away the City is still closer to their goal and residents have not been forced to connect. She asked that someone from Council get back to her as soon as possible regarding the questions she has raised. She noted the current petition was submitted during April of 2001.

Mayor Clark assured Ms. Michael that she would get answers to her questions.

Ron Oldenwald, Sierra Drive resident, spoke on SAD’s 162 and 163. He was supportive of not just the limited project noted here but the subdivision as a whole benefiting from water and sewer. He felt it was inevitable that the State or County would mandate testing for septic fields. The costs would never be lower because they will go up. He knew there was a road bond about to expire and thought it would be the most cost effective to couple these projects with any type of reconstruction of the road. He asked the City do whatever it took to maintain his road with the least impact to tax dollars and to consider this project for the entire subdivision.

Mayor Clark read the letter from Charles and Cathy Bedro, 47256 Sierra Drive, opposing any further action in this matter of SAD’s #162 and #163.

Mr. Klaver announced that Nancy McClain had been awarded an Outstanding Engineer of the Year Award from the Michigan Society of Professional Engineers.

Mr. Klaver said there were two payments for Fire Station #4 on the agenda this evening and the park projects. There has been a considerable amount of public discussion on this issue of late and he was concerned that some of that commentary reflects a misunderstanding of our current process so he had a few comments to share. There are no processes in the City that administration is not willing to look at and Mr. Helwig has demonstrated his desire to re-evaluate all the City’s processes and procedures.

He said competitive bids are used for all construction projects and they employ a pre-bid conference where all potential bidders come in so that we can guarantee there is an understanding of the nature of the project. Once an award has been made a pre-construction meeting is held and qualifications are reviewed, work schedule and the experience and criteria of the individuals that the firm would assign to the job. Bonds are required to be posted in the full amount of the construction project and we rely on these in terms of the firm’s ability to demonstrate their financial health. This places the responsibility of the bonding companies to do the due diligence. This is the first time a contractor defaulted on a project but in this instance the bond process is working as designed and the project will go forward.

Matt Quinn, 21995 Meridian, announced his candidacy for the new District Judgeship in the 52nd District Court in Novi. He looked forward to being Novi’s favorite son and wanted the Council and citizens of Novi to be the first to know.

John Chambers, said the Novi Library Board met and he, as President, charged the Cable Ad Hoc Committee to establish a committee to review the request of the Council to examine the feasibility of cable casting the Library Board and Committee meetings. The committee should examine the cost, equipment, building modifications and human resources and also examine date, time and all possible locations of meetings. The Committee might want to apprise itself of those boards and commissions and committees that cable cast in the community and those that don’t. The committee might desire to examine the perceived benefit by examining the multiplicity of the proposal and the allocation of scarce resources whether human or dollars. They should feel free to examine all aspects of the proposals and present to the Library Board multiple proposals with a benefit analysis and recommendations. Members of the Committee are Linda Krieger-Chairman and Library Board Members Carol Bauer and Kathy Mutch. They are looking at all aspects of Council’s request and would bring this information back to the Library Board and then to Council.

Donald Van Ingen, 44910 Exeter Court, spoke about a lot of salt on the street a week ago Sunday. He noticed that all the streets were salted and called on Monday and again on Thursday to inquire what happened. He was told there was black ice on M-5 but there certainly was not on Dunbarton. He thought employees that salted that night were paid time and a half and if the whole City was salted how much did that cost? The City has been throwing money away quite a bit lately and he wanted to know when we salt and when we don’t.

Tim May, 41474 Reindeer Drive, spoke about the monies owed to his daughter Amanda May, as the owners of the Agora restaurant have not paid her. This is Item #1 this evening and he and his wife oppose the transfer of the liquor license until the people who worked at the restaurant are paid. He thanked the Mayor and Council for their support of his daughter and he appreciated the help and assistance he had received.

Rob Siemens, owner of Royal Arc who is the steel contractor on the Fire Station and was very concerned because the job is partially done and had more than $100,000 invested in the project and he had not been paid. He had heard that things were going very well but on the contractors side it was not going that well. He appreciated the City’s position on the project and asked for Council’s help. He said they were whipped to get this project going and Royal Arc complied with the whipping and that was the end of any communication. No one has told them anything. He had contact with Mr. Pearson about 30 days ago but there wasn’t a lot of information he was able to tell him. Mr. Siemens had no idea where he stood and it sounded like the City was going to relieve most of the responsibility to the bonding company. He asked that the City not completely step out of this. He and the contractors needed the City and Council. They are residents too so if the City gets out they are in trouble. They have committed time, effort, labor and dedication to this job site that they had not been paid for and to this day he could not tell them if he was a contractor on this job. He had a contract that defaulted with the General Contractor and no one has told him what that meant to him. No one told him if he was being retained, gotten rid of or when and if he will be getting paid. Yet he hears that it is going smoothly and it is a legal issue. Mr. Siemens said they need Council’s participation. They needed to know that the people they vote for are there for them like they are there when they vote too. He didn’t want it handed off to the bonding company because they didn’t have any guarantees there. Everybody acknowledges that the contractors did this work in good faith but he hadn’t heard yet that anyone would pay them in good faith. He didn’t know what the payment request meant and the contractors on the job are in the dark about this issue. What do you plan on doing with us? No one has even asked him if this was a safe site? He asked if Council realized this? He would like to know because if he was asked to go back into the site he wanted to know where it stood. He thought it was important that the contractors on the job be contacted to make sure everything went forward safely.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Siemens to talk with Mr. Klaver and Mr. Fisher at the break.

Member Bononi asked for Mr. Klaver and Mr. Helwig to prepare a communications statement to each contractor so they understood what their position was.

Mr. Fisher stated it was important that Mr. Siemens stay for Item 18 on the agenda because depending upon what the Council does with that item would preempt whatever the conversation might be.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. February 4, 2002, Regular meeting
2. February 11, 2002, Regular meeting

B. Approve request for renewal of Arcade License – Novi Bowl, 21700 Novi Road

C. Approve request for renewal of Pawnbroker & Precious Items Dealer Licenses – Weinstein Jewelers, 41990 Grand River

D. Approval of ordinance amendment No. 02-88.06-amending Sections 16-32, 16-34, 16-35 and 16-37 of the Novi Code of Ordinances, to provide that insurance certificates are to be provided as a condition of issuance of a license to remove or transport refuse through streets, alleys or other public places or ways of the City – 1^st Reading.

E. Approval to apply for and accept, if applicable, the Bullet Proof Vest Partnership Grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance for the 2002 Grant period.

F. Approval of Road Commission for Oakland County Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreements Control Order 1141 and Control Order 1144; Twelve Mile Road @ Cabaret and Donelson Drive @ West Oaks.

G. Schedule a Special Meeting for 7:15 pm Monday, March 4, 2002, prior to the Regular Council Meeting for the purpose of interviewing a candidate for the Board of Review.

H. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 616

Mr. Klaver said documentation had been submitted to the City Clerk’s office and Mr. Fisher talked with the applicant’s attorney regarding the outstanding payment. They did not discuss the outstanding payment that came up during Audience Participation but many of the other checks that did not clear had been replaced. In particular, the outstanding delinquent water bills had been paid. However, there is an outstanding amount that goes back to a period of August 29, 2001 which is about to go delinquent February 27^th and if all the other questions are answered to Council’s satisfaction this evening it would be their recommendation that Council make any positive decision based on that getting paid since it is going to be delinquent in a few days. This has been shared with the applicant.

Joseph Xuereb, representing the applicant, commented he thought he had taken care of the returned check matters. He was informed of Ms. May’s matter just prior to the Council meeting. He respectfully requested approval of the transfer subject to the payment of the last water bill in the amount of $1,667.99 as well as Ms. May being paid within one week.

Mayor Clark said a couple of the NSF checks were replaced with cashiers checks but there would still be the water bill and monies owed Ms. May. He understood a padlock had been placed on the premises for delinquent personal property taxes to Oakland County and asked if that had been taken care of? Mr. Xuereb said they couldn’t open for business until that is addressed so we are going to have to address that. It has to be addressed with their predecessor as well because the padlock is the result of taxes owed for the tax year of 1999, which is before his client was even in the picture.

Mr. Landry said the Council has known the situation with Amanda May since this matter was first raised. This young college student decided to work New Year’s Eve and did not get paid. He believed there are four outstanding checks and it was also his understanding that there is other wait staff that had not been paid. He was very concerned about the taxes not being paid and liquor licenses are a matter of trust and matters that should be given out to businesses that are responsible. Until all of these matters are taken care of he would not support the transfer of the liquor license.

Mayor Clark said Mr. Xuereb should understand, depending on what happens on this motion, if problems are resolved it did not preclude the petitioner from coming back in later.

Mr. Xuereb said he was not aware of this. He was told to contact the Police Chief, he did and he took care of the three matters he was made aware of for his client and if he had been aware there were others he would have taken care of them too. He requested approval subject to the payment of monies owed. He asked Council to withdraw their motion and he would deal with Amanda May and would give his personal pledge that these matters would be taken care of.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi commented that with regard to the transfer of these liquor licenses we are not only talking about all of the information being provided but also the integrity of this system with regard to the questions asked in the application. For example, "what is the applicant’s general business reputation, what is the applicant’s moral character, what is the applicant’s financial status and ability to build and/or operate the proposed facility on which the proposed liquor license is to be located"? She had serious reservations about the manner in which this proposal had been brought forth and she believed this was the third occasion. Quite frankly, from the standpoint of being forced to pay one’s bills and having outstanding payments to college students who are trying to work, it is your responsibility to know that, sir, not ours. Then the information supplied is to be judged by this Council to the best of their ability. It is your opportunity to, as quickly as possible, get your business affairs in order and she would then be willing to listen to his application for transfer.

Member Capello asked what the difference was between the processes if it was denied as opposed to being tabled? He was concerned that the building was vacant in downtown Novi but was also concerned and felt the payments needed to be made.

Mr. Fisher said if denied it would have to start from square one. It might be a more expedited process unless these problems are cleared up by the next meeting at which time it would be possible to make a motion for reconsideration.

Member Capello asked if Mr. Xuereb thought all of these financial issues could be resolved within two weeks? Mr. Xuereb said yes, and asked that Council consider tabling this for a week rather than denying it.

Member Landry said his personal position was if these are not taken care of he would not support in any way, shape or form the transfer of the liquor license. Member Bononi supported the motion and said a great deal of Council’s time has been spent on this matter and she hoped these concerns would be addressed once and for all. Mayor Clark agreed. Mr. Xuereb said if there are any concerns Council thought he might not know please advise him so he can deal with them all.

Member DeRoche said they could only go so far in holding a new business responsible for a previous business. This is a longstanding restaurant on Grand River and there is not a member of Council that desired a vacant building in Novi and felt Council wanted to support this and do it fast. Therefore, Mr. Xuereb had to make sure every issue is resolved so there were no more delays and this could go the way he wanted to go.

Mark Burzych, Attorney representing TMA Enterprises and Michael Ansley, majority shareholder were present requesting approval of this action.

Member DeRoche noted he had read the packet and thought this venue and restaurant would be an asset to this community.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked, demographically, who their customers were? Mr. Burzych responded they were males, 18 to 40. However, over the last four years they have been serving families 25 to 35 years old with one or two kids and these are who they want to target more and more. She said the application indicated that they had received a $350,000 loan from PLC? Mr. Burzych said it was not a loan but tenant improvement money and was negotiated in the lease ahead of time. They are giving them $350,000 for their build out and a lot of times you will negotiate work from your landlord where they will do your HVAC system, sprinkler system and other times the landlord would prefer to give the tenant the money to do that work. They are not giving us anything except a shell and then we have to go in and do all the work. She said so they are financing your ability to do the work and he said part of the leasehold improvements. She said there is supposed to be a financial statement for each one of those things and it is missing from the packet. Mr. Burzych said it would be financed through the increased rent and from a technical standpoint the financial condition is that the note terms are included in the lease obligations.

Nancy McClain said they were asking for approval of the design portion of the resurfacing project. This had previously come before Council and was referred to the Storm Water Committee Master Plan Committee. They provided a review of the engineering applications and had concluded that all of the applicants are qualified to do the work. She said with their reviews and comments in mind the recommendation was that the project be awarded to Giffels-Webster Engineers.

Mr. Klaver said a meeting was held with Ms. McClain, Mr. Helwig, Mr. McCusker and himself and they looked at this. Based upon the scope of work currently being handled by the second bidder and trying to diversify our engineering services, they thought this was an opportunity to do that.

Member DeRoche said his understanding was only three proposals were received and they were evaluated and all were found to be qualified by administration and residents, some who are engineers on the Storm Water Committee. He said it appeared that their recommendation was not based on price but on the 30 weeks versus 36 weeks estimation given by the engineering firms that rendered their proposals. Ms. McClain said that was part of the consideration as well as the fact that this is an important project and they need to get it moving so that it is not in conflict with other construction projects that are going on and thus minimize the impact to our citizens. If we can get this into construction by the end of this year that would help. The other engineering firm has a lot of work and also a lot of work to give us so this might help spread it out and get it all in faster. Member DeRoche said this project was funded in the mid 90’s and the residents have waited a long time and want this done. One of the things that jumped out at him when he saw the different weeks was who was in a better position to guess and asked if that was taken into consideration? Ms. McClain said it was and she had discussions with both engineering firms that were the low bidders and it was put to her that Giffels-Webster believed that they could do this within the 30 weeks. Scott Kline is present from Giffels-Webster if there are any questions for him. Member DeRoche went over the different categories of consideration and the fact that the lowest bidder had the higher marks. He was not sure how this person was deemed to be more qualified, better at cost control and budgets, environmental issues and basically everything and yet deemed to not be in a position to better judge what it would take to get the job done. He asked if there was an additional criterion that was not in the packet? Ms. McClain responded there was additional questions asked on the water shed and water quality portions of the project but not on the traffic portions because the water shed community does not address those issues. It was felt that Giffels-Webster, second lowest bidder, was as capable to address those issues during design as the low bidder. Member DeRoche said but they were not as qualified from evaluation of assigned personnel, design services construction coordination, traffic engineering, environmental and wetlands, budget cost controls experience and results, familiarity with the local area geography and facilities, ability to relate to project requirements or the analysis of subjective statements applicable to the project as required on the RFQ.

Ms. McClain thought that might be because they are not as well known in this City and had not done as many projects and thus haven’t got as much of a background in this City with some of the reviewers. Member DeRoche asked what standard is being applied to them as the second low bidder that puts them as the pick over the low bidder when the low bidder beats these people and would cost less? What are we buying for extra money? Ms. McClain said there was discussion between herself, Mr. Klaver, and Clay Pierson and they felt that they could work with either one of these two firms and at the moment due to scheduling and the emphasis on scheduling Giffels-Webster would be their choice. Member DeRoche said then Haim Schlick, Carol Kalinovik and Benny McCusker, the professionals that we employ to actually work the job as well as to have the purchasing evaluation of how we do business their opinions that objectively said that the low bidder is not only qualified as well as the citizen committee that said the low bidder is qualified you, Mr. Klaver, Mr. Pearson and Mr. Helwig outside of the normal process decided, without proving the information to Council, that there are other reasons why we should pick second low bidder over the low bidder? She said Mr. McCusker was also involved in their discussions. There was an overall discussion about projects that were happening within the City, the timeframes of when those projects were going to be, as well as the performance of both engineers from our knowledge outside of working for the City and they had come to this conclusion.

Member DeRoche said again, these people were evaluated on personnel, resource capabilities, relative experience, budget cost controls, etc. and he saw an evaluation and lower bid but a different recommendation and was not sure where the two of them linked together.

Mr. Klaver thought the answer was that they felt that the difference in price of less then $6,000 and the difference in the evaluations from 944 to 1068 were trumped by the six-week difference in terms of the estimated completion date. They were trying to avoid having this road torn up the following year when we know a lot of major roads would be done so that was a priority and their basis despite the minor differences in the price and original evaluation.

Member DeRoche said it had been 18.5 weeks since receiving the proposals and considering this tonight. We would have been more than halfway with the low bidder. Is it the administration that has put that restraint on this project? Should we be evaluating this that now the time had become a constraint because we were not able to evaluate a proposal in shorter than 18.5 weeks on a 30 to 36 week project? Ms. McClain said the project was referred by the Council to the Storm Water Management Committee, which put it on their December agenda. At that meeting they heard from JCK & Associates and decided that they needed more information and wanted more information from the other two firms. All three firms were at the next meeting and the Committee had several members absent that night so it did not get to Council until the end of February instead of the beginning.

Member DeRoche said the Committee process, has in essence, put in jeopardy the starting of this project this year? Ms. McClain would not say they put it in jeopardy but it did not help it any. Mayor Clark felt Member DeRoche’s comment was unfair. We have a group of citizens who volunteered their time and services, are very diligent, have several professional engineers, on that group. Member DeRoche said the residents of South Lake have been trying to have a road built since 1995 and he thought they would want this inquiry so that when they ask he would answer their questions. He could say it was not the administration or bureaucracy that tied this down. We have committed volunteers who spent their time and diligence to get to a quality decision. Mayor Clark said that is right but his characterization of someone dropping the ball or this held back or behind because of dedicated citizen volunteers trying to do the best job possible is grossly unfair to them.

Member DeRoche said he was not arguing with Mayor Clark he was simply trying to get answers. People at home will now understand that there was not a ball dropped by our administration but in fact people would note that this was brought before Council and sent to a Committee that did a lot of work on it and it was put on the next available Council meeting. He did not understand where an argument erupted over that. He asked where the documentation was of what Giffels-Webster workload currently is and their response to their projects?

Mr. Kline, Giffels-Webster, said he did not have current workload information with him but could say they had 12 survey crews all on the ready and that projects of this nature when collection of information is important 2, 3, 4 survey crews have been placed on one particular project and it is one of the ways they hope to shorten the timeframe up on this project. They have three fully staffed engineering teams in the Detroit office at their disposal for this project and over 90 design professionals in Rochester Hills should things get to a point that additional staff is needed.

Member DeRoche appreciated and welcomed Mr. Kline to the City and noted he was not trying to keep them out of the City and hoped they would bid again but was evaluating information in which they weren’t the low bidder. He felt no information was supplied to him regarding Giffels Webster workload. He said there is a $5,849 price difference for "Phase 1" between the two bidders from the low bidder with only a 6.7% percent difference and when someone is rated lower in objective standards it was hard to pay them 6.7% more. He felt that Council needed to mind the number and also wanted the Council to appoint a committee to put objective standards in place.

Member Capello assumed it was the design phase. Member DeRoche said it was.

Member Landry asked how many other projects does JCK have for the city. Ms. McClain estimated five to eight. He asked if part of the consideration was generate some competition for civil engineering services in the City so perhaps in the long run the City might benefit from that competition? Ms. McClain said yes. He said if this project is awarded to JCK according to their estimates construction cannot start until next spring? Ms. McClain said that is correct. Member Landry asked if for a mere $6,000 the project could be started this fall. Ms. McClain said it was a good possibility under the other design. Member Landry would not support the motion.

Member Capello asked why was construction engineering pulled out? Mr. Klaver said they felt that once the design study was done, they would be in a better position to bid it and would have a better idea of exactly what they were looking at. Member Capello asked when the construction engineering would go out to bid again? Ms. McClain stated late July or early August with an anticipated start of late September or early October. Member Capello asked what it costs to put a proposal out to bid? Mr. Klaver stated our costs are obviously in kind short of the publication costs and much of it is fairly routine. Member Capello asked how many Giffels-Webster has going? Ms. McClain said none for the City. Member Capello asked what other municipalities Giffels-Webster represented? Ms. McClain said Commerce Township, Lyon Township, Ferndale CIP water sewer and roads, Detroit, Compuware in Central Park, Wayne County, RCOC, Auburn Hills.

Member Capello noted he has some of the same concerns as Member DeRoche with regard to the evaluation process and with all things combined it’s over $28,000. Giffels-Webster came in last place out of the three bidders and yet administration has come back with the recommendation for them. In the past, we’ve told our consultants that we did not want them working for bordering municipalities and now that policy would be broken with Lyon and Commerce Townships. He wished Mr. Helwig was present to answer why. It would make economic sense to honor the bidding process.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said any comment with regard to the fact that the Storm Water Management Committee held up this review of this proposal was totally untrue. One of the things that came out of the review of this proposal was that the fact that the way that the proposal came out of this body, that committee didn’t know and needed to understand what was going on with preliminary design proposal and what each firm could supply. She thought the committee looked very carefully at what the design criteria should include and what alternatives we would be looking at. Being that we are in a preliminary phase of this design the engineering firm that looked at this particular proposal would be one with experience, sensitivity and a vast successful experience with environmental matters. The most experienced was the top bidder but the price was way out of the ballpark. By reading the proposals she felt that each was on an equal footing with regard to what they proposed to do. Some of that has everything to do with the single entity that has supplied the majority of engineering services for over 23 years. How would that bidder not have the advantage? This process was not tainted but JCK does have a clear advantage. From the standpoint of Rouge projects alone she knew there were several Rouge Grants that JCK was administering that were not completed. From the standpoint of work that is being done or is not done, one firm presiding over all of that, that firm has the responsibility to step up and make an accounting of what is done, what can hope to be done and the manner in which it would be done. She thought that when one customer is commandeering 40% of your business you have a concern. This particular proposal is a sensitive proposal that deserves Water Shed sensitivity and from the standpoint of the likelihood of this being done as soon a possible she thought was another point that was very important. The different concepts that would come up as a result of this preliminary design phase was what she was most concerned about. She thought those concerns were also brought up by the Storm Water Committee with regard to exactly what is going to happen here. The low bidder proposal was more like prose. The Giffel-Webster and the high bidder proposal were very specific about what could be accomplished. She would support the Giffel-Webster proposal on the basis of the comments she had made. The idea that the Storm Water Committee held up this proposal was totally lacking in truth. She had missed one of the meetings but told Council that the Storm Water Committee was totally able and very skilled in operating without her presence.

Mayor Clark reported that JCK was the low bidder and noted they had done some good work for the City but noted no engineering firm should assume they would get all the work, as competition is necessary to benefit the residents. This is design work that is necessary as it’s so far behind in the process. A memo from the City Manager says, "it is important to have a balanced distribution of engineering work". It also said "currently JCK and Associates has numerous projects in design and construction for the City including the Grand River Avenue widening from Beck Road to the CXS Bridge, the Road Bond intersection improvements, the Nine Mile Road bike path and the Water Distribution Study and the Master Plan update. JCK has projected a 36 week schedule to construction bidding and Giffel-Webster a 30 week schedule and they have said if they need to put more engineering teams on this they have the depth in their organization to do it. They have an excellent reputation just as JCK does. Also noted, the quantity under contract to JCK at present would likely hamper their ability to compress their schedule. Mayor Clark said Giffel-Webster has a commendable track record and their work has been a positive addition to the downtown area of Detroit. He spoke about favoring competition and said now is the time to show that and he would not support the motion.

Member Capello asked about the construction schedule to complete the job? Ms. McClain responded the project would be completed in 3 phases and estimated construction would go into July or August of next year depending on the weather. Member Capello noted by saying that going with a 36 week design schedule with JCK would push the project into the spring the project is into the spring anyway and it was just a question of how much work we can get done in the fall. He thought it might be better to wait until spring and thought the extra 6 weeks wouldn’t cause a problem. He said no one had asked Giffel-Webster if they could handle the work and he knew from working on private projects in Lyon Township that oftentimes Giffel-Webster’s work was not done on time. He felt with JCK if they have other work of ours it would give us the ability to pull them off one job and direct their attention to another if necessary and he didn’t think that would be possible with Giffel-Webster. He would support Member DeRoche’s motion.

Member DeRoche asked if this was the first time we went out for an engineering bid? Mr. Klaver said no. He asked if bids had been awarded to other engineering firms besides JCK? Mr. Klaver said yes, particularly Federal projects with Federal dollars are required to be bid. Member DeRoche said the bids were awarded to either the low bidder or highest qualified bidder. In this case we are talking about doing neither and comments were placed on the record that Member DeRoche was chiding a committee for delaying a project and it was quite the opposite. He thought this committee has added value to the process and the residents would benefit from them calling in all three firms for presentations. The committee recommended all three firms as qualified and that is what he would make his decision on.

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

Member Capello could not see how they were going to award a contract to a company that three out of four of our own bid analysts ranked last and none ranked them first, they are $6,000 higher than the lower bidder and we are still going to award the contract to them. He said it was just beyond him.

Member DeRoche said he is a champion of competition and had been for our attorneys and engineers and everybody we do business with and he hoped that our actions speak louder than our words in the future and vendors don’t get the perception that the fix is in that if they are the low qualified bidder and get an objective recommendation from the staff as being the highest qualified that for some other reason they are barred from the City. He thought that would have very severe ramification from not only who we attract to bid on our projects in the future, but also our perception with the citizens of our decision-making ability.

Mayor Clark strongly objected to Member DeRoche saying, "the fix is in." There is no fix. We are talking about competition in the market place and everything that has been done in all of these proposals has been open and above board. You also heard a Council representative of the Storm Water Stewardship Committee say that all of the applicants were qualified to do the work. The Committee stated all the applicants were qualified to do the work and there were some unique aspects to the projects due to watershed concerns. They felt that Giffels-Webster was mindful of those and took them into account in making unique proposals and was one of the two bidders that made a detailed proposal.

Mr. Fisher confirmed, for the record, that it was his understanding that the money for this project had already been allocated and didn’t require a five-vote majority. Mayor Clark and Mr. Klaver agreed.

Nays: Capello, DeRoche

Mr. Pearson said this was more of a transmission main. They had come up with a solution to try to provide at least the alternative in the option for the City to directly pay any money for this easement. That being if the City elects a gravity sewer that would benefit this property owner, we would not have to pay for this easement. Without that, we are recommending that to complete this project that we do need this easement. The value has been confirmed by the City attorney’s office and we would recommend approval of this.

Mayor Clark said this proposed project would provide some relief for Brightmoor. Mr. Pearson said this sanitary sewer was a major improvement for the northeast corner of the City. Our M-5 OST corridor between Haggerty and M-5 and also properties on Twelve Mile including Brightmoor Tabernacle and the Erickson Fox Run Retirement Village.

Member Capello asked to abstain because he had represented Maybury Park before he was elected.

Mr. Fisher said this is a matter involving the Maybury Park RUD project. There had been a contemplation in the agreement that had been prepared that the permanent sanitary sewer facilities in this matter would be financed by the establishment of a SAD which in turn would contemplate the City securing the financing up front for the project. There is a proposal on the table that the developer would do the financing and that we would repay the developer by way of a payback arrangement. The RUD agreement that had been put together and signed specifically contemplated the SAD agreement arrangement and therefore an amendment to that agreement would be necessary. As presented in the packet it indicated that this matter would return to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. However, on reflection and examination of types of projects that need to go back to the Planning Commission for that purpose, he didn’t believe this fit that requirement. This is strictly a matter of finance of a utility that he did not think they needed to burden the Planning Commission’s schedule. This does not change the concept of the development or the other criteria contained in our ordinance that would bring this matter to the Planning Commission. Therefore, he suggested that if the Council was inclined to approve this, that an amendment be prepared and returned to Council for consideration.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi thought that, regarding the RUD and contracts relative to the RUD, the language said that if they are changed they do have to come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher said there are ten criteria for returning to the Planning Commission and they are changing the concept of the development, changing the use or character of the development, changing the type of dwelling unit as identified on the approved area plan, increasing the number of dwelling units or lot coverage, rearrangement of lots, blocks or building sites, changing the character or function of any street, reduction in land area set aside for common area or open space or the relocation of such area, increase in building height or any modification similar in character or scope to any of the above. She said there was no infrastructure reference and there should have been. Mr. Fisher said this is not a change in infrastructure but only the manner in which it would be financed.

Mr. Fisher suggested that one of the benefits that would accrue if it had been sent back to the Planning Commission is that there would be a public hearing. The public hearing benefit in that regard would be that people who would be later subjected to the payback would be given notice and would be able to come and comment. He would suggest that when this matter did return to Council with a proposed agreement that it be noticed for a hearing before the Council on that regard. Member Landry asked that that be included in his motion and Member DeRoche agreed.

Mayor Clark asked Council Members to mark their ballots. He said an appointment that had to be made tonight was to the Library Board and under the Charter it is the responsibility of the Mayor to make a recommendation and his was James Lawrence who had been recently interviewed and who is employed by the City of Detroit Library system. He has a number of years experience and an impressive proven track record for his ability to write and prepare grants. He had procured between $7 and $9 million in grants for the Detroit Library system in the last couple of years.

John Harvey,1321 W. Lake Dr., said he has great concern for SAD #159 and #160 and the process and thanked Mayor Pro Tem Bononi for her comments concerning this issue. He realized that postponing this did them all a big favor. This is not part of either SAD but he commented on the situation regarding drainage in his area and thought it was the single most disturbing thing in their area. The roads aren’t pitched well with no drainage area and the roadbed is deteriorated and muddy per the City and JCK. The road is so soft that your feet feel like you are walking on a trampoline or mattress. The City continually brings in fill to add a solid base to drive on and the road becomes a dam, which prevents water from draining and some ditches are so full they could almost be classified as wetlands. Also, to make it more difficult his second issue was a road right-of-way issue, which again was not part of either SAD. The roads don’t line up, they don’t meet squarely and they aren’t the right width. Residents try to protect their small space so they place boulders at the roads edge, or 4 inch diameter steel posts set in concrete to keep the grader from chopping off another couple feet of their property or metal flags with reflectors. This is a major issue with the residents. He noted Member Landry asked a great question regarding whether or not the City even had the authority to work on an area of private easements. It was one of the first questions residents asked when they started working on the SAD’s was should these areas be included or not. Two years into this process and we still don’t have an answer. Regarding the paving, it is what they started out asking for and the truth is there are good dirt roads all around but they have a mud road not a dirt road. It was a recommendation by the City and JCK that once the drainage was fixed, the road base was put in and they got the easements worked out that it be paved. It’s still a primary desire to pave the road but it was also a recommendation to solve these two other issues. City Water is a separate SAD. He felt the water pipe should be placed before the road was installed. There is no urgency, as in costing us $20,000 a day, but it’s urgent to the residents as they can’t take kids for a walk in a stroller, can’t bring in garbage cans without getting all muddy, if he leaves the house and forgets something he has to drive back through another mile of chuck holes and mud to get back to his home. So in those things and more it is urgent to the residents. Mr. Harvey noted his concern about the 8 or 9 new wells put in since this process started, which means water is urgent to them to bear that cost. He was also concerned about residents who put in private drains to drain the water from the ditches to the lake on their own private property to avoid standing water in their yards, garages and sometimes their homes.

Mr. Harvey noted since the first day they started coming to the City for their advice about how to handle this, how to push it forward and what to do and he had not been impressed with the response. Mr. Harvey spoke about the issue of timeliness and how they had been delayed for two major issues. One is that they don’t have the water main going down W. Park Dr. and he is constantly being told it didn’t make sense to put in a water main if there is no water main to supply the line. As of this very moment we have water on Pontiac Trail, which is just a few hundred feet from the end of Northaven that we could tie into. Granted there is a project in the City budget now to connect up a line down W. Park Drive and they would like to tie into that but if that line never shows up the residents of their community would pay for a line to go from Northaven to Pontiac Trail to get City water. He asked that that excuse stop being used for not moving forward and finishing up the plans for the water. They are two separate SAD’s and although we would like to tie them together for the benefits of having them both done at the same time, however waiting to find out the answer to one question and in the meantime leaving ten others in the wings un-addressed is not the way to get this project moving and completed. Pass the water, move on with the design and we would not have to pay anyone for any work until we know what to do with these roads. He asked that Council speak to administration to address his concerns and not wait any longer. He thought we would be negligent if now that we know those streets are too narrow for two way traffic we leave them two way traffic even if they are dirt.

Paul Sherbeck, Simmons Orchard resident, spoke to Council about the City’s relation to businesses and cited the Sandstone and Main Street being a mess to deal with. He asked what the legitimate function of government was, stated he felt all the elected officials, commissions, zoning, everybody had overstepped their bounds on a legitimate function of government. We need to look at our propositions and question whether those propositions are true or not. Mr. Sherbeck said Mayor Clark gave a speech a few months ago and referred to moral obligation four times. He was referring to arsenic at the tree farm. He said the arsenic at the tree farm might not require substantial action on the part of the City and wouldn’t need to be dealt with if used for passive uses. It would only be an issue if the trees were removed and then the soil would have to be dug down two feet. He had done his own research and talked to some of the leading researchers and was told that maybe nothing needed to be done. He suggested that if it were a park, there wouldn’t be a moral obligation to clean up the land. He referred to a moral obligation as not taking someone’s property unjustly. This parkland contains about 40 acres that belonged to someone who was forced by the City to sell through condemnation or whatever the legal term is. This man, according to the newspaper, did not want to sell his property. Mr. Sherbeck said that property now will be a part of the Sandstone settlement and he felt that was an illegal taking. Regarding moral obligation, there is a lot of development in the City and businesses that take a hit because of it. He asked if the City would put up and pay for substantial signage to show businesses are still open when the bridge on Grand River is torn down? He felt the City had a moral obligation to mitigate any losses that these companies might have. Regarding Sandstone, he referred to minutes from Council over two years ago when the Consultants Review Committee talked and they had been looking at three things, attorney services, risk management firms and alternative risk financing. He suggested if Council or anyone involved in the government knew two years ago that they might give away the parkland something should have been said. He asked Mayor Clark when he knew that was a viable option and when others in government knew. It seemed that over the past two years it had been stalled so that millages could be passed for things

.

City Clerk Maryanne Cornelius read the results of the ballots.

Elinor Holland Cable Access Committee

Patricia Poirier Cable Access Committee

Jeffrey Bowdell Construction Board of Appeals

John Enkemann Construction Board of Appeals

John Sheffer Construction Board of Appeals

David Stec Construction Board of Appeals

Mr. Fisher said in this situation there are two alternatives. One is the larger bid and one is the smaller which would include the grinder pumps, etc. He asked that Member Capello specify which one he moved for. Member Capello added the necessary language. Mr. Fisher suggested that at some point in these proceedings that the members of the public be advised that using this type of sewer arrangement that there would be a more substantial upfront cost for the citizen to buy the grinder pump and to have it installed.

Mayor Clark said this is a process in which there are seven steps and this proposal could be halted at any point along the way prior to the seventh resolution. Mr. Fisher agreed.

Mr. Klaver said about 1-1/2 years ago when this function was transferred Council challenged both the committee and the administration to improve their spending performance. The Oakland County guideline is to have a spending ratio, which is no more than the ratio between the unexpended funds and the annual allotment, which is $107,000 for the last few years to below a 1.5 ratio. In the event that is done you are eligible to get recaptured funds that are recaptured from communities that are above the 1.5 ratio and he was pleased to report that through some excellent committee work they had gone from a ratio of 3.2 down to .89. This is well below the 1.5 and he thanked the committee, Marina Neumaier, Melissa Place and the City Manager’s Office, as they are a great asset and do the bulk of the work on this program.

Before Council is a recommendation to acknowledge what had transpired in the last few years, which is that we have gone from a Resolution that is over 19 years old to a situation where that this group provide citizen input on the recommendations for the Community Development Block Grant Funds. All of these recommendations come back to Council as this is an advisory group and at some point the membership has come out of sync with the original resolution. We have had five citizen voting members for the past eight years and they were asking that this be brought back into compliance with our current membership as described.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi had been asked by two members of the committee about the situation with regard to a determination that is apparently being or has been made about a planning commissioner not being able to participate on this committee. Is that correct, is it per State law or where did that come from?

Mr. Fisher could not give her a firm answer. Mr. Klaver said they had requested and received information on that and an opinion letter had been received from the previous City attorney. Ms. Cornelius had discussed it with the Attorney’s office to confirm that is by State law. It is the only body in the City that is called out in State law. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked for a copy of that information so the concerns addressed to her could be met and she wanted to know if Mr. Fisher would be in concurrence with that opinion.

She was also concerned that in the Resolution that under the "Be it further resolved" section that it infers that the Community Development Advisory Committee would supervise the administration of spending resolutions. She suggested that be oversee or monitor because she didn’t believe that group would be supervising. Mr. Fisher had exactly the same question. She said this group had not worked on this since last summer and had a new member coming on board and thought that he might want to hold this over for their language approval until the next meeting. Mr. Klaver said this had been discussed at subsequent meetings and they are still very supportive of having this approved. She said in a recent meeting it was put to her that this has not been discussed since last summer. Mr. Klaver said it was discussed two meetings ago in December.

Member Capello asked if the State Statute addressed if a City Council Member could serve on the HCD Committee? Mr. Fisher said he knew there were limitations for Planning Commissioners and what they can do but he was not aware that there was a like or parallel limitation on City Council Members. If the limitation exists it would be in the Municipal Planning Act.

Mayor Clark said in light of the concern that Mr. Fisher had relative to the language in the proposed resolution in the "Be it further resolved" paragraph he asked if Mr. Fisher had alternate language? He had thought of "Assist" but felt Mayor Pro Tem Bononi’s suggestion of "monitor" was excellent.

Member Capello said Mr. Klaver had asked him whether or not he felt a Council Member needed to be a member. Is that a concern the committee had? Mr. Klaver said no. The question from the committee was whether it was necessary since these are advisory recommendations that come back to the full Council. Member Capello did not see the need for non-voting Council Member on the committee. Mr. Klaver said the committee would not have a problem with that.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said the concern she had about that was Council representation on other boards and commissions. She thought from the standpoint of questions about procedure and process it lends a very valuable component to boards and commissions. But they should determine who should liaise with them. In the old description of this committee they refer to a role of the Housing Rehabilitation Coordinator. She asked who was serving that function now? Mr. Klaver said they had not had that function for about 17 years. She thought that was one of the questions about outreach and getting information out to the people who need it but there is no one appointed to do that. That is a real problem and a real hole that could be filled. Mr. Klaver said that is part of his role as administrative liaison and they had had a pretty successful program. In fact, recently the Novi News became interested in the program and did an article and it generated about 20 applications. She thought Mr. Klaver’s position should be plugged into the resolution. It did not have to be a person it could be a position and could be changed and she would look for that. He said he would be more than happy to accept that assignment.

Mayor Clark noted Item 16, Acceptance of Warranty Deed and Grading Permit from Art Van Furniture; Parcel No. 22-15-200-095 for the Twelve Mile Road-SAD 155 Project, has been put over until the meeting of March 4^th. The motion is to approve Items #15 and #17.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi believed that the persons involved in cooperating in this project being Ethan Allen Inc., Sears Roebuck and Company should be congratulated. The manner in which they have decided to cooperate in this project with a really big consideration of $1.00 each. Thank you to them.

Mr. Schultz, City attorney, was present to update the status on this project. After the last meeting they met with the both the bonding company, Liberty Mutual and Greystone indicated that we intended to go forward with the termination of Greystone and set up parameters for discussing where we go from there. On February 8^th the termination was effective and the following Monday the letter to Greystone indicating that there had been a formal termination was sent out to Greystone. The following day correspondence was sent to Liberty Mutual that Greystone was out and we were requesting the bonding company to honor its obligations under the performance and payment bonds. We have received formal communications from Liberty saying they are investigating those claims. He spoke with the bonding company’s representatives and don’t have any reason to believe that there would be anything other than an indication that those would be honored as the information requested comes in from the City to the bonding company. That leaves us, tonight, with the draft Hold Harmless Agreement. The City’s contract with Greystone essentially says that before payment applications 2 and 3 are released, we are to get waivers of lien and releases with any respect to payment we made on payment #1. We made a substantial payment on payment #1 and we don’t have those waivers of lien. At their last meeting with Liberty the position taken by the bonding company was that it would assist in their efforts once they have honored the performance bond and stepped into provide a general contractor and a way to finish the contract. They are taking the position under the documents that they don’t have to make payments 2 and 3 because we haven’t made payments under 2 and 3 yet. So we are trying to shortstop this issue, while protecting the City, so the Hold Harmless Agreement suggests the City would authorize releasing 2 and 3. They would be used to pay sub-contractors and suppliers on 2 and 3 and we would be held harmless for any claims that we somehow caused some damaged to somebody by releasing 2 and 3 without waivers on #1. We think that the City, with an agreement in this conceptual form, is protected. We met with the administration and the architect on the question of do we agree that it will help them get rolling quicker if we release 2 and 3 and the collective wisdom is that the logic there makes sense.

Member Landry said when Greystone was approved they were required to provide a performance bond and they did that with this Liberty Mutual Performance Bond. Since Greystone cannot provide services, Liberty steps in and continues the project. The cost to the citizens is not one penny greater to the contractor. Mr. Schultz said under these circumstances there should be no cost to the City. Member Landry asked if Liberty had decided on Forcon as the general contractor. Mr. Schultz said under the terms of the bond, the decision falls to Liberty to decide whether they want Forcon to be the contractor or hire another construction management firm. From his perspective the City is in a position to influence that decision and if there was any sentiment on the part of the architect or the administration that we don’t want Forcon, based on our due diligence then he thought we could have raised that issue. They gave us information on Forcon and we did a check and from our perspective there would be something to gain if we accept Forcon. Member Landry asked if Forcon had been assigned to be the new general contractor. Mr. Schultz said they had not because technically Liberty is in that investigation stage. He thought they would meet with Liberty this week or early next week and they would confirm that they want to go with Forcon. Member Landry asked about the validity of subcontractors. Mr. Schultz said the sub-contractors are with Greystone so Liberty would have to meet with each of the subcontractors to confirm a relationship. What if the sub-contractor had already completed their work. Mr. Schultz said any work that has been done and approved through payments 1, 2, and 3 that money, and the Hold Harmless Agreement specifically says that, has to be released to the suppliers and sub-contractors that earned that money.

Member Capello asked if Liberty could step in and take over Greystone’s contracts. Mr. Schultz replied they had not been given the contract between Greystone and Liberty. The representations from Liberty have been that they fully expect and intend to use the existing sub-contractors and suppliers. Member Capello thought what we were going to do was to give pay applications 2 and 3 to the title insurance company and the bonding company to issue joint checks. He thought payment 1 was going to get paid out too. Mr. Schultz stated 1 had already been paid. Member Capello said Liberty has the obligation to pay subcontractors that weren’t paid under payment 1 correct? Mr. Schultz said yes. Member Capello said he didn’t see that in this document. Mr. Schultz said that is a fair comment. Liberty is in the process of beginning to make payments to certain sub-contractors and suppliers under #1 and it would not be difficult to amend this to make sure that was clear. Member Capello asked that sub paragraph 2 on page 2, third line, be amended to read "such payment applications 1, 2 and 3.

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION: (Consent Agenda items, which have been removed for discussion and/or action)

Member DeRoche said the first reading was voted on two meetings ago. At that time the Council changed the wording from the bench in the motion and it was passed. It obviously generated a lot of interest from the public. He asked when this would be taken up for second reading or adoption as residents are asking him about it.

Mayor Clark said it would be back in the reasonably foreseeable future. Mr. Fisher said they were studying that and now have the benefit of the complaint that was filed in the Ferndale case and they want to examine that with the idea of making any modifications that would be appropriate and then getting it back to Council for consideration.

Member Capello said there was a letter in the packets and there had been a concern that our water and sewer rates are very high. He asked for some type of a simple study or explanation on how we come about our rates and what profit we make on the water bought from Detroit and sold to our residents and what profit is made on the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Klaver asked if that could be brought back March 26^th?

Rob Siemens, Royal Arc, thanked Council on behalf of his company and the other subs working at the Fire Station. He appreciated that Council took this seriously and each Member commented on it and felt that each voted on what is right. He said he was available to Mayor & Council and could be contacted at home and he would love to give them the other side of the project. He isn’t aware of the next step in the procedure but thought Liberty would go back into a bargaining mode to get the subs to cut their prices. He felt it was best for Council to remain involved so that it’s done correctly.

Letter from Mr. & Mrs. M. Schaeffer Re: Dangerous Weapons Ordinance

Letter from Tim Dziewit Re: Proposed Water Rate increase for 2002

Letter from Sandra Weaver Re: Pioneer Meadows sanitary sewer project.

Letter from Tim Gilson, No.VI Salon Re: access to parking lot.

Letter from Mrs. S. Snyder, teacher, Deerfield Elementary School; Re: Destruction of Fuerst Farm

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:14 PM.

_____________________________ _____________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: ______________________

Charlene McLean

Date approved: March 4, 2002