REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI
 MONDAY, APRIL 1, 2002 AT 7:30 PM
NOVI CIVIC CENTER – COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Bononi, Council Members Capello, Csordas, DeRoche, Landry, Lorenzo

Member Lorenzo added, under Mayor and Council Issues, Item #1, Last Friday’s Free Press Article regarding the Sandstone settlement. Mayor Clark felt this should be discussed in Executive Session and Member Lorenzo did not. Mr. Fisher said it was a policy question. This is a matter of pending litigation. Council could talk about anything they desired in open session but the purpose of the closed sessions is to maintain your bargaining issues and strategies. He cautioned Council that there could be a downside to discussing these issues in open session. Member Lorenzo responded that her remarks would be limited to the article and information contained in the article. Mayor Clark felt it should be done in Executive Session. He saw no reason to comment, generate more articles in the paper or to give the opposite side any more information. He said Member Lorenzo could make a motion for Executive Session after the meeting and he would be happy to discuss this. Member Lorenzo disagreed and stated she had comments pertaining to her individual position regarding information she had or did not have, things brought to her or not brought to her attention or her recollections. She wanted it on the record and wanted the public and her colleagues to hear her. Mayor Clark commented her colleagues would hear her in Executive Session and he would not give information to the other side when we are negotiating at this point and when we are getting close to having something finalized that the entire Council would have very shortly. Member Lorenzo asked if she had to write a letter to the Novi News or the Free Press explaining her position. She said she would do that to get her information to the public as to her opinion, what she did or didn’t know, considered or didn’t consider. Mayor Clark asked her to bear in mind what was at stake here and to put personal positions aside for the good of the entire community until Council had an entire agreement in front of them and then she could make any statement she wanted on the record. Member Lorenzo said we don’t know when those documents will be received. The 45 days expires April 2^nd and there are still no documents and we don’t know how long it is going to be until an agreement is reached. Her concern was that information appeared in the newspaper that she might not have had and if she didn’t, she felt embarrassed by that and didn’t like being made a fool of in the paper. She felt compelled to respond. Mayor Clark stated he sent word today that he expected this to be done by next week and asked Member Lorenzo to be patient until then. She disagreed.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if it would be a reasonable way for Member Lorenzo to have the answer to her questions by addressing them to Mr. Fisher to respond to those questions he wished to respond to or decline those he felt would be compromising to our position. She would not agree with a forum for personal opinion.

Mr. Fisher stated he knew the subject matter she was referring to because they had discussed it. However, he didn’t know how the questions would come forward and whether it would be an appropriate way of proceeding. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was concerned about a decline of confidence in the system and if she could get the information she needed that would be Mayor

Pro Tem Bononi’s goal. Mr. Fisher suggested, subject to Member Lorenzo’s ultimate desires, that this be discussed in closed session this evening. If there was something she desired to make public after that it would be her prerogative. Member Lorenzo was agreed. Mayor Clark asked if she would like to add #5 to Matters for Council Action Part 1 to schedule an Executive Session immediately following this meeting. She agreed.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi added, under Mayor and Council Issues #2, she wanted to reference the cost overruns to the 2001 Neighborhood Program, Village Oaks, and the memo from JCK dated March 25, 2002.

To approve the agenda as amended.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi commented regarding the Storm Water Committee. The Committee had decided and would support the formation of the formation of the first Creek Group in the City of Novi, which would be celebrating and preserving Bishop Creek. Susan Thompson, from the Storm Water Committee, has agreed to spearhead this group. She is a resident of Novi and is with the Wayne County Department of the Environment. One third of our community is in Huron River Watershed and on April 13^th the Huron River Roundup will be held and an announcement would be posted for anyone who wanted to learn more about how to preserve and appreciate creeks.

CITY MANAGER

Mr. Helwig noted the Plan Review Center Open House was held this evening. He was pleased to have a very talented staff on board making progress and saving money. He thanked everyone who visited.

DEPARTMENT REPORTS

Status on Public Opinion Survey Budgeted for 2001/2002 for Master Plan Update – David Evancoe, Director of Planning

Mr. Evancoe reported on the public survey that just went out to the public last week to update the Master Plan for Land Use. It is significant due to the perceptions and

opinions of our citizens. He wanted to hear from the public on how they perceived City services and growth and it would be a very comprehensive survey. This is being done in partnership with the Institute of Community and Regional Development at Eastern

Michigan University. Dr. Joseph Orin has been very helpful in designing the survey and he would assure that it is done in a scientific method so the results would be reliable. This will be available for anyone in the community that would like to fill it out on the City web site.

Mr. Klaver noted in partnership with the Oakland Mediation Services the City is forming a voluntary mediation program group that would provide to our residents an alternative dispute resolution format. We are seeking voluntary mediators and have ten openings in the training program beginning April 23^rd that are reserved for Novi residents. Anyone interested in this program should contact Mr. Klaver for additional information. Applications are also available on the web site.

ATTORNEY

Mr. Fisher reported that the Agora liquor license issue regarding certain conditions to be met has been satisfied and he thought the City Clerk could move forward by reporting to the State.

Jonathon Brateman has an office at 40015 Grand River Avenue in Brateman Medical Center, asked for support, help and cooperation to make the Downtown Gateway Ordinance a reality. He felt this ordinance should be moved forward to become a reality and thought the NCC was the most restrictive of all the commercial uses in the Ordinance and he would like to see all or as many of those NCC uses included. He commented what was needed was something that is that bridge between the downtown and the industrial area to the east of the pond. In terms of the uses and the residential density, these types of ordinances work well in other communities and should be mixed with some commercial, as many people like to have their offices in that area and he looked forward to the passage of the ordinance.

Steven Burch – IKON Office Solutions requested that Council table Item #4 to approve the lease regarding copiers and fax equipment. He handles the State of Michigan contract as well as the City of Novi account and through discussions with the City he had been asked to submit State of Michigan pricing programs, which Novi is a member of, in the extended purchasing programs through the State. Three have been awarded that contract, and IKON is one of them. He believed that Ricoh Business Systems might not have been forthcoming in the

information they provided to the State/City and thought that Council was acting on information that would represent their offer as being a State of Michigan approved purchase when in fact it is not. He asked that it be tabled and discussed amidst interested parties.

David Hutka, Haverhill Subdivision, spoke on behalf of Zoning Amendment 18.618, Matters for Council Action #2, and was concerned with the process for notification with only two notices to the residents of the subdivision, which went out 1 or 2 days before the Planning Commission meeting so there was no chance to express any concern at the Planning Commission meeting. The zoning request was set up so that more homes could be squeezed into the proposed subdivision. It’s next to their subdivision that already has drainage problems and with more homes there will be more drainage problems. He asked what the process and timing was for Planning Commission notification of residents? He felt this shouldn’t go through until the other issues were resolved including drainage and traffic impact issues. Mayor Clark asked if it was correct that only two homeowners were notified. His notice was postmarked March 15^th received on the 18^th and the Planning Commission meeting was on the 20^th and the developer noted no complaints were received.

Paul Vogel, 24614 Venice Drive, Roma Ridge Homeowner’s Association Vice President, appreciated working with the City Council on the traffic control stop signs in the subdivision. He noted the homeowners would appreciate Council voting in favor of the stop sign because of the blind intersection.

To approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. March 18, 2002 – Regular meeting

B. Approval of Resolution authorizing 2002 Memorial Day Parade on May 27, 2002 and submittal of Resolution to the Road Commission for Oakland County.

C. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 619

Absent: Capello

Mr. Bach, petitioner, said he would be a captive audience and very appreciative if there were any Council members that cared to elaborate on the suggestions that they had made during previous meetings on this matter because he had not been able to find them.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Fisher what his understanding was about notice requirements? Mr. Fisher said the Ordinance provides that the State law, Act 207, requires at least 15 days advanced notice to homeowners within 300 feet. The materials from the administration indicate that 11 notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Mr. Evancoe noted homeowners were notified within 500 feet and Beth Brock was checking upstairs with regard to the notification. The property next to it is 367 feet wide so it doesn’t catch too many homes but 11 notices were sent out as well as the newspaper publication. Some notices are five days in advance and some are 15 days in advance based on State Statute. Mr. Fisher suggested tabling this matter until later in the evening so Ms. Brock could examine the files.

Mr. Klaver shared information after meeting with Mr. Burch from IKON and previously with Jeff Stoner regarding their concerns on this bid process. He had talked with Ms. Smith-Roy and had received an extensive e-mail from Cheryl McNamara. He said they had indicated to both vendors that they were free to submit their best price even though initially, they had selected two types of equipment based on what was approved on the State purchasing. It was the City’s feeling that both vendors were given the opportunity to submit their best prices. Mayor Clark asked Ms. Smith Roy if she had any additional

information or comments? She did not.

Mr. Helwig noted that there was an employee who had previously worked at IKON and had moved on to Ricoh and they were alleging some non-compete agreement with that employee going over there and basically the confirmation came back that that was a private matter that was not something the City was involved with or to be cognizant of in terms of making a decision. Member Lorenzo stated if this was open to bidding and this is the best business decision for the City she agreed with the administrative determination.

To approve leasing of combination copier/fax/printer digital

Csordas

Lind Wash, Haverhill, commented she brought her public hearing notice and it was postmarked on Friday March 15^th and she thought 5 days should mean 5 business days. Mr. Fisher said it would be calendar days and believed it was 15 not 5. She said there were only two of them notified, Lots 13 and 14 and there are 8 property owners on the cul-de-sac.

Steve Burch, IKON representative, stated for the record that they were never asked for open market pricing and that they would have certainly supplied that if asked.

Jorg Linke, 25896 Clark, noted he received the updated Novi Newsletter and appreciated receiving the news and commended the City administration to keep up the good work.

period of 180 days - Section 28-8 (6) of the Sign Ordinance.

Member Csordas commented, regarding the flags, that he wanted to make sure they were in good shape. Regarding the flags up and down Novi Road that are in bad shape, the VFW has a ceremony where the process of destroying the tattered flags is done in a respectful way and he would like to see that done. The flags have been up too long in disrepair and a lot of them are missing so let’s do and do it right or do it in another manner.

Mayor Clark said Member Csordas had expressed concern that if there is an extension he wanted a condition attached that the flags be in presentable order and not tattered and he would support that.

To approve extending Administrative Waiver regarding display

Member Csordas accepted the amendment. Member DeRoche said this was an issue he was passionate about. The meetings are started with "I pledge allegiance to the flag" and tonight the National Championship Basketball game for college will be played and they would start with the National Anthem that ends "Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave" and he would hate to remove Novi from the land in which the song speaks. Our country has been through a lot over the last six months and he was sorry he didn’t champion this cause sooner but is glad to do it now. He said his brother is a Marine serving in Yuma AZ as a firefighter on the air field and when he spoke to him on

Easter he reminded him again of the number of foreign countries jets that are on our homeland including Russia defending our space and working with our military in a time of war and flying under our flag. That is what is important to his brother, serving as a Marine, and what is important to our military at this time. We saw out of the carnage in New York City where two of our greatest buildings in this country were taken down the symbol that mattered most to Americans that came from that rubble was the American Flag that was raised up. He thought that this ordinance restricting the size and number of flags in Novi was in direct conflict with the freedom that the flag represented to him personally. He understood and respected the thought processes that went into putting this in place because of trouble with people using the flag for marketing purposes and even serious injuries or death related to a flagpole. He supported the type of restrictions that we need to have in place to assure safety and he would also support the type of restrictions we to have in place to be sure people are not exploiting our flag, manipulating its size or anything that would pertain to their building. However, to him, a

regulation American flag is an American flag, no matter the size or how many of them are flown he looked at them as an American flag. He wanted to remove this restriction to allow businesses to fly regulation American flags. Our ordinance does speak to the fact that the flag must be in good repair.

Member Lorenzo would support amending the language to address his concerns but was concerned about the U.S. flag being exploited and used for marketing. She stated she would rather approve the extension and have the appropriate staff go back and revise the standards including some language regarding avoidance of the exploitation of the flag for marketing purposes.

Member Landry felt there was a reason for an ordinance, which prohibits people from misusing, or abusing any symbol including the American flag. That is why the restriction was written in the ordinance to prevent someone from using it commercially. He agreed with Member Lorenzo and felt the more prudent action would be to approve the extension and possibly refer it to Ordinance Review. The more prudent course was to simply approve the extension at this time.

Mr. Fisher noted that because what is on the table at this point is an actual ordinance amendment it should be First Reading. Mayor Clark said that would give the Council the opportunity to look at this further and asked if the motion needed to be amended because the Agenda doesn’t say First Reading. Mayor Clark asked if the maker of the motion would accept amending the motion to make it a First Reading. Mr. Fisher said what is on the agenda is an extension so Council could vote on that but the actual motion now on the floor is not an extension, it is an amendment of the ordinance and is different from what’s on the agenda and requires a First Reading.

Member DeRoche asked if he had to withdraw his motion, pass the first motion and then make his motion as a First Reading? Mr. Fisher said it could be moved to amend this agenda item to add to it the possibility of amending the ordinance as well as extending the waiver. Member DeRoche asked the Mayor’s preference.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said the only problem she had with that interpretation was that Council had to vote to amend this agenda. Mr. Fisher said yes and it could be done at this point. She asked why they would want to do that? It is a very clean thing to extend this for 180 days, put a First Ordinance Reading on the next agenda and go from there. We have concerns with the

language we want to work into this, we have to craft some language to address the concerns that have already been made with regard to points of Flag Etiquette #7 and they could be literally written into that ordinance.

Member DeRoche said he would withdraw his motion and make one after the main motion is passed. Member Csordas withdrew his motion.

CM-02-04-067 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Bononi; CARRIED

Nays: None

Absent: Capello

Roma Ridge Subdivision.

Clark

Corporate Park to service the Amson-Dembs Building site as a public utility.

Bononi

8. Approval of Final Pay Estimate No. 5 and Final Balancing Change Order No. 1 in the

Member Lorenzo asked exactly what the Change Order consisted of and whether the residents of the area had any comments pro or con with regard to the outcome of the construction. Mayor Clark thought some of the residents came forward initially with concerns about the initial work that had been done and reviewing it with the engineers they went back and did some additional work on those shoulders. Mr. Helwig noted initially it was seeded which was the condition and there was periodic gravel along the roadbed that was reconditioned because it really was sinking. There is a lot of parking that occurs on this and people want to walk and use it as a de facto bike path so the idea came up to construct the shoulders to extend the pavement and stripe it. He had received good feedback but he did receive an e-mail about some water ponding Nancy McClain instructed Council to look at the last two pages including more sod, less aggregate. All those were listed to add the final quantities into the contract. Mr. McCusker noted part of the conditions involved extending the shoulders and striping that occurred. They thought the areas that were ponding were due to some settling. They will do additional cleanup within 2-3 weeks.

1. Cost overruns 2001 relative to the Village Oaks Paving Program - Bononi

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi referred to Council meeting minutes of March 18, 2001, page 15, third paragraph, which were approved this evening stated "Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said the job is not finished and asked how much more. Mr. Helwig said the document that Mr. Fisher oversaw last fall requires Cadillac Asphalt to complete the job by June 30^th with no additional

funds being expended. She asked if we had their concurrence and Mr. Helwig said they signed the document and it was overseen by the City Attorney’s office." So, with that on the record and her question being asked and answered, we have in our off-week packet a memo to Mr. Helwig from Keith Uutinen, JCK Vice President of Construction Engineering, and it said the rest of the work would require $110,000 and $120,000 including the wearing course and any miscellaneous items to complete the job. She wanted an explanation of why additional funds would be needed after the statement made in the March 18^th Council minutes. Mr. Helwig commented he erred recalling what that understanding was. It froze the unit prices and set the date for completion. It did not say that work would be done gratis in the spring.

Mayor Clark stated the oldest roads hadn’t been worked on for 30 years and this is the price we pay. He hoped a maintenance program was not in place so that this won’t be the case in the future.

Member Csordas appreciated what was being said but could not understand with all the technology we have now that we didn’t realize that this was coming when the original engineering was done. It should have been seen in the very beginning. Mayor Clark agreed.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated we are not talking about what it takes to fix/repair a road that has been neglected for 30 years. We are talking about making a proposal to do those repairs professionally and accountably; that has not happened here. She was not questioning whether or not our maintenance had been insightful or responsible over the years. This is today, we start from here and the buck needs to stop here.

Mr. Evancoe did not have a clear answer regarding the dates public hearing notices were sent but said there was a notice published on February 21^st, one month before the public hearing was held. It was a staff member’s belief, not Ms. Brocks, that she sent notices to the 11 residents within that 500 feet area at that same time. However, the postmarks the residents are showing us do not indicate that. They do verify a second notice was sent as a courtesy notice because the first one was sent so far in advance and that is the one the residents in the audience were able to verify. It is not clear whether those earlier notices were sent. A further aspect to this is that these properties are within that 300-500 ft. area so technically they were not entitled to a notice but it has certainly has been policy and practice to provide those and he was concerned about whether this was handled properly.

Member Csordas suggested tabling this item since it can’t be confirmed that the mailing was done until proper notice can be done. Mr. Fisher said if the notice had not been proper then

the actual Public Hearing that was conducted at the Planning Commission level needs to be repeated with proper notice. We need to apologize to the applicant because there will be a time delay to do it correctly for the applicant’s benefit as well as the neighbors to do it right. It should be remanded back to the Planning Commission to conduct a Public Hearing and have the notice sent within the time prescribed. Member Csordas agreed.

Mayor Clark said in light of the fact that there is concern about the propriety of the earlier notice, should any additional costs to the petitioner be waived? Mr. Fisher said it would be appropriate under the circumstances. Member Csordas, maker of the motion accepted that additional costs to the petitioner are to be waived.

Member Landry asked if this could be fast tracked on the Planning Commission by ordering that this be taken up on the next available agenda, after proper notice? Mr. Fisher said yes. Member Csordas agreed.

Member DeRoche agreed with Member Landry. Since the petitioner does incur costs outside of the City for a time delay he believed the administration needed to work as quickly and supportively as possible to get this back to Council.

Dan Schultz, Newberry Dr., spoke regarding recruiting of Fire Fighters, and he noticed in their ads for recruitment and hiring the fact that Novi would train firefighter and EMT applicants was omitted. He asked that Human Resources include in the ads that the City would provide full training because most of the ads list an additional requirement of being a Fire 1 and EMT when, in fact, they will train to be Fire 1 and EMT.

Mr. Helwig stated he would take a look at the ads.

Linda Wash, noted no first notices were received regarding Matters for Council Action Item #2 and appreciated Council’s consideration.

1. Letter from Gerald Taylor Re: Allen Tanski

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:51 PM.

_______________________________ _______________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by ______________________

Charlene McLean

Date approved: April 15, 2002