Mayor Pro Tem Bononi called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.

Member Capello removed Item A off the Consent Agenda, approval of minutes. Also, requested that Item #2 under Matters for Council Action be moved to Item #1 and move Item #1 to Item #2.

Member Capello also added under Matters for Council Action, #15 Appointment of Liaisons to the Music and Motor Fest. He added under Mayor and Council Issues Items #1 Add to future agenda for study purposes, looking into the 52-1 District Court becoming a municipal court, Item #2 Sidewalks along the parklands, Item #3 Main Street stage area and Item #4 Discussion of appointment of a park committee to pursue park grants and search for land for future parks.

Member Landry added Item #5 to Mayor and Council Issues, Discussion of options in light of the rejection of the COPS grant.

Member Lorenzo asked regarding Consent Agenda Item B request for Executive Session, what pending litigation was to be discussed.

Mr. Fisher said there are two pending condemnation cases involving Mr. Steel and Mr. Eldridge. He also wanted to discuss the pending litigation created in the demand for arbitration including money damages in the Sandstone matter. She asked how that fits executive session criteria since the agreement had already been approved. Mr. Fisher said a demand for arbitration that includes a demand for money damages is litigation. Member Lorenzo said it was her intent to discuss the CVS case as well.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi recognized Christine Sage representing Marty Feldman Chevrolet, Blair Bowman of the Novi Expo Center and Matt Gerich of Gerich Landscape Inc. for their generous participation and donations in the Fall for Novi event.

Mr. Helwig suggested, for discussion of Short and Long-term Goals, Monday, November 18, Thursday, October 17 following the Ordinance Review Committee and Monday, October 14.

Council consensus was to meet on October 17, 2002 from 7 PM until10 PM.

Mr. Helwig presented two video updates on the construction at the 12 Mile Road/ Novi Road intersections. These updates were hosted by Cheryl Walsh and Nancy McClain and have been shown on Channel 13 for about a week.

Mr. Helwig said he knew Council was most concerned about the community’s image and realized that the complete closure of this major intersection was very disruptive to the community, staff and businesses and they are working very hard and hoped to have the intersection open October 14^th.

Mr. Helwig said Member Landry mentioned the fact that Novi was not a recipient in this round of the Federal government COPS grant award, which supports through matching, the hiring of police officers. This item would be discussed later in the meeting, the application is being maintained and Chief Shaeffer felt it might be revisited in March 2003.

Mr. Helwig said Brent Bair, Executive Manager of the Road Commission of Oakland County, had sent a fax to Council concerning the replacement of the Grand River Avenue Bridge over the CSX Railroad tracks. As of three weeks ago it was on a firm bid in December for being replaced starting in late February or March 2003. The fax indicated there has been a gubernatorial veto of critical bridge funds and this came to light Friday when the Road Commission was delivering another set of plans to the Michigan Department of Transportation. Mr. Pearson had been working on this talking with numerous parties. Mr. Helwig said this needed to be followed closely to see that the project was not held up.

Mr. Pearson said he had talked with Mr. Bair and Representative Cassis who made calls on our behalf. He had also been in contact with Senator Bullard’s office. The funds have been obligated since at least 1993 and Representative Cassis had spoken with Gregg Rosine, MDOT, and the indications are that this veto should not affect our bridge funds since they had been obligated for so long. They are working now to get that in writing and to see that this project is put out for advertising so they can stick to their schedule of having the State award the contract December 6^th. In order to make that date it must be advertised for four to five weeks. All necessary contacts are being made to be sure the project is done. This would also include improvements to Beck Road between CXS and the bridge.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi commented that if there was anything this Council could do in the form of resolutions, letters or personal contact don’t hesitate to contact Mayor Clark or any Council member.

Member DeRoche said it was important to assist our administration but it was also important to help our representatives. He knew this project got lined up the way it did because of the hard work of Representative Cassis and was glad to hear that she was on top of this and thanked her and offered Council’s help as well.

Dave Maurice, GIS/Environmental Services Manager and Mark Zayatz, Hydrologic Inc. spoke about the Sandstone Remediation. Mr. Maurice said to date the work plan had been submitted to and reviewed by the DEQ. Round One excavation and samplings have been completed for areas 1 through 6. The remediation process was to clear and grub the property of the clearing limits, which is the area for soil to be removed, and clean other areas if needed, fill holes and grade the property. Every time excavation is done, the topsoil has to be sampled to understand exactly what results they were getting from excavating the property. There are clean tested areas that have been defined, staked and excavated. Mr. Maurice displayed a map noting areas 1-6. Also, they have removed debris piles from various locations on the property. Asbestos shingles were removed from a barn. Environment services by Hydrologic Inc. cost $38,392 and $85,000 was budgeted. The contract with JCK was $162,000 and to date $152,650 had been spent leaving $9,350.

Waterland Trucking took care of the clearing, grubbing and excavation and cost $764,819; $1,105,355 was budgeted and $340,535 remained. Member Csordas asked why the budget amounts and purchase order amounts were different? Mr. Helwig stated these budgeted amounts were what was identified in March and it ended up resulting in the net amount that Council appropriated to the Judgment Trust Fund. When we were trying to find $105,000 to go with $145,000 from the MML to resolve the insurance proceeds so that 20 acres would be pulled off the table and not added to the 75, that difference between the $1,210,000 and the $1,105,000 was where they drew that $105,000. There are other things going on with those budgeted amounts.

Mr. Maurice explained the Round 2 excavation work needed to be done in some areas because it was still not to the standards they wanted to see. There must be sampling of all work areas and there might be a Round 3 excavation if they need to go further down or there are hotspots in some areas. In certain spots, a Round 4 excavation might be necessary.

Mr. Maurice said it is estimated that 20,000 cubic yards would be coming out of the areas on the excavation site. Excavation cost at $20.30 a cubic yards, which is about $400,000, sampling could run $10,000 to $15,000. Round 3 would take excavation of 10,000 to 15,000 cubic yards and additional sampling would have to be done. Demolition and removal of barn site materials would happen with Round 2 excavation. The estimated cost of these additional activities is $731,000 and the remaining balances from the consultant contracts of $388,277 is an error and

should be $277,000. The balance available in the Judgment Trust Fund and the last installment of the Environmental Infrastructure Fund Grant can be applied to the additional costs.

Regarding land filling vs. berming and capping materials along the West edge of property – Mr. Maurice displayed a map and spoke about the possibility of placing remediated materials along the property edge rather than excavating and hauling it away, which would drop the costs significantly. To do this soil borings would be needed to make sure the soil in that area could handle the additional weight of the materials coming out of the excavated site. Regarding the flood plain, the Walled Lake branch of Rouge River goes along the railroad tracks and heads North so the only concern was the vicinity of the river to the location of berming and capping. They had to consider if this would be a good option and the soil boring information indicated it might be able to handle the additional soils but there are pockets of peat moss that might depress with the weight of the soils. He displayed a drawing where the sediment would be placed or spread out over quite a distance. Based on the information received from TEC, JCK and Hydrologic they decided to recommend against it because it would be too close to the floodplain and the river. Mr. Maurice displayed a chart regarding soil samplings below the surface and explained its purpose.

Mark Zayatz explained about the soil samplings. The general trend for the numbers is to go down and below the one or one and a half foot levels would be around 11-12. Arsenic and lead are background in this area and are in our soils all over. That is what silt and sandy soils or clays contain in Michigan. There were a few spots that could have true contamination from pesticides that needed to be investigated. Numbers have been set up on site that range from 10 to 12 for cleanup. Above the 12 number, it is a number that is considered contaminated or is an area considered marginal. Above 16 or 17 shows heavier pesticide use and if into the 60-90 the arsenic is due to the pesticide applications in the past. Mr. Maurice noted the estimates he gave were for land filling materials that were done to this point.

Member Lorenzo asked about additional costs for the associated research calculation and analysis with regard to the landfill versus berming and capping. Mr. Maurice said they estimate there is about a $16 difference a cubic yard and every ten thousand yards is $116,000 in potential savings. They estimated about 20,000 yards of material would end up at the landfill. She asked about the cost for additional soil borings done by JCK? He said additional cost is approximately $6,500 and additional topography analysis is about $6,000. Additional costs for Hydrologics would be about $1,000 to $2000.

Member Lorenzo asked Mr. Zayatz if an MDEQ permit was needed? Mr. Zayatz said MDEQ said this morning they would entertain the placement of a berm and cap on the adjacent parcel but it would be up to them and the City to make sure it was operated and maintained forever. Member Lorenzo asked if that due care responsibility was something typical with MDEQ and he said it was. She asked if he knew this would be the case? Mr. Zayatz said there was always due care associated with taking potentially contaminated material and placing it someplace else and this berm and cap is not unusual. It is an option they felt they should look at because of the difference in cost and because people don’t like to place things in the landfills if there is another thing that can be done that is equally protective.

Member Lorenzo said Mr. Maurice indicated this issue came up in discussions with Sandstone and she felt it should have been a Council decision and would have appreciated it coming to Council to see if they wanted to pursue this option. She said due care responsibilities are perpetual and would be a real burden on the City. She said they had spent $14,500 in an exercise in futility. In the future, she asked that administration first approach the City Council to see if they want to pursue this further and expend any additional monies.

Mr. Helwig felt it was the City Council’s priority to clean up the site, be good stewards of the land and not contribute or transfer the problem to the private sector. He understood the financial issues facing the community and it was broached that several hundred thousand dollars in transporting and land filling costs could be saved by placing it adjacent to the 75 acres. The Sandstone group had always wanted a berm by the river and the railroad tracks for screening and we said no to that at the table. When the idea of adjacent to the 75 acres was brought up, they visited the property because it would be far away and yet as they had shown, it was still a threat to the environment. That is why the recommendation is coming to Council this evening. Member Lorenzo disagreed and preferred that, in the future, these matters come back to Council before money is spent.

Member Lorenzo said the City received a notice that the balance of Environmental Infrastructure Funds were received today, which amounted to $249,074. She asked if that was money that was already obligated or funds to be used towards the $731,000? Mr. Helwig said it is not new money it is already obligated. What is available is $435,600 associated with remediating the additional 20 acres. There are other potential scenarios in the Sandstone settlement involving 4.8 acres along Dixon Road if we are not able to remove the deed restrictions. She said those funds could also be obligated. He said right now they aren’t but some of that could come to play on a much smaller scale and that is the amount in the Judgment Trust Fund to deal with other acreage. Member Lorenzo asked how these funds were extracted? Mr. Helwig said they had three years available to the City through the current fiscal year at the County. The last amount, the $192,638, became available when their new fiscal year began October 1 and they would apply for that. It was also netted out in our calculations and would not be new money either. Mr. Helwig said the $435,600 hasn’t been programmed yet. We will have a much clearer picture after the second round of excavation.

Member Capello asked what due care maintenance was? Mr. Zayatz said it would be up to them to put together a plan but it could be as simple as capping with a foot of clay and geo-textile. If the geo-textile shows up any place you would know that the clay cap is no longer on top of the material and it would have to be replaced. It would be grassed and nature would be allowed to take over and cover the area. He said for the first six months it would require a monthly inspection to make sure the geo-textile was not exposed. Then it would be inspected every six months for the first two years and then annually for as long as the material is out there. The due care plans are monitored and it is up to the people monitoring them to make a recommendation and the DEQ would approve it.

Member Capello asked if land balancing was included in the Waterland contract amount of $1.1 million? Mr. Zayatz believed it was. Mr. Helwig noted that on July 1, contracts were awarded and the $1,505,355 was the amount they awarded. That included the excavating and unit pricing and filling from adjoining clear areas to cap off where we have excavated with better topsoil.

Member Capello asked where funds for Round 3 would come from? If we’ve paid $764,000 toward remediation, we still don’t have money to pay for the remaining excavation and land balancing. Mr. Helwig stated the reason that the agreement included these clear zone areas was so that they could literally dozer over the clean soils to cap off the areas that had been excavated at a very small cost. Member Capello said if we have paid $764,000 towards whatever it took to get to the excavation point, we still don’t have the monies available to pay for the remaining excavation and the land balancing. Mr. Helwig said the second round of excavation should take care of the vast majority of the digging that we have to do based upon the thorough testing done last fall and winter. Mr. Helwig said they thought the testing done last winter was so thorough that at the end of round two we will be very close to being done. Member Capello agreed and asked where land balancing money would come from? Mr. Helwig said from the $435,600 set aside for remediating the additional 20 acres. Member Capello asked if the $430,000 was close to what it would cost to land balance and two feet of fill? Mr. Helwig said it depended on how many more rounds of excavation was needed. Member Capello asked if he needed any direction from Council to pursue that or was he comfortable with what he was doing?

Mr. Helwig stated they were comfortable with what they were doing. Tonight they are reporting on the remediation and the notion of berming and capping. We are not recommending pursuing that any further based upon the guiding principles that got us to this point with remediating this in the first place and getting it out of the community. Secondly, they felt there were environmental vulnerabilities even adjoining the 75 acres but that is a Council decision. Member Capello asked about berming and capping near the railroad because he thought berming and capping would be pursued along the railroad tracks as opposed to hauling off site. Mr. Helwig said that had never been seriously considered. That would be directly adjacent to the river and in the floodplain and would have far greater environmental repercussions than what we are talking about tonight.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked how the time frame factor entered into this proposal? Would there be a time frame gain for anyone? Mr. Zayatz didn’t believe there would be any time frame gain but if there was it would be minimal rather than hauling 70 or 80 trucks a day to the landfill basically running the scrapers through but at the very most 3 to 4 days might be gained, a week at most. She asked if it was an alternative why wasn’t it investigated up front? Mr. Zayatz stated they looked at doing a berm back in April or March for the entire property but the only parcel available was off site completely and up north in the tree farm area. It was one of the options they provided but it was not acceptable because of the fact that we were looking at 40,000 to 50,000 yards in just the good environmental stewardship portion. The material we were looking to place it in was brush. It was a relatively low spot and too close to the Rouge River. She asked what resurrected the discussion in the group meeting? He said since there was a potential area to place it that would create minimal impact to the remaining properties on site and a significant cost savings, it was a good time to discuss it. As environmental consultant to the City, it was his job to look at options and present them to Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated she respected their professional attitude with regard to bringing forth options when they see them. She said she had a difficult time running the parallel between the fact that we have a distinctly written agreement Council approved and in order to have the benefit of any options they might have, it is paramount that communication comes to the Council through the administration.

Member Lorenzo said with regard to looking into this option did we lose any time from remediation? Mr. Zayatz said a couple weeks. It was not completely lost as the material that was still out in those areas that was going to be removed, Waterland was sent out to stockpile for either berming or sending to landfill.

Beth and Scott Huntley, 41801 Aspen, stated concerns about the construction traffic that might be going through the Orchard Hills Subdivision. They stated reasons their family moved to Novi and felt that it was a community that cared for their children. Their streets are 20 feet wide with no sidewalks and biking in the street with their children doesn’t leave much room for a cement truck or bulldozer to pass. They asked that Council limit the construction traffic through their subdivision. Limiting the hours wouldn’t work because children are always out riding their bicycles. Ms. Huntley asked Council to consider putting Malott Drive into the end of their subdivision across the wetlands so everyone would be safe.

Terry and Lori Croad, 41861 Aspen Drive, President of Orchard Hills Homeowners Association, shared their concerns with the proposed Orchards Hills West Subdivision. They had sent a letter to Council dated October 2, 2002. Mrs. Croad asked Council to consider the safety of Casey, Michelle and Erin, her children. They walk to school in early morning in the dark. She asked for consideration of adding Malott Drive back to te plan for their safety. They were not requesting denial of Orchard Hills West or that it not connect to their existing road system. The developer has the right to develop his property if there is no negative impact on their subdivision. If Council acts to approve the request then homeowners ask that the proposed Malott Drive be approved also. It is the only solution to traffic and safety concerns as it would provide a separate ingress and egress for construction traffic and help to diffuse the permanent traffic once the new subdivision is developed. The proposed Malott Drive would have minimal impact on the 44-acre upland undeveloped parcel. It would be built on the upland area of the site and it is estimated that only 0.89 acres of wetland would be disturbed by the proposed road. It represented only 2.5% of the total 35 acres of existing wetlands, which would be mitigated at a two to one ratio. Malott Drive had been previously supported by two of the City’s environmental specialists from JCK in letters dated May 8, 1998 and February 27, 2002. The developer submitted his application on February 1^st prior to the enactment of the City’s Storm Water Management Ordinances that were effective on June 4, 2002. The Planning Commission asked them to remove Malott Drive. They believed it wasn’t an all or nothing proposal. The current plan with Malott Drive met all ordinances. They requested Council approve Orchard Hills West with the proposed Malott Drive and thanked Mr. Helwig, his staff and Council members that personally came out.

James Karlavage, 41976 Quince, spoke about rain causing water to run into basements of people at the end of Sycamore and Silvery Lane. Studies had been done on the roads and didn’t think they were rated for this kind of truck traffic and he feared construction trucks would cause the streets to fail or crumble. He said, at one time, they had agreed to take Malott Drive through the wetlands so Mr. Lewiston could build his subdivision. He spoke about offering Mr. Lewiston grant money to turn the property he can’t build on into a park. Regarding the subdivision parcel, he asked Council to address the watershed problems first.

Paul Weindorf, 1641 West Lake Drive, spoke about the 54 inch Oak tree he wanted to save if SAD 159 and 160 went through. At the last meeting, Council directed Mr. Helwig to look into this situation and figure out what could be done. He asked if anything had been done? Mr. Helwig noted that for some time the plan was to save the tree. Mr. Klaver and Mr. Printz are working on this and they are determined to save the tree. Mr. Helwig said Mr. Klaver would meet with Mr. Weindorf in the atrium and Mr. Weindorf agreed. Mr. Klaver said one of the most significant things that would be done would be to bore the water main rather than excavating to greatly reduce any impact on the tree.

Ken Spisak, 41600 Borchart, was not opposed to the Orchard Hills West development but was opposed to a development without a permanent Malott Drive. Mr. Spisak thanked Dr. Lippe and

the school board for their consideration to allow the western property of the Orchard Hills Elementary School to be used as a haul route. However, Council has a better option to spread traffic patterns in the subdivision and reduce the possibility of a pedestrian accident from the increased traffic on their streets. He asked Council to consider that there would be a 40% increase in traffic from the 42 new homes. Additionally, without Malott Drive, there would be a 3 to 4 year period of increased traffic from the construction workers even if the haul route was on the western end of the school property. Construction workers would use existing roads to get to the building site. Their roads have no sidewalks or streetlights and there are open ditches along roads. Some students walk to school and some are picked up by bus and they wait in the dark. He saw seven benefits to a permanent Malott Drive. It would spread subdivision traffic, provide new residents with easy ingress and egress without using Borchart or Quince, school wouldn’t be used as haul route, Malott Dr. would serve as the haul route and access route, existing Silvery Lane would tie into Malott, there would be a designated entry for developer to properly advertise new homes and erect appropriate signage and it would allow teachers to continue to use subdivision streets for walks. Mr. Spisak asked Council to include Malott Drive as a permanent road in the site plan as they did on November 4, 1996.

Mike Barton, 41635 Chapman, Meadowbrook Lake Subdivision, member of Storm Water Management Committee, said the environmental issues and storm water problems are significant and it is not just a question of environment versus safety. It is an issue of real money, environmental health and well-being and all those things addressed at Planning Commission. These things have to be taken into consideration before making this decision. There is a standard to apply in approving a wetlands permit. The applicant must show there’s no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land at issue. This is a 42-unit subdivision and he felt this would destroy a portion of the Rouge River. They could mitigate some of the construction and traffic safety concerns by having a smaller development. There could be fewer houses and larger lots and still not cause the loss of a lot of profit. The only alternative is to look at a different size development and put the burden of proof on the developer to prove to Council that that can’t be done. He said no one had ever looked at what other type of development could go into that site.

Richard Bond, 46700 9 Mile Road, Storm Water Management Committee member spoke about Orchard Hills West development. He was sure that Mr. Rossi would do whatever was required to make this a good development acceptable to the City. He said the Planning Commission has said to remove both temporary and permanent considerations of Malott Drive and to comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative passed in December 2001. There are a couple goals in the SWPPI that apply to this development that should be considered. Reducing loading of the Rouge River Area regarding all impoundments of the Middle Rouge River, like Meadowbrook Lake, upstream above and including Newburg Lake. Reduce soil erosion and sedimentation, protect and mitigate the loss of natural features and to integrate the Storm Water Management in planning land use approval process. He urged Council to base their decisions on the Planning Commission's recommendation that researched this and took into consideration the impact of Malott Drive and the temporary traffic versus the permanent impact on the wetlands. Consultants JCK and Linda Lemke and their staffs also looked at this issue in1996 and did not endorse the permanent road with access to Meadowbrook. He asked Council to let what the Planning Commission and consultants have said weigh on their decision.

Steve Ickes, 41521 Woodland Creek, supported putting in Malott Drive and felt there was no difference between what we are seeing today with Malott Drive in and what was agreed to back then. The fact that the builder let some time lapse and had to start all over again didn’t change anything. Let’s stay with the original agreement and get on with it.

Member Capello removed Item A.

B. Approval to schedule executive session in the Council Annex immediately following the meeting of October 7, 2002 to discuss pending litigation.

C. Approval to schedule Public Hearing for October 21, 2002 on the proposed 2003 Community Development Block Grant application as recommended by the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee.

D. Approval of a permanent underground easement from the City of Novi to Detroit Edison for the Fire Station #4 Project: Parcel No. 22-29-101-003.

E. Approval to renew Mercy Services for the Aging Nutrition space committal/Co-location agreement.

Approval to award bid for Service Recognition Pins to O.C. Tanner, the low bidder, in the amount of $5,293.32.

G. Approval of claims and accounts on Warrant No. 633.

Member DeRoche asked if the new paved area would become Ludlow St. or did it extend into the part that was still gravel? Mr. Fisher said what has been the gravel that is now paved would be Ludlow Drive. Member DeRoche asked if he could vote on this issue as he lived on Ludlow? Mr. Fisher said he could vote.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi thought the recommended action should be a resolution to vacate and not realign. Mr. Fisher said it was initially presented that way and there is a disconnect between the original presentation and now. When he examined this, Council did not receive a dedication of Ludlow, as it exists now. It is being realigned.

Nays: None

Absent: Clark, Lorenzo (absent from the room)

Mr. Lewiston said the Rossi Family would join with him in the development of this subdivision but it is Mr. Lewiston’s subdivision not Mr. Rossi’s. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said it is so corrected and asked if this was a recent change? Mr. Lewiston said no, the application was filed by Berger Lewiston Associates and Claudio Rossi had been assisting them and Mr. Rossi’s name was on the Planning Commission agenda and Mr. Lewiston saw no reason to change it. She apologized.

Mr. Lewiston said they have owned the property for 38 years. Their ownership predated most of the environmental rules, which now govern the development of property in Novi. In 1994 they extended an option to the City to acquire the land for park purposes. An application for grant was made to the State of Michigan and was refused or at least not made. Since that time they had embarked upon the task of developing that portion of the property that was developable under the current state of the Law.

Mr. Lewiston stated 41 acres remained and they want to develop the 42-lot subdivision with or without Malott Drive. The balance of the land, all of it including the usable upland areas, would be impressed with a conservation easement prohibiting any use thereafter of that land. In 1996 they studied the effects that this 42-lot subdivision would have on its surrounding neighbors. It was the opinion of the Council and the Ad Hoc Committee in 1998 that taking into account all of the questions of safety and access that the construction of the Malott Drive extending from Meadowbrook to the subdivision site would be the preferred alternative. The decision was made after careful study and full reference of the fact that of the remaining 41 acres some .08 of an acre of wetland would be affected by the construction of Malott Drive. However, they felt that in terms of disbursing the traffic, of adding to the traffic safety Malott Drive was a preferred alternative. After refiling the plat after receiving the MDEQ permit for construction of the subdivision including Malott Drive, they again refiled showing Malott Drive. He said it was his preferred alternative. However, the Planning Commission on September 11^th felt differently and recommended approval of the subdivision without Malott Drive on the basis that adequate rules and restrictions could be created for the use of the subdivision streets that would be abided by and appropriate bonds and deposits would be made with the City before developing the subdivision so that repairs could be made to the one street designated as a traffic way upon completion of the subdivision. That alternative was also livable with Mr. Lewiston. He spoke about the haul route and his discussion with school officials. He felt Malott Drive construction answered a lot of problems with very little social disturbance and ought to be seriously considered.

Mr. Evancoe addressed Council about this development. The Planning staff is quite concerned about the safety of children. They visited the site to look at a possible realignment of the potential access road from Ten Mile to the site. The idea that is being explored and had been discussed is to extend that road further moving it as far away as possible from the school along the wall that separates the apartments from the school property. Those discussions have been productive and they are encouraged by Mr. Lewiston’s and the schools flexibility and are confident that something could be worked out. Mr. Evancoe cited sections from the 2020 Master Plan for Land Use. They were guided by the fact that not much within the subdivision, surrounding area or within the actual plat since 1998. When Planning Commission reviewed this, it was felt that there wasn’t a thorough review of the plan from 1998 including Malott Drive. Further study occurred in August and September 2002 on this entire plan and several alternates were found for Malott Dr. 1) recommend approval as shown with a 28 foot wide street 2) recommend approval at a lesser width of 20 feet of pavement 3) recommend approval of a temporary gravel construction road and was the alternative Mr. Evancoe thought should be considered and 4) Approval of the plat subject to removing Malott Drive in its entirety, which is the alternative that the staff advocated to the Planning Commission which they agreed with and recommended to Council. Their recommendation for that alternative was based on the Master Plan, access to existing streets in Orchard Hills West. Sec. 4.04 of the Subdivision Ordinance goes into detail when it talks about the importance of continuing existing streets into new developing areas.

They felt that was important to consider. These streets were platted for a reason and were intended to be continued to the west at some future date. Finally, permanent impacts versus temporary concerns. The Master Plan for Land gives guidance in decision-making. The purposes of the Master Plan are to promote the public interest and the interest of community at large rather than the interest of individuals or special groups within the community. It is to inject long-range considerations into the determination of short-range actions. and to identify and when appropriate, protect valuable environmental resources. They agreed largely with #4 in their recommendation that: was did we want to destroy this environmental area long range. That would be a permanent destruction or was there a way to manage the temporary safety and inconveniences that are presented to the Orchard Hills neighborhood.

Mr. Helwig noted they had worked closely with Dr. Lippe and Mr. Koster to learn from them what past views had been and what flexibility they had after seeing the construction access road in place for improvements to Orchard Hills School. Mr. Helwig said a meeting was held with the applicant and the schools and it was very constructive and it was wonderful to see an understanding and willingness to work with the City. If Malott Drive isn’t approved, then the use of school grounds for construction traffic could be brought to the Board of Education.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi noted a letter had been received from Joyce and Ed Higgins, 41910 Aspen, who wrote about their concern about the proposed subdivision. Issues contained in the letter was the safety of their children, dewatering from construction and the impact on wetlands and woodlands. There was a second letter from Mary Warrick, 41510 Tamara Dr., concerning Orchard Hills West Subdivision and she indicated that her concerns were safety and that the Planning Commission recommended eliminating Malott Drive. She said very small children walk to school and it is very dangerous and her children have had to dodge traffic in winter to get out of the way of vehicles. Also, what affect would construction have on her drainage and noted problems with her water and has had to build up and add gravel many times over the years because all the cars and trucks turning the corner don’t stay on the road. She is disappointed with the Planning Commission and felt that they are back to square one with respect to Malott Drive.

Member Lorenzo stated her concerns were the same as before when she addressed this as a Planning Commissioner and that was with storm water drainage. The 42 lots are proposed to discharge southerly into the Rouge and down toward Meadowbrook Lake unrestricted and undetained. She asked if Mr. Lewiston had additional information? Mr. Lewiston stated there were three water quality basins shown on the plan. They discharge from those basins through the wetlands into the middle branch of the Rouge. They never discharge to Chapman.

Member Lorenzo said what she understood from a conversation with Mr. Pakkala today he indicated that it eventually would get down into the area of Meadowbrook Lake. Mr. Lewiston said it does get to Meadowbrook Lake, which is a regional detention facility that services this site as well.

Member Lorenzo said her concern is that from information from Mr. Pakkala and Victoria Weber indicated that the lots would flow unrestricted to the middle Rouge via Meadowbrook Lake. Her concern with that was the increase not only on the Rouge, Meadowbrook Lake but also on the lots within the existing Orchard Hills Subdivision that have floodplains, perhaps, in their rear yards. She wanted to be sure that none of the homeowners had an increase in the water levels on their lots. This water would run off un-detained. What affect would this have during 10, 20, 50 or 100 year storm on the properties in Orchard Hills West and downstream on properties adjacent to Meadowbrook Lake where people might already have existing problems. She thought they would need another hydraulic analysis, per our ordinance, between preliminary and final to determine the capacity for downstream and any of these impacts she is questioning. It was her intention, if approved this evening, was that it be brought for final so that Council can read documentation that there would be no impact to the three areas she mentioned and she wanted to clarify her concerns before final approval. Mr. Lewiston commented his engineers stated they would improve existing drainage by means of the storm sewers and it would be proved to her.

Member Lorenzo had given Malott a lot of consideration and thought the construction traffic could be a concern and would be a major disruption. Since a temporary road could be used, she felt optimistic about that happening. The necessity of Malott Dr. seemed like wishful thinking, as it could not control whether or not people would use it. She said if living on the new Aspen Drive, it would be more convenient to go through the old subdivision and out to Quince rather than Meadowbrook Road to10 Mile Road. We are connecting to your subdivision regardless of whether or not Malott Drive is put in as these are connecting streets. The small percentage of people that would use Malott doesn’t justify the environmental impact, developer’s cost to construct the road and the cost of the City to maintain the road. She was concerned about setting a precedent regarding the expectations of future development and residents burdening other developers. Winding roads are less conducive to speeding and there is no indication of excessive speeding problems in Orchard Hills. She felt the best alternative was to seek 10 Mile access temporarily because of the balance of the subdivision, safety and environmental issues, long-term maintenance to the City, cost to the developer and the precedent set for future developers.

Member Landry said this was a difficult call because it involved issues of safety against the environment and in that vein he didn’t think there was a wrong answer. There is a temporary safety issue that could be resolved by bringing construction traffic in through the temporary road on the school property. His concern was the permanent safety problem that was the permanent increase in traffic with 42 houses going in there. The question then is do we construct a permanent Malott Drive. However, the safety issue comes from the uniqueness of Orchard Hills Subdivision. It was built in 1959 with no sidewalks, 20-foot wide winding roads, no streetlights and a school in the subdivision with children walking in the morning in the dark. This spells danger and a safety issue. If you add 42 homes it would add 470 residential trips each day. Putting in Malott Drive permanently would counteract the wetland issue. The entire parcel is 60 acres and 41 acres would remain in its current state. There are about 33 acres of wetland and to put the road in would take .89 acres. Less than one acre of wetland balanced against the safety issue. Page 44 of the Master Plan says that we are to balance environmental, economic health and safety factors. The balance was one acre of wetland for the safety of children. The developer is willing to put the road in and he would support that. He respected the professionalism of the Planning Commission but to him 470 additional trips on winding dark streets for less than an acre of wetland is just not worth it.

Stewardship Committee Conservation Easement document to

Member Csordas thanked Mr. Croad for bringing very good points before Council in his letter and commented he agreed with all of them. He agreed that public safety is of the highest importance and he came to the meeting prepared to support the addition of Malott Drive. We have approvals from our traffic consultants, JCK, etc. He took issue and strongly disagreed with the JCK letter from Amy Kay dated October 2^nd where she talked about a severe impact to the regulated woodlands and wetlands. It is less than an acre and nothing when you consider the safety of the people living there. He asked who wrote the woodlands and landscape review reports from the City and asked that documents be signed before Council received them. Member Csordas questioned whether the developer put up a bond for repair to any damage done to existing roads. Mr. Lewiston said except that if Malott Drive were the approved version of the plat, they suggested they would pay for the signs in the subdivision streets prohibiting construction traffic so it would be limited to Malott. They would also post a reasonable bond against any damage to those streets. Mr. Lewiston said two stop signs put on Borchart or Aspen would discourage all traffic. Member Csordas suggested yield signs.

Member Csordas asked if it would make sense to pursue a second access along Ten Mile to provide two accesses for construction? Mr. Helwig thought the school officials had looked at that construction access use as a use of last resort. The school has had construction for a long time and their preference was not to have any further construction upheaval obstructing the school grounds. Member Csordas agreed.

Member DeRoche asked if the Storm Water Committee reviewed this plan? Mr. Evancoe stated they looked at it and provided a one-page memo. They had suggested to the Planning Commission that they would like to have input so in the Planning Commission motion, they said they wanted to hear from that group. There were two members of that committee who were concerned and they wrote a letter, which was passed on to the Planning Commission indicating that they had some concerns. Member DeRoche said, for the record, Novi is a great place. We’ve got a lot of cutting edge things here such as great schools, shopping, neighborhoods and great people that live here. We also have an extraordinary amount of rules that we expect people to live

with. Some of them he agreed with and some he didn’t. There is a Woodlands Ordinance, Façade Ordinance, Sign Ordinance and we even regulate how many American Flags you can fly in front of a business in this town. Of all the ordinances it seems the wetlands is the one that we run into most frequently these days. He commented that’s what he wanted to focus his thoughts on as it pertains to this development. He thought the Wetlands Ordinance that was put out for a noble cause, protecting the environment, and that we want to preserve as much of the wetlands as we possibly can where they actually served a public good. He thought what the City Council and some of the other boards and commissions might have lost sight of is what is important in how we weigh things out with our interpretation and implementation of our Wetlands Ordinance. He thought what we were evaluating tonight smacked of a lot of lack of common sense. It jumps off the page and he thought if folks had injected common sense into this process we wouldn’t have had these good people who live in the subdivision at 10:46 PM still talking about this. He thought they would have got a better recommendation from the Planning Commission. He asked what is more important than a wetland? He thought in this community there might not be as many people who know the answer to that, as they should. There are probably a lot of things but he said what is more important is people. People are more important than a wetland. Human activity, the general health, safety and welfare of human beings was more important than a wetland. Member DeRoche said he was not afraid to say that and in fact was proud to say that and he thought that type of common sense had been lacking in a lot of Council decisions of late from very large wetlands down to very small ones that he had gone on record as criticizing as West Nile Virus production facilities. He felt these people knew, under their own free will, how to exit or enter their subdivisions and could make those judgments. He said he didn’t live there but he did know the traffic patterns where he lived and he wouldn’t appreciate it if someone told him what the fastest way to get out of his sub would be because he knew that. He thought they had run into a dangerous wall and hoped Council reels the whole decision back to common sense. He agreed with the maker of the motion and it had been stated a lot more elegantly than he could have with the balance of the environment along with the interest of the people. The people that should be our number one priority not necessarily some of these other things that we consider here at this bench. He agreed with Member Landry and would support the motion and hoped that this would go forward in a way that would result in some permanent harmony for these residents in the entire area.

Member Capello asked if there was any area where the road would be less intrusive to the wetland? Mr. Evancoe said no, and bringing the road further south would have a more adverse impact. He asked if Mr. Evancoe thought the developer met his burden of putting the road in the least intrusive area to the wetlands? Mr. Evancoe said he did. He noted there are also 2 acres of regulated woodland that would be impacted if this road went through.

Member Capello said he was concerned that if the road was constructed over the wetlands that we might have some future problems and asked Mr. Lewiston’s engineer, Rick Hirth of Warner, Cantrell & Padmos, if they had taken any soil borings or if they had done any special engineering to make sure that it is stabilized and would not fail in a few years after the bond expires. Mr. Lewiston said they had an MDEQ permit for construction of the road. The road has been placed in the area of the site least harmful. Mr. Hirth stated they would do soil borings just prior to final engineering approval in case of necessary adjustments to the design of the road. He felt there would be difficulties but didn’t think they were difficulties that couldn’t be managed or would be so significant that they would want to realign the position of the road. Member Capello asked if in their engineering for the road they would take they take into account the continuing erosion caused by the river to the north abutting the road. Mr. Hirth said they would, as it is part of the details included in some of the packages. That is also where they are providing the storm water outlet. In the process of developing the storm water outlet, they anticipate they would have to armor that bank with a significant amount of rip-rap to stabilize it.

Member Capello asked if the motion passed with a 20-foot road would they still plan to put the sidewalk along the north side of the road? Mr. Hirth said that was the previous plan and was probably a good idea. He respected the idea of going to a 20 foot wide road but normal 20 ft wide roads would be in a ditch section type situation where you had a 20 foot wide roadway and then ditches. He didn’t like that idea because storm water can’t be contained and keep it from eroding the sides of the banks. His preference would be to keep the 28 ft wide road with curb and gutters so the intensive runoff could be managed, put into a storm water system, into a mitigation water quality basins under a lot more controlled situations. He thought the more attractive that road was made the more attractive to everyone to use. Mr. Lewiston asked if they could have a 20-foot road with curb and gutter on both sides? Mr. Hirth said yes. Mr. Lewiston said there would be no parking in the road and the sidewalk would still fit on the north side of the road so he saw no reason why the 20-foot wide pavement with curb and gutter and a sidewalk on the north side couldn’t be accommodated.

Mr. Capello asked Mr. Fisher if there was an ordinance that could enforce a no construction traffic sign. Mr. Fisher was sure there was and Member Capello asked him to double check to be sure the ordinance could be enforced after the signs go up. Mr. Fisher said he would.

Member Capello said he had the same balancing test and looked at the entire wetland area and say that we are only going to encroach on one acre of it and he balanced the one-acre of wetland and mosquitoes with the safety of children. He can’t help but go with the safety of the children. Member Capello said coming up is the acceptance of the preservation easements but it didn’t seem like the easements being accepted were the entire remaining 30 plus acres of wetlands. He asked what their intent was for the balance of those wetlands? Mr. Lewiston replied everything not used for the subdivision would be covered by the conservation easement, which has every square inch of the remaining property except for the subdivision and Malott Drive. Member Capello questioned the wooded areas he had for future development? Mr. Lewiston said that was designed to show where upland areas were on the site and that the road was going through upland areas. Those areas are included as well in the conservation easement and would not be developed.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Debbie Thor, JCK, whether there was a wetlands impact report submitted by the applicant. Ms. Thor said there was not a recent report but she was sure it had been analyzed in prior years through the Ad Hoc Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said then just by changes in knowledge and communication, there are different aspects that we look at with regard to environmental impacts within that frame of time? Ms. Thor agreed. She asked Ms. Thor to give a brief overview of the letter dated October 2^nd from Amy Kay of JCK. She was interested in what the area of impact was with regard to acreage as opposed to what the impact on this wetland forested floodplain region would be over all. Ms. Thor said Ms. Kay generalized it in that she believed there would be severe impacts on this portion of the Rouge River and the associated riparian wetlands area. She thought regarding the way it would be done was that it’s not just .89 acres from a road crossing; it fragments the wetlands to the north from the south. As far as habitat loss this is also the type of wetland that is important in this situation. It’s not just a cattail marsh, it is a mature forested riparian wetland and there aren’t very many in the City, which elevates this in priority in preservation. Long term there would be runoff from the road. If the soils are very bad when they go into soil borings, the impact could extend further than the right-of-way, salt runoff, etc. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked what affects lighting would have on the wildlife in the area? Ms. Thor thought the lighting would deter wildlife from utilizing the area.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked about the severity of the impact? Ms. Thor said because this is such a special system, they usually try to limit how often they use the word rare or high quality and this particular system really fits that name. It’s hard to replace as not much of it is left in the City, it is so close to the Rouge River that it is fairly pristine.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said when talking about balancing we are not talking about a small decimal of an acre we are talking about a very large and severe impact. So if talking about balancing we need to be fair about that. She said the danger of living in any neighborhood breeds a don’t change anything attitude and she understood that. She spoke about neighborhoods and stub streets and how residents don’t realize that stub streets would be extended someday. We have a responsibility to know that stub streets are in our subdivisions and what the impacts might be someday on our property and our lives. This dormant land has been a gift to those residents used to seeing it in its pristine state. We as property owners or community members shouldn’t expect things to stay the same forever or not expect ourselves to improve our neighborhoods with storm drain improvements, sidewalks, etc. rather than expecting someone else to circumvent our problems. Old is not necessarily unique and this development is not anymore unique than the questions and concerns of folks who live on S. Lake Drive. Their situation might even be more severe from a safety standpoint. However, she saw in the S. Lake residents a willingness to improve their situation. The same situation and same perspective persists for the people who are concerned about safety. Certainly the City is concerned about safety and she knew everyone at the table was. However, that doesn’t mean that we pull up the drawbridge, draw a moat around ourselves and require some one else to take care of all of our problems; that is a part of the balance as well.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said there were real concerns with regard to whether or not the proposed roadway would be used. The long-term maintenance of Malott Drive was also a concern from the standpoint of being able to balance off the expense to the taxpayers at large to pay for the maintenance. We are talking about almost a ½ mile of roadway. Also, within the MDEQ there is a proposal being talked about generally about seeking support in communities in Middle One, of a study of the Middle One to find out why the impacts on the Middle One are in a short period of two years again adversely affecting Newburgh Lake. The lake was dredged and rehabbed at a cost of many millions of dollars and the effects felt downstream are not improved. If Novi is being approached to support a grant with regard to studying adverse impacts on the Middle Rouge it’s all connected. It’s not just about building 45 houses but to say it’s not much of an impact and it won’t matter, it’s the cumulative affect. It’s an interesting thing that the MDEQ is proposing a study in conjunction with the Rouge Program Office and that is the same office that issued this permit to build this road. She wonders if these folks speak to each other. She didn’t feel it was a balanced approach to build a road to ostensibly serve 45 houses. Also, to suggest that an interest in the environment takes precedence over interest in people was a ridiculous statement. It is just as valid as saying that people are more important than unbridled growth. Of course they are but we have to wake up to the effect of what we are doing at some point and to suggest this development should be brought forward without so much as an environmental impact statement she didn’t believe the impact of this development had not been proved. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi congratulated Ms. Thor and Ms. Kay for making the fact known that we are talking about a greater impact than what has been represented this evening.

Mr. Pearson said the motion is with the narrow road width and would include a waiver from Design and Construction Standards for the narrow road width. Member Landry agreed to amend the motion to reflect Mr. Pearson’s comment and the seconder agreed.

Member DeRoche said it was his understanding that stop signs would be going up if this was approved. Mr. Klaver said that’s correct as soon as possible.

Carl Early, representing A.K.E.G., was present and advised Council that they were not asking for a new license but were replacing an old one.

Member Csordas didn’t like the language and asked about the reference in the documentation regarding "Dance, Entertainment, Dance-Entertainment or Topless Activity". He asked Chief Shaeffer what that meant? Chief Shaeffer said in the document that was originally filed there was a clerical error made that indicated that an adult entertainment license was being requested along with this liquor license. The applicant has assured our investigators and the LCC has assured that such application is not being considered. Council is only being requested to approve a license for the dispensing of liquor and entertainment, not adult entertainment.

Member Csordas said he couldn’t support this until Council was given something in writing that totally disallowed that he would not support the motion and hoped that fellow Council members would not either.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated she had the same concerns that Member Csordas had. Despite the fact that it has been stated it was a typo with regard to adult entertainment that phrase was used in the questionnaire. Mr. Early said he had never filled out anything that said they were requesting adult entertainment. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked what it meant when it said, "dining geared toward the adult 35 and over patron". Mr. Early said by "adult" he meant they were gearing their entertainment and business to an adult crowd of 35 and up. It did not mean adult entertainment in terms of topless. The name of the place is the Manhattan Club and their entertainment would be Blues, Frank Sinatra, etc. geared toward an adult audience. She asked that they also provide information regarding their menu and pricing. He said they submitted 15 copies but would submit 15 more if required.

Mr. Early asked if he understood correctly that Council wanted a clarification on the adult entertainment document and the menus prior to the next Council meeting.

Mr. Fisher asked for confirmation that this was to be recorded with the Register of Deeds. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Ms. Cornelius if it could be recorded after the fact and she said it could.

Mr. Helwig had information Council received attached to Items 7 and 8. The refunding would provide estimated savings in the range of $600,000 to $750,000 over the life of this refunded debt. Also included in these actions is the issuance of the remainder of the year 2000 Road Bonds, just under $8.4 million.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she took it that we are looking at a reduced interest rate and that would culminate in a savings of $700,000 plus or perhaps even more. Mr. Helwig said yes. She asked what kind of expense would be incurred to go through this? Mr. Helwig said by consolidating the issuance of our second installment of the year 2000 Road Bonds with this refunding our bond issuance costs are being cut approximately 50%. Finance Director Smith- Roy said our financial advisor and our bond legal counsel have agreed to retain their fee schedule that they normally would which is based on a per thousand cost and they further reduced it with percentage discounts because we are combining the refunding with the Road Bond. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said so the estimate of the savings minus the expenses in order to bring us to that point would be how much? Ms. Smith-Roy said the figure that is before Council is reduced for the estimated bond issuance cost already. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said then it is included and Ms. Smith-Roy said yes, as well as the cost for the escrow agent and other costs that are involved in the financing. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said we are talking about a $33,395,000 beginning minus $25 million and we have an $8,395,000 balance. She asked what the $8,395,000 was supposed to represent as it was referred to as "the project"? Ms. Smith-Roy said it referred to the road bond issuance costs that are remaining.

Mr. Fisher said he was not sure this was really vacating a drain and he would like to substitute in place of the phrase "vacation" that we are "relocating and clarifying this drain". This is a drain from the 1800’s, it doesn’t have a description and he didn’t want to suggest that we are vacating a drain. He asked that any place where vacation is, it be said it is being relocated and clarified. Maker of the motion agreed.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said the document states that this was originally a revision to Section 15 Assessment and former City Manager Ed Kriewall brought this forward. She asked what project this was? Mr. Fisher didn’t know. She was curious because if she understood the Drain Code by doing this the benefiting property owners no longer paid assessments to that drain and that now the taxpayers are paying the assessment to the drain, is that correct? Mr. Fisher said he didn’t know but did know that in 1986 this drain was transferred by the County to the City and that might have changed its status. She said but benefiting property owners are not paying assessments anymore, the taxpayers are paying for it. Mr. Fisher said that’s very likely.

Nays: None

Member DeRoche said this is very important to our community and hoped that it would be back and approved at the next meeting.

Member Capello said next years event is already being planned and they have asked that Council appoint two liaisons, one from the City Council and one from administration. This would open the doors of communication and we can address some of the last minute problems that we had last year ahead of time. He thought it would be good for the City and for the Motor Fest. Member Landry volunteered. Mr. Helwig was asked to appoint an administrative person and he replied he would.

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

Member Capello thought the first motion he had made in regard to Tuscany was inaccurate. He asked that the motion specifically state what he stated and that the minutes be returned to Council at the next meeting.

Member Lorenzo requested to postpone due to the lateness of the hour and because there was an Executive Session immediately following the meeting.

Member Landry commented he would like to stay and finish the agenda.

Member DeRoche suggested staying until 11:50 PM. Member Lorenzo agreed and withdrew her motion.

1. Add to future agenda for study purposes, looking into the 52-1 District

Member Capello thought it was time to consider taking the 52-1 District Court, a county court, and seeing if it is feasible to make it a municipal court. He asked that it be brought back to Council after Mr. Helwig determined the financial viability of doing it and if it would be a worthwhile endeavor and Mr. Fisher figured out what needed to be done.

Member Lorenzo asked why the City would want to do that? Mr. Helwig said this is the type of thing that would be ideal for goal setting discussions because it would require significant steps, timing and partnerships. We have no budgetary responsibilities with the court. He had worked with municipal courts and was aware from speaking with the judges that this might be a goal of theirs but it would be a few years out. This would be a major undertaking and he would like some balancing of that goal with other goals that Council might have in mind as to where our time and effort might apply. Member Lorenzo suggested discussing this on October 17^th.

Member Capello said it was decided to ask the schools and see if they were going to place sidewalks on all of their properties and he found out that most of the properties are City properties and parklands. He wanted to direct administration to ask Parks and Recreation if they would do an inventory of what parklands we have, find out where we are lacking and see what it would take to finish up the sidewalks where they should be. Mr. Helwig said he would do that.

Member Capello said at one time the Music and Motor Fest was going to put a stage at the corner of Main and Market. They have been out of money for several years and are getting back on their feet. Member Capello contacted them and asked if they minded if the City took over the initiative of trying to find the funding to put the stage up and they said they didn’t mind.

Member Capello thought if Main Street was going to be used as our downtown area we need a stage there for the activities. He was not looking for any City funding but would like to form a committee with administration and go out and look to the business community to raise $150,000 to get the stage erected by way of pledges.

Member Lorenzo’s concern was who would administer this and said Council expects the administration to do a lot of things so she wanted to know how much time would it take?

Member Capello said, with their governance, that the committee members would be the people who went out and raised the funds. We need to advertise and see who is interested and who stepped forward and he thought that some of the Chamber members would also step forward.

Member Landry thought a band shell on Main Street is a good idea and a worthy effort. If people are willing to come forth from the community and serve on the committee it is a good idea and he would support it.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi wouldn’t speak for administration but was concerned that this is another activity and their plate is full. Secondly, she was concerned with the viability of the area and although the original idea was a good one it sounded to her like the area is in flux and she wasn’t sure that a band stand band shell would be a make or breaker as she had reservations about where that’s all going.

Mr. Helwig thanked Mayor Pro Tem Bononi for her comments and thought they were very accurate in terms of their work program. He said an issue that always concerned him was when City government goes seeking dollars is that it be done very properly with a public purpose to this mission, publication and even a resolution from Council. When a committee, City staff or whoever goes out in the name of City government seeking funds it can be misconstrued. Particularly going forward to any foundations that larger employers might have he thought it needed to be done in the right manner to reflect what they wanted to accomplish. Mr. Helwig said he would like to have the opportunity to bring back a public purpose designation that would clearly clarify what the goals are of this fundraising and how individuals and organizations may participate. He thought this needed to come back for further discussion and further clarity and then would be happy to go get it done.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she presumed that this would be on Mr. Helwig’s time frame? Mr. Helwig said yes.

Member Csordas commented he shared Mr. Helwig’s concerns. He saw a lot of danger for the City to be involved with any fundraising especially when we are going to go out and be working with people that wish to continue to develop in the City. He feared the impression would be that there was something improper going on and would be concerned that anyone from the City would be involved in any fundraising effort for anything. He didn’t feel it would be appropriate. He asked if the City owned that property. Member Capello thought the City did and thought it was a part of the dedications of Main Street. Mr. Helwig thought they needed to do some due diligence.

Member Capello said individuals had appeared before Council that said there was potential for getting grants to purchase parkland. If there are citizens who want to put forth their efforts to see if there are any grants available to purchase parklands, he thought Council should take advantage of their energies. He requested a committee of citizens be established to pursue that under the direction of Parks and Recreation.

Member Lorenzo noted she took volunteer’s time very seriously and didn’t think we were prepared for that right now. No matter how much of a grant is received, there is typically an obligation to spend something and she didn’t feel the City was in a position to offer that right now. She wouldn’t want volunteers to put in all the time and effort to come back and hear that we didn’t have the money. Member Lorenzo said we have the Friends of Novi Parks and if they want to solicit and research, they certainly do that.

Member DeRoche said if there are people who want to serve on a committee and spend their time on a worthy effort, whether or not we have money, if they can bring opportunities to the community that we are unaware of and there are residents and there is no additional cost, he didn’t see why we wouldn’t want to support that. He shared Member Lorenzo’s concerns about our ability to execute and follow through on things but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t know what is out there for our future. He thought there would be brighter budget years to come.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she wouldn’t support such a motion at this time because she thought such opportunities with regard to grants should be Council driven. Also, there is always a match to a grant and if any group of individuals wanted to bring matters forward with regard to land preservation there is absolutely the opportunity to institute a land conservancy or a land trust. There are a lot of different ways to do that. However, at this particular point and with the history that is fresh in our minds she didn’t think this is the right time.

Member Landry said at budget time the additional three police officers was something that Council was moving toward but it was decided that it would be put off because there was an opportunity to receive up to half of the money, $150,000, from a Federal grant. He requested this be a Matter for Council Action item to be considered. He said it was his understanding that when the grant was applied for Council had to set aside some money for the match. Finance Director Smith-Roy said that is correct. He asked if that $150,000 was somewhere in the budget. Ms. Smith-Roy said it was in the Contingency Fund there was $137,000. Member Landry said Chief Shaeffer made a couple of recommendations. If we added three police officers beginning in January instead of now the cost would be roughly $50,000 per officer for the remainder of this fiscal year. Ms. Smith- Roy said that was correct. Member Landry said we could do that within the $150,000 that we have and we would be "within budget". Ms. Smith-Roy said it would be close. Member Landry recommended to Council that that be done and requested that this be put on the next agenda and that a report be submitted by Chief Shaeffer. Chief Shaeffer said he would provide that.

Member Lorenzo said she would prefer waiting until they found out if they received the grant in March. It didn’t make sense to lose the grant money by hiring in January.

Member Landry said if we didn’t get the grant now why would anybody think we would get it in February. This can be discussed during Matters for Council Action.

Member Capello said it was his understanding that they wanted to be sure the police officers could be hired even if we didn’t receive the grant. He thought they had put additional monies into the Contingency Fund in the event we didn’t get the grant, we have the money to hire the three officers.

Ms. Smith-Roy said money was not set-aside specifically for that. $137,000 was set aside because that is what we thought the match would be. In addition to that Council had removed some of the items from the budget and set aside in excess of $300,000 in the Contingency account for use as Council saw fit.

Mr. Helwig asked if it was the intent of Council to have this as an item for consideration on Matters for Council Action on the next agenda. Member Landry said yes.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:56 PM.

_______________________________ ______________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by _____________________________

Charlene Mc Lean

Date approved: October 21, 2002