Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:37 PM.

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

Added to Mayor and Council Issues

1. Update on the Barrons property issues – Member Lorenzo

2. Septic Field Investigations – Member Lorenzo

3. Reschedule City Manager/City Clerk evaluations from June 20^th – Member Landry

4. Status of Implementation of Storm Water Ordinance – Member DeRoche

5. Chapter 20 Drain Proposal from Oakland County – Mayor Clark

Mayor Clark said Novi has a Memorial Day Parade to honor those who paid the supreme price to guarantee our freedom. He commended everyone associated with the parade for their hard work and said this year it was the biggest and the best. Mayor Clark presented Certificates of Recognition to those present, Steve Bell, Tom Marcus and Bob Sale and Certificates of Recognition would also be mailed to those who were not present.

Mayor Clark said River Day in Novi had an outstanding turnout and he thanked citizens for their involvement and dedication for taking this charge seriously and making this one of the finest communities in Oakland County. He recognized those present who were: Toni Nagy, Sean Carlson, Christina Bartoli, Mayor Pro Tem Michelle Bononi and Council member David Landry. He recognized Anglin’s Landscaping Supply, Mongolian Barbeque, Caribou Coffee, Country Building Supply, Glenda’s Garden Center, Local Color, Pastry Palace, and Golden Fry Management, Inc. Mr. Fisher and his firm, Secrest, Wardle, Lynch, Hampton, Truex and Morley, also contributed.

Mr. Helwig reported the new Ten Mile pedestrian bike pathway, which connects Orchard Ridge Estates, and points west, with Novi Road was open for traffic and citizens and the nursing home are very pleased. Also, we are closer to two road bond intersections. The traffic signals are hung, but not activated yet, at Ten Mile and Meadowbrook and Ten Mile and Cranbrooke. He thanked Council and voters of Novi for making those improvements possible.

Mr. Fisher reported on a matter decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals. It was involving a former condemnation case along Taft Road in which the City appealed a portion of a decision that related to a technicality. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the City and had returned the case to the Circuit Court for a recalculation of damages. They would be talking about that further in terms of potential settlement.

Sean Carlson, candidate for the State Senate, introduced himself to the City Council and thanked them for their service to their community as well as their country. He is a Commerce Township resident and since there have been a lot of cuts in the City, County and State due to the economic downturn of times, he decided to become involved and the centerpiece of his campaign is fiscal responsibility. He believes that fiscal responsibility is an attitude and an approach. He is a Captain in the Air Force Reserve in defense procurement and has spent the last ten years cutting against government waste. He noted he was experienced and qualified in this area and thought that was what Lansing needed.

James Pembroke, 312 Elm Court, felt there were three things the north end should have done. First, put no swimming signs on City property because there is no lifeguard and July 4^th is coming. Second, the City has a sand dam on the Walled Lake side at the canal and Shawood Lake is turning into a big retention pond because it doesn’t drain into Walled Lake. Third, he didn’t know if there was an ordinance against slumlords but something needed to be done about some of the houses on Elm Court because some have not been kept up for 20 years. He hoped Council could do something about this.

Ginger Barrons, 24777 Glenda, reported to Council that their grading was finally done, the drainage was done properly and they now have a $7,100 bill for the additional work. This is in addition to the initial grading which was $3,075. She said the grading was re-inspected and they were charged twice for re-inspecting before the final grade approval. They spent $617.50 on a drain that was removed that they were told they had to put in with the initial drainage. They have $900 worth of trees that had to be moved that would have never been planted if they had not been approved. Included in the $7,100 bill was seeding the lot. Their initial bill from the landscaper after the final grade of what should have taken place at that point was

hydro seed and hand rake for $2,500. What she had for $7,100 was seed but no hay, so the see washed away last weekend. She wanted to come before Council to let them know that in her opinion she has $4,592.50 that was spent prior to receiving final grade that was probably down the drain. If the grading had never been approved, but it was clearly stamped by JCK, if in fact it was incorrect then she could have gone back to the contractors and could have made them do it again until it was done right for no additional money. She came before Council because she felt they had been more than good neighbors, they were not happy and they were looking for compensation for the mistakes that were made. They had told Council they would spend an extra $2,000 to make this right. This bill is $7,100. Somewhere along the line there was a problem but it wasn’t on their end. They did everything they should have done, it was inspected, re-inspected and even got a final grade approval and there shouldn’t have been a $7,100 bill for grade. They were told that the landscaper always had to do some grading. She said they cut a foot off of one side and landscapers don’t do that. In fact they are really cautious not to alter grade. Two different landscapers they contacted would not come back because they were concerned that the grade was being altered after final grade. She said they are really happy with the outcome and had found some interesting things in the process. Such as: the neighbors culvert was 7 inches too high and they have two drains draining into the very same ditch that he was complaining was too high. Those are clearly visible now that the City had come and removed his culvert, cut his drain and put the new culvert in. It is really clear that there are two drains coming from his property. They weren’t sure what they were but knew one came from a gutter. What they did know was that all the water going into that ditch wasn’t theirs and that was a surprise to them. The bill has been paid but they were looking for someone to step up to the responsibility that they owe the Barrons family.

CONSENT AGENDA: (Background information for Consent Agenda items is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office)

Member Lorenzo removed Item F.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. June 3, 2002, Regular meeting
2. June 10 2002, Regular Interview meeting

B. Schedule Executive Session immediately following the regular Council meeting of June 17, 2002 in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing pending litigation.

C. Award bid for Township Hall / Fuerst Farm House painting to Greg’s Professional Painting, the low bidder, in the amount of $9,630.

D. Award bid for Dust Control Products to South Huron Industrial, Inc., the low bidder, based on unit pricing.

E. Approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 18.170 – from Singh Development to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi

Zoning Ordinance, Footnote (u), of the schedule of regulations contained within

Section 2400 of said ordinance, relating to height requirements in an OST

District; and to amend Subpart 2509.6(g), relating to berms, in order to clarify the

Planning Commission’s authority to waive required berms when adjacent to

residential districts under certain circumstances.- 2^nd Reading & Adoption.

G. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No.624

Member Lorenzo said she would not support the restaurant and felt it wasn’t a unique establishment and with only four City Quota Licenses available, there might not be any available for a truly unique restaurant in the future.

Member DeRoche recalled a birthday party at Chuck E Cheese’s when he was growing up and looked forward to having a party with his daughter there in the future and he would support the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi would not support this and agreed with Member Lorenzo. She thought with regard to the potential ordinance in the Gateway area, many fine dining opportunities could be available. The ordinance called for Council to be discriminating about them.

Member Csordas said he would like to see the remaining four meet every criterion. He felt the process was reversed as the buildings are built before coming to the City. He felt the licenses, etc. should be obtained before building. Mr. Fisher said it was up to the applicant to make that decision and it was an economic call on their part. Member Csordas said he didn’t see any uniqueness about this project and would not support it.

Mayor Clark stated there are occasions when someone would obtain a license that had been held in escrow somewhere else and would it transfer to a new establishment. Mr. Fisher agreed and noted there is a law that allows transfers between jurisdictions, therefore, there is a possibility to add licenses where that possibility didn’t exist before.

Member Landry said he would support this because we know what we are getting here. It is not a guess and it’s aimed at children. It is only a beer and wine license, they serve by the glass and not by the pitcher. They’ve made a significant investment in the community and are a known commodity.

Member Lorenzo asked if the Blues Airman Band was a blues band. The applicant, Mark Madigan, said it was. She asked if there would be any obscene language or gestures involved in their singing or their act? He said absolutely not. She said they had indicated on their plan that they would rely on the Novi Police Department and asked if that meant they were going to contract privately with them? Mr. Madigan said they had a security group of 17 individuals who had done these over the past five years and they didn’t anticipate any problems and had not had any in the past. In an extreme case, they would call the police and have them taken away. Member Lorenzo was concerned that they were not contracting for that service if they needed it. This is a private event and the taxpayers should not be paying for that should the need occur. So unless they contracted with the Police Department she would not support it.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said reading from the applicant’s document it said, "the event would feature tattoo artists and vendors from around the country." She asked what kind of vendors? Mr. Madigan said there would be vendors for T-shirts, 50’s clothing and that sort of thing. She asked if they would be doing body tattoos on the premise. He said they would in the convention center. She asked if they had the required permits from the Oakland County Health Department. He said they did and had been working with the Oakland County Health Department as it was the first time they required permits for this sort of thing and they helped them develop a policy. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked how they would determine the age of the persons requesting tattoos. Mr. Madigan said picture I.D. would be required without exception. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she was very offended by the title of their event and she believed that from the standpoint of anyone who understands vernacular speech and slang speech she didn’t feel the title of the event was worthy of this City. She would not support this event and she didn’t think this was a Novi thing.

Member Landry asked if the tattooing part would be on the inside and the only aspect of this outside would be the showing of the classic cars and the band that would stop playing at 11 PM. Mr. Madigan said correct and they would stop playing at 6 PM on Sunday. He asked if before the tattooing could be done on the premises would a permit

be issued by the Oakland County Health Department? Mr. Madigan said yes. Member Landry asked if the permit was not obtained would they be shut down. Mr. Madigan said yes.

Mr. Fisher said a reason should accompany the motion to deny. Member Lorenzo added her reasons to the motion. Member Landry said if the outdoor permit is denied they would they still get to do the tattoos inside. Mr. Fisher assumed Member Landry was right.

Member DeRoche thought denial should be based on the contracting with the police and asked Mr. Fisher if Council was empowered to pass judgment on the appropriateness of events in the City? Mr. Fisher said he would like to have the opportunity to look at the ordinance on this issue and perhaps it would be appropriate to table it until the Matters for Council Action Part II. Member Lorenzo said she would be more than willing to just use the non-contracting of police and the seconder accepted. Mayor Clark asked if that would satisfy Mr. Fisher’s concerns. Mr. Fisher said it made it a little better but he would still like to have it brought up during Part II. Member Csordas said it was all City services such as EMS, Police and Fire and there is no responsibility born by the proprietor of the event.

CM-02-06-156 Moved by DeRoche, seconded by Lorenzo; CARRIED

Member Lorenzo suggested July 16th, July 18^th, July 22^nd, July 25^th, or August 1^st, 20^th or 22nd.

Member DeRoche said he wouldn’t be offended if they wanted to wait until fall so the new Commissioners could have the experience of a few meetings.

Mayor Clark said they would also be having a training session with Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher agreed. Member Landry agreed with Member DeRoche and suggested that it be scheduled in September.

Mayor Clark said under the City Charter the Mayor nominates Planning Commission and Library Board appointments and then the Council votes on his nominations. Interviews were also completed recently for the Construction Board of Appeals, HCD Advisory Committee, Parks, Recreation & Forestry and Zoning Board of Appeals. Those appointments would be decided by majority vote and he asked that Council complete their ballots and pass them to the City Clerk.

Mayor Clark said there were three openings on the Planning Commission and he was nominating Larry Papp, Lowell Sprague and John Avdoulous.

Mayor Clark nominated Terry Margolis to the Library Board.

Mayor Clark asked that the City Clerk notify the candidates of their appointments.

Member Lorenzo said she would be remiss if she didn’t advise the Council of an issue that could have affected her directly. She wanted to raise this issue because she thought her colleagues, particularly those who voted in favor of the bid for JCK to oversee this project, should know what transpired. The last time they met, she indicated that her street was one of the streets incorporated into the paving program this year. It went from where she lived, at the intersection of Daleview and Galway, to a portion within Bradford of Novi subdivision to the west. Subsequent to JCK receiving the award and in a subsequent packet Council received information with regard to the specific repairs to be done on each of the streets.

She looked through the papers very thoroughly and went to her street and noticed that what was being proposed by JCK and the administration was only a small portion of the street at the very end of where she lives. She notified Mr. Helwig and he and Mr. Pearson did get right on it but the point is that JCK arbitrarily decided that the repairs on the majority of her street were not necessary. Mr. Helwig had jogged on her street and knew the repairs were necessary and Mr. McCusker and Mr. Pearson knew the repairs were necessary and are going to be done. She brought this up for those Council members who approved JCK as the bidder on this project so they would understand one of the reasons she was reluctant and would be in the future. She said if she had not noticed it and administration didn’t notice it, her street would not have been included in the action being taken tonight. She hoped that her colleagues would take that into consideration in the future.

Secondly, there might be additional monies for neighborhood streets and she didn’t know if the Council was inclined to spend that money or not. One of the reasons she pulled Consent Agenda Item F was because she wanted to contemplate the Birchwoods subdivision, the Delmont and Dinser area, and the possibility of paving that area during this time before they get that kind of infrastructure in the road. Obviously, the remainder of her street on Galway Drive from Daleview Drive east to Taft was on the evaluation as the next one down. She was informed by JCK and others that it could be cost effective to also include that portion of the street this year if the Council was inclined to spend additional monies. She said she had been told there are other neighborhood issues off of Meadowbrook Road on Glyme and on the street adjacent to that might also be contemplated.

Member DeRoche asked if they were voting on something that affects her road. Member Lorenzo said absolutely, in front of her house. He asked if she would abstain.

Mr. Helwig thanked her for putting that on the record and said he was very dissatisfied with the performance on that matter. He expected his staff to be more vigilant in the future and there was no excuse for it. He felt it had nothing to do with conflict of interest and the road did need to be redone and it was appropriate to do that. He said they would like direction tonight as to their resolve to use approximately $400,000 once they get into the project for additional neighborhood street re-pavement. That is in the budget plan and he felt there was almost a moral obligation, given their leadership on the road bond in the year 2000, for having this $1,580,000 a year going for neighborhood street re-pavement. He asked for their direction and said there was obviously a lot of work to be done according to the PASER map. They suggested moving on to any remaining categories or Category 3 that are not dealt with in this proposal so far.

Member Csordas asked if Galway was totally omitted from recommendation for repair and what happened? Mr. Helwig said it is in there now. It came to Council as an information item from JCK and staff looked at it and didn’t catch that it had been omitted with no legitimate reason. Member Csordas said he would remain consistent and felt the people on Delmont and Dinser should be treated fairly and equally just like the rest of the residents of Novi who have paid for their own roads via taxes. He would not like to redistribute any of these funds to that project and those citizens had the opportunity to go through the SAD process just like other people on the agenda this evening and everybody prior to them that had gone through the process.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Ms. McClain if there were considerations, other than the PASER Analysis, in the evaluation of these streets. Ms. McClain said there were other considerations.

There were soil borings and pavement testing and there was documentation of these other considerations in the last Council packet in May. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi noted what she was looking for was an opportunity to gain from past experiences. She didn’t want any botched jobs or cost overruns but was looking for a top-notch job on time and on or under budget. Her concern was that this is an awfully big bite and asked if the schedule on this would be doable? Mr. Helwig said they thought it was doable, had two outstanding firms and the September 16^th date was achievable based on an award tonight.

Member DeRoche said he would support the motion and thought Galway was a definite candidate. His concern was that when they got to the voting stage, whether or not Member Lorenzo voted would be contemplated at this table. In the past there had been perceived conflicts of interest that were never discussed and a member votes and other members bring it up as an issue later on. He thought that was unfair and those discussions should be done at the Council table so everyone is aware of what we are voting on. Also, he hoped that in the future when Council received reports from consultants that are in error and have been reviewed by staff, that consultants not be discussed at the Council table anymore. We have spent the better part of two or three budgets on certain items, going in a certain direction, which is away from our reliance on consultants. Unless those consultants are presenting facts to us as they did in the past, without the review of staff, he would prefer to have it considered a staff error unless we are willing to go back in that direction. It is a subtle thing tonight but is indicative of the movement in this City and the direction it’s going. In a new era of accountability and openness in government we need to hold the people accountable who are asking for accountability when Council expands their budgets and hires the employees they request.

Mayor Clark said he didn’t see any conflict of interest and asked Mr. Fisher if he did? Mr. Fisher said there could be a perceived conflict. However, the real issue tonight is not discretionary in terms of how to formulate the project or how it should be done. It is only selecting the lowest responsible bidder and unless there is a relationship to any of the bidders he didn’t think there was a technical conflict. Member Lorenzo said there was no relationship with any of the bidders.

Mr. Fisher advised Council there needed to be a date adjustment in amended Resolution No. 6, paragraph 2, should read July 1 instead of "June 17^th".

Member Landry said also on the next page, paragraph 4, the first "Take further notice" paragraph should also be July 1 instead of June 17^th". The motion maker and seconder accepted the amendments as stated.

Sanitary Sewer.

Member Landry complimented the Ordinance Review Committee for a very thorough revision of this ordinance; revisions were excellent and overdue.

Member Lorenzo thanked Ms. McGuire and staff for all the changes and for their hard work.

Member DeRoche asked if this would come back intact as it stands tonight just with comments? Mayor Clark said yes it would.

Mr. Fisher said, for clarification, the Planning Commission did have authority to make adjustments when it went for a hearing. Member DeRoche said he would prefer to have them

separate so he could keep track of what he already read once and what they are offering up as changes. He asked that if changes were made they be separate or clearly marked.

Corrigan Moving Systems $3,850 22-15-301-007

Prairie Lakeside LLC 4,000 22-15-301-009/010

David Janks (Neptune LLC) 700 22-15-451-007

Victor & Nancy Cassis 0 (Donation $400 value) 22-15-326-003

Sun Valley, Inc. 4,500 22-15-351-013

James & Mary Frankforth 800 22-16-300-022/023/024

Dikran & Carol Orenkian 1,400 22-16-451-008

Michael & Nicole Storm 675 22-16-450-050/051

Total: $15,925

Jack B. Anglin Company $22,300 22-16-176-020/021

Member Lorenzo commended staff saving $48,620 and hoped to see this could be done in the future.

Member DeRoche asked what the material was used for. r. McCusker said most of it was road material, drain material, aggregate, sand, gravel and things of that nature. There are

different sizes for different repairs. Heavy aggregate would be for drain repairs, regular road grating material is limestone, sand for backfill, etc. Mr. Jerome went through most of the numbers and it turned out better using two or three different companies. Member DeRoche thought it was smart business to break it up and it was Council’s experience that it was less expensive to buy the materials ourselves then to have contractors provide them. Mr. McCusker said these are regular materials used on major roads in the community, it is solely for our staff and is never opened up to outside contractors.

Member Csordas asked where this would be stored. Mr. McCusker said a couple thousand pounds of each is stockpiled in the yard and then the haulers take it when we call them and it is delivered within 48 hours of the call. It is the same as is done with the salt.

Lorenzo

Nays: None

Mr. Fisher said under the Novi City Code, section 2421, Prerequisites to Issuance, the first sub paragraph is Security Personnel and the ordinance provides that the "permitee shall employ at his own expense such security personnel as are necessary and sufficient to provide for the adequate security and protection of the maximum number of attendants at the outdoor assembly and for preservation of order and protection of property in and around the site of the outdoor assembly." The adequacy issue is very minimum here because no security has been offered. He didn’t think there would be a need to get into the adequacy issue and he wanted to clarify there is no obligation or intention, under the ordinance, that the applicant would contract with the Novi Police. It could be with any adequate security service.

Member Lorenzo thought the applicant did say they had their own security. Her concern was anything beyond what security could handle and the application statement that they were going to rely on the Novi Police to respond. She asked if the Novi Police should respond if someone "got out of hand". She didn’t want the taxpayers to have to pay for a Novi Police response to a private event.

Mr. Fisher said he heard the question and answer as "were there any contracted police security" and the answer was that they had people but he didn’t hear any contracted security. If they did have contracted security then the question would be was it adequate under the circumstances.

Member Lorenzo asked the applicants to come forward on just that note and clarify for Council whether the security they proposed was "contracted".

Mr. Madigan said they had a staff of about 15 security people who had worked many conventions in this area including several tattoo conventions in Novi. They are experienced and over the past years had never had any trouble nor had they had a need for police, fire or

EMS from the City of Novi or anywhere else. He said they chose the City of Novi because of the Fifties Festival and the draw Novi has for classic cars. They have been to several of these conventions on the east coast on Long Island as well as on the west coast in Cambria. They are a large draw and very peaceful events. They just happen to be a group of people who are into different things than perhaps Council enjoys. He had not seen the police called in any of these events whether in New York, California or those he had seen here in Detroit.

Member Lorenzo asked Mr. Fisher if Council was to approve this item, could it be approved subject to if there was a need for Novi Police service that they would have to pay for that service.

Mr. Fisher said if it is the kind of service that normally wouldn’t be called upon. If it is a routine service, it is a government service that we provide. If they are providing adequate security personnel to handle their problems on site and they are merely handing someone over for arrest or something of that nature, that would be the same as a retail store where they have adequate personnel and when it comes time to make an arrest they hand them over to Novi Police who would then take charge of the matter.

Mr. Helwig said just calling on past experience, it is very common for police departments to contract off duty officer service for private events. It is also very common for City Council’s to condition their approval based on a satisfactory contract with the police department. The Police Chief didn’t make mention of that here but it seemed to him if Council wished to make that a condition based upon their understanding of the event and deliberations tonight it was very common and more appropriate than trying to some how bill for a call that would most assuredly end up being judgmental as to whether it was something that was afforded to everyone in the community or just specifically associated with this event.

Mr. Fisher said such a motion would be to contract with proper or adequate security personnel; it would not have to be the City’s Police Department. He didn’t think Novi had a monopoly on that type of thing but it should be something that the Chief of Police would approve.

Member DeRoche said the attorney read the ordinance and it said they needed adequate security. He thought the Chief of Police was in a position to advise Council whether he believed there was adequate security or not. If the Chief believed that requirement had been met then he was comfortable holding Chief Shaeffer responsible and he thought that a motion that relied on the ordinance to that end would be enough.

To approve Item #13, formerly Item #3, Request from Skin &

Member Landry commented this troubled him. This is a Skin and Tin Show. The Skin part is tattooing and the Tin part is the classic auto show. They are not here for the Skin part, they are here for the Tin part. They are here for the classic auto show, which we pride ourselves on

having every year during the Fifties Festival and every Wednesday at Main Street. We had one bad experience with the Insane Clown Posse and he was not personally prepared to assume that every alternative group or event that came into the City was going to involve violence or public disturbance. He would not do that. He didn’t choose to tattoo his body but there are some people who do and that’s their right and as far as he knew people with tattoos weren’t inherently violent. It really disturbed him that Council was going to use the Tin part to deny him the Skin part; that’s not what they are here for. He thought if they provided their own security and the Chief of Police indicated that he was satisfied then he would be satisfied. Member Landry said he would support the motion and encouraged Council to do the same.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she didn’t presume why anyone did anything and didn’t make conclusions about why some folks are attracted to some events and some are attracted to others. She said that was for them to decide. She thought it was inherently incorrect to presume that anyone on this Council felt a certain way because of a certain disagreement about what folks would like to see or not see. She said it was not part of what she was considering. She asked Mr. Fisher, with regard to adequate police or security protection, whether or not we are talking about a professional security team? She wanted to see "adequate" defined and whether or not it would be a professional security team because that was what she was looking for.

Mr. Fisher thought Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was absolutely right. The ordinance speaks to employing security personnel and it would be his interpretation that we are talking about professionals. Mr. Helwig gave as an example the employment of off duty police officers, which is a common method of satisfying this requirement. Otherwise, if they did not chose to contract with off duty Novi Police Officers it should be comparable.

Mr. Madigan said several of the gentlemen in the security force were off duty Brighton Police Officers and Livingston County Sheriffs and there are several who are currently employed by police enforcement.

Mr. Fisher said he would be sure the Police Chief reviewed it.

Member Csordas asked the petitioner when they held their shows in Novi before. Mr. Madigan replied this was the first show they had put on in Novi but there had been other tattoo conventions in Novi. There has been one at the Double Tree for several years running.

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

Member Lorenzo pulled this for two reasons. One, in scheduling Public Hearing #1 she hoped that the residents would have any information prepared by the engineers or the

staff prior to the public hearing so they could be well informed to speak to the issue. Secondly, she brought this up because the paving of Delmont and Dinser had been in the long-term goals of last year. She raised the issue this year in goal setting again as to whether this would be addressed by virtue of a combination SAD and City participation, grants, etc. or some other means. Now it seems particularly relevant if the residents are considering a water main extension because it would be a substantial investment and they would not have them tear it out in order to pave the streets. There had been debate with the previous Council as to what residents should have paving versus non-paving. She asked what the difference was between the residents in Village Oaks who pay taxes to the City and had their road repaved and the residents of Delmont and Dinser who have never had their road paved, want it paved and wants Council to at least partially pave them. She didn’t see any difference if it is a complete repaving. If we are going to have a policy in this City, then maybe we need a policy of "to the extent that the roads are going to be improved". If we don’t want to "pave people’s streets" then maybe we should have a policy like we had in Village Oaks. If the streets were found so inadequate and needed total repaving they would have to pay a portion of it or pay for it themselves. She didn’t see equal footing here for all residents of the City if we totally repave some but not others. She felt a policy was needed because she didn’t think it was fair. Everyone is paying the same taxes and the residents of Delmont and Dinser are not getting their road paved and the residents of Village Oaks basically got a brand new road.

Member DeRoche said there had been a lot of talk since 2000 about paving dirt roads versus fixing existing neighborhood streets and SAD’s. He thought at the time a clear majority of Council and residents preferred to have the residents on dirt roads pay for their own road. Member DeRoche stated he lives on a dirt road and they are in the process of trying to get their own road done. It is frustrating to go to a meeting with all of the neighbors and hear an engineer say it is going to cost $110,000 to put the roads back to where the City says they should be. He said maybe your not saying that we are paying to pave dirt roads but there should be a certain amount of responsibility by the

the City and if it costs $110,000 back to where they were, that’s not paving our road. It is taking care of the City’s responsibility. He said in his SAD they said they would pay for that too, just get the graders out there. It is not as clear-cut an issue on these dirt roads as you might think. It might be easy to say we are not going to pay to pave a dirt road but there might be issues of paying money to put the road back to where the City said it should be.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked, regarding getting the roads back to where they should be, if he was talking about construction standards? Member DeRoche said no. When

you have a dirt road you are constantly putting new materials down on top of it and it is kind of an art form with the graders making it seem like "to the eye" the way it should be. Then over a period of years and decades those roads become significantly different than what they should be on the City books for drainage, storm water runoff, traffic etc. She asked if it’s a dirt lane would such standards apply to them.

Member DeRoche asked if the residents want to keep it a dirt road would the City put it back where the engineers thought it should be. In his particular subdivision the engineer said it would cost about $110,000. So if they petitioned the City Council at the time and said they were not going to pave their road but it is in need of repair because of

washouts, wash boards and pot holes and it is not safe, could Council spend $110,000 to put it back to what it should be. It might or might not be a legitimate expenditure for residents of the road. It would not be paved but would be putting it to a standard for the health, safety and welfare of persons driving on it.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said after it got to where Member DeRoche was presuming it should be construction-wise, then your neighborhood association would take over and sponsor an SAD. Member DeRoche said the engineers would take it to where it should be at the expense of $110,000 and then begin the paving, etc.

Member Csordas responded and felt it was a matter of fairness and the fact that the people in Village Oaks did pay for their road originally and it did get repaved but that was built into the price of their home. They have been paying appropriate taxes all along on that. The people on unpaved roads have every right to want a paved road but all people do not want a paved road. He thought it would be truly unfair to everybody else that moved into the City and paid their fair share in taxes for these paved roads to change the rules way down the line and pay for a certain area or road totally adverse to what the practice had been. His opinion was that everyone should pay their fair share and he felt that it was not unfair to have people that live on unpaved roads also pay their fair share.

CM-02-06-168 Moved by Lorenzo, seconded by Csordas; CARRIED

Mayor Clark said Council had heard from Ms. Barrons tonight, there was information in the packets and the letters to neighbors explaining the situation were mailed out.

Member Lorenzo commented she wanted to review the facts explained to her through the correspondence in packets and a conversation with Mr. Pakkala of JCK.

She understood from these two sources that Lot 68, Barrons property, couldn’t meet Design and Construction Standard of a 2% swale for positive drainage. It’s an old subdivision and the lot was between two other lots and there were constraints on the property. Given that, the grading and swales proposed by the builder and approved by our engineers, instead provided a ½%, which is very minimal and barely provides positive drainage. Mr. Pakkala agreed that ½% was minimally meeting a positive flow. The review engineer provided direction on the site plan for providing "edge drain" as needed and that was also discussed in Mr. Saven’s

response letter, which indicated that the engineers reviewed and gave alternative methods and in this case it was to provide additional edge drain as needed on the lot lines. This is consistent with paragraph C that indicated if the property didn’t conform the applicant would revise the plan in accordance with the City engineers comments. He noted on the last page that the property was substantially flat and the directives for edge drain, as necessary, was remedied. The edge drain was installed improperly and it was discovered after the fact because according to Mr. Pakkala edge drain installations aren’t inspected by JCK and he didn’t think they were inspected at all. So, the engineer places a direction on a site plan for providing edge drain but the engineering inspection on November 30, 2001 when the Barrons received final grading inspection did not include inspection of the edge drain to confirm it had been installed, the locations it had been installed or if it had been installed properly.

Also, the engineering inspection of November 30^th did not take notice of trees planted within the drainage swale. The engineer approved the final grade on November 30th for a final certificate of occupancy. After following a drainage complaint of April 15, 2002 by the neighbors, City staff sent someone to make a field inspection and found that the concrete driveway was installed higher than the approved sight plan, the swale along the south property line could not be installed per the plan because of the increased height of the driveway and the concern for the row of cedar trees on the adjacent property. Council had been told by Mr. Saven that they didn’t know the cedar trees existed on the adjacent property but our Design and Construction Standards and Chapter 12 make it clear to be aware of what’s on either side of the property to provide positive drainage. They should have known the trees were there and what the drainage patterns were on the adjacent lots. It is unclear if the engineer changed the grade in accordance with those constraints. After April 15^th JCK was requested by City staff to re-check the final grades and provide grade stakes to restore the original grade. She didn’t know if it was the original grade from the original plan or a changed grade because of the

installation of the higher driveway. Mr. Pakkala told her they actually re-engineered the plan in the field. So when Ms. Barrons explained this wasn’t a minor grade change and said in some places it had to be re-graded a foot, they did this to provide Ms. Barrons better drainage. That should have been accomplished by the builder and should have been conditioned by JCK. If there was a better drainage plan provided by the builder then JCK should have provided that to the builder long before final grade was given. They decided after the fact there was a better drainage plan, the bill went to the homeowner and they had to pay an additional $4500 more to accomplish the better plan and the builder should have done that.

Member Lorenzo has serious concerns with the whole process and thought it was totally awry. If JCK re-engineered this out in the field and there was a better plan than they approved for the builder, then JCK should reimburse the homeowner for the additional expense to get the better drainage that they deserved from the beginning. If we don’t have a process, regarding edge drain, we need a process because this is totally inadequate.

Member Lorenzo said this is part 2 of this unfortunate fiasco. She said Oakland County is the enforcement agency regarding septic field investigations and that is where it should begin and end. Member Lorenzo would appreciate it if the administration didn’t make decisions regarding policy making because Council makes policy and would decide what would be done. If a City staff member is legally on someone’s property and smells something like raw sewage, if it is a City staff member or a neighbor, they should call Oakland County. They are the people

empowered to investigate and analyze these complaints. We don’t have the knowledge or expertise to analyze or interpret data that might come back from these samplings. Also, there is a cost involved in samplings and taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for this. She wanted to establish a policy that since Oakland County is the enforcement agency the proper procedure is to contact them.

Mayor Clark thought the county was called and responded they would not come out. Since they did that, it doesn’t abrogate us from an obligation to remedy that and take appropriate action.

Mr. Fisher stated the City wouldn’t assume legal responsibility but Council would have authority to at least provide interim protection for its residents if a public health hazard existed, if they chose to do so. Mr. Fisher supposed they could say they were not going to do it no matter how treacherous or ungodly the situation is, we would just let the health department take some kind of political hit. Member Lorenzo asked if Council was under any obligation and Mr. Fisher said he didn’t believe the City Council was designated a health authority for private septic fields. However, that didn’t take them out of the business of protecting the public health, safety and welfare if they chose to do so. Her point was that Council should not choose to do so and that the government enforcement agency should handle it.

Mayor Clark stated, for the record, they couldn’t ignore a problem if the County chose not to respond. This should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said this community does have a responsibility for illegal discharge elimination from the standpoint of the community and our staff being the eyes and ears with

regard to things that are going amiss, discharging pollutants to a drainage system, which ultimately will discharge to our storm water system. We do have an obligation under our storm water permit to document and report these things. Municipalities are faced with a situation of having skilled and licensed staff to be able to conduct investigations and to make analysis and interpretation of what they find. In this State the minimum for that is to be a registered sanitarian. She has inquired whether or not the City has such a certification on staff and we do

not. She said how it could be handled was that the Environmental Health Department has a contact person for every municipality and there is a continuing ongoing and documented process with regard to a phone call asking for help because of a public health issue and to document the fact that the call was made. She suggested that the City request the Oakland County Department of Health to designate such a contact person to show that we responded to those citizens when needed. She was concerned that it was very difficult for any layperson to determine where septage is coming from. It is not necessarily an obvious thing. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said they have a decision to make. Council either has to get a situation in place where we have a log-in communication system they could document with Oakland County or consider upgrading the qualifications of someone on staff to deal with that and she hoped they wouldn’t have to do that.

Member Landry requested that this date be changed as he was not available on the 20^th and Member Capello was on vacation. The meeting was rescheduled for July 15^th at 6:30 PM.

Member DeRoche asked if the staff was working on the Storm Water Ordinance from an implementation standpoint and if so when would the Council act on it or at least hear it.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said the ordinance was adopted.

Mr. Fisher said there were developments at various stages of approval. Some developments have been partially constructed in phases and would be impacted by the regulations. A resolution has been prepared to come before Council for consideration and modification, etc. as Council saw fit. It was to be on this agenda but at the leadership meeting this week. It was determined that it should be presented to the Storm Water Committee for their review and recommendation first.

Mayor Clark commented he was concerned with what is proposed because one community indicated they were concerned about too much power going to the County. We are moving along taking steps to put our house in order and he didn’t want Novi to bear the cost for everyone else that was playing catch up. He asked Mr. Helwig to follow up and see if we can get some additional time to discuss this with Council as a whole and send their comments to the County.

Member Lorenzo agreed and asked Mr. Helwig to ask the County how many public corporations have to request by petition prior to the County establishing a Chapter 20?

Do they already have the power to do this now or are they reducing the number of entities it takes to establish a Chapter 20?

Mr. Fisher said the statute is what it is. They are going to need a community in each drainage district. If they want to establish five Chapter 20 drainage districts then they are going to need an affected community in each one to petition. Member Lorenzo said just one? Mr. Fisher believed that one would be sufficient. Member Lorenzo said there are a number of

communities within these drainage districts and that was her concern. She said one entity could establish all of us into this Chapter 20. Mr. Fisher said one entity would petition and then there would be a public hearing. She asked who made the decision. Mr. Fisher wasn’t sure. Member Lorenzo said Chapter 20 is a process now and she wanted to know how that process differed from the proposed process.

Mr. Helwig said Mayor Pro Tem Bononi had flagged articles on this and indicated a willingness of the Storm Water Management Stewardship Committee meet and give citizen input on this matter prior to the City Council providing input. He was very disturbed after they had talked and the suggestion was made to get more time. Then another letter came from the Board of County Commissioners which indicated that the appropriate Resolutions were introduced proposing to establish five new comprehensive Chapter 20 drainage districts based on the five water shed areas on May 30^th. Now their Planning and Building Committee wants comments by June 30^th. It appeared to him this is well under way but it sounded like the Board of Commissioners would be the deciding body eventually.

Mayor Clark suggested contacting Commissioner Crawford and conveying to him their concerns and suggest that they might want to put some brakes on this process.

Member DeRoche agreed and hoped it wouldn’t take a recommendation of Council for our City administration to know that they should be on the phone with our elected representatives. He felt the administration had standing authority to call them as often as necessary.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi thought it could be said, from the standpoint of the whole concept, that it was admirable to take an entire county area and start looking at water shed thinking is an incredible leap. However, usually when such leaps are taken there are concerns with regard to local government. She asked that everyone consider two main points with regard to what happens if we are drawn into this net.

First would be that within these drainage districts there would be no parameters of construction activity that the drain commissioner’s office could undertake. They could do whatever they wanted there and bill, as in assess, those persons in that drainage district that they felt would benefit from that. When she said no parameter, she was not only talking about water quality issues but also infrastructure that would satisfy whatever the drain commissioner thought should be there and the landowners would be billed. Landowners can petition now under Chapter 20. So, who is better to determine what is needed. Obviously, there is a great professional staff there so there is a lot of expertise. However, from the standpoint of the local authority and the local control once this is in place that is gone.

The second point she thought was most important was about local control that is in this proposal. It mentioned an advisory board that would give advice and recommendation to the drain commissioner. She noted Council needed to know there was no mention of an advisory board in the drain code so it had no force of law. Although, it was swell that some of us could be appointed to that advisory board, there was no need for the drain commissioner to even take our opinion under advisement considering it is not defined in the drain code. It is also very concerning to her that they might have a different drain commissioner a couple of years down the road that would say he/she didn’t have to have an advisory board. Once these drainage districts are established in the way being proposed, it is not that it is impossible to undo it, but it is highly unlikely. For all intents and purposes this is forever, so before signing on the dotted line be sure you understand what the implication and the cost to this community is and also what we would be giving up with regard to local autonomy and authority.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi understood there were other municipalities and associations of township governments who have a lot of concern about how this would affect them. She was concerned that we are talking about a rush to judgment here and moving very quickly as Mayor Clark said. It was her understanding that the Board of Commissioners passed this and it would only take one or two municipalities required to enact this. She asked Mr. Fisher if it was one or two in addition to the Board of Commissioners.

Mr. Fisher believed it was one but he was not positive. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said many years ago the county relinquished those drains to our control and maintenance

and so what we’re saying is that would revert once again. She didn’t think, with these two items, that it would benefit Novi unless the language could be amended to protect our financial interests and also from the standpoint of our citizen and government input.

City Clerk Cornelius announced the results of the appointments.

Construction Board of Appeals Lee Mamola

HCD Advisory Committee Marianne DiGiusto

Parks, Recreation and Forestry Charles Kopeika and Marie Enright

Zoning Board of Appeals Sarah Gray

Letter from Martin J. Leavitt Re: Action of City Council on June 3, 2002

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

9:51 PM.

________________________________ _______________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: __________________________

Charlene McLean

Date approved: July 1, 2002