REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI  
 MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2002 AT 7:30 PM
NOVI CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

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

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cub Scout Pack #50-Mustang Patrol

Leader: Cindy Buckley

Members: Rahul Ahluwalia, Patrick Buckley, Brett Giampa,

Chad Irvine, Chris Muncie,Tom Pawlicki

Zach Reilly, Christopher Vera-Burgos

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

Member Lorenzo added under Attorney Reports an update on the Sandstone arbitration issues. Also, under Consent Agenda Item B, she asked what litigation would be discussed under Executive Session.

Mr. Fisher advised the Executive Session would include the Adell Case that was recently decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals, the Siena lawsuit which is a part of the condemnation for both SAD 155 and the GAP project and the CVS case carried over from the last meeting.

Member Landry recommended that Items 6 and 7 under Matters for Council Action be switched so that Item 6 would be after the Audience Participation and Item 7 would be before.

Member Landry reported on the Consultant Review Committee. He said they had gone out with RFP’s for several City services and particularly in Civil Engineering, façade and environmental. Responses have been received and the Committee had weaned down the responses on façade and environment and would interview three potential candidates. The façade interviews would be on November 6^th and the environmental consultant interviews would be on November 14^th. They would then schedule engineering and would submit to Council the results and recommendations thereafter.

Sandy Hysinger, Real Estate Field Coordinator for Exxon Mobil Corporation, said they have served this area with high quality products and services since the late 1960’s. There are 250 Mobil sites in the area two of which are in the City of Novi. Their longevity is due to their success in offering high quality products and services to the motoring public. They are dedicated to providing clean, safe and well-run facilities. Therefore, they engage in various consumer research efforts to find out what the customer wants and the easiest ways to get in and out of the station. They took all of that research and their experience and came up with the best of class facility and would like to build it at the intersection of 12 Mile and Novi Roads.

They want to build a 3,900 sq. ft. convenience store, a car wash and 8 product dispensers, which would accommodate 16 fueling positions. The fueling facility would be under a free standing canopy. They would like to build a site that is consistent with Council’s vision for the City of Novi and have worked with the Novi staff to understand what their concerns are and to address those concerns. They would like to continue that dialogue to address any concerns Council has or that might come up during this discussion.

Ms. Hysinger said there were other local real estate talent present that she used, people from their construction and design group, their architect group and the local business manager who would be in charge of overseeing the operation when the site is open.

Ms. Hysinger introduced J. Cates of W. D. Partners discussed the site plan and landscape of the project. Mr. Cates displayed some visuals of the site showing where the structures would be located and explained the canopy. To meet off site lighting requirements, they placed a decorative wall across between the intersections of the site ranging from the Novi approach to the 12 Mile approach. They will compliment the wall with additional plantings within the footprint of the building and have scattered smaller shrubs and larger trees throughout the exterior of the wall as well as additional heavy landscaping in the areas that are covering the space to the rear of the facilities. They proposed to effectively illuminate the site without the unnecessarily spilling of light across the adjacent properties or right-of-ways. They attempted to integrate the desires of the community with the operational needs and traffic flow needs.

Wells Perkins, W.D. Partners Architect, said this facility would be a unique and visual pleasing addition to Novi. Utilizing natural finishes such stone and brick they were able to add character to enhance the detail. Their design worked in conjunction with new developments in the area, which enhanced landscape while creating a cohesive experience for the community. The residential style architecture by use of columns, decorative molding, roof overhangs, copper color metal roof and eaves provides softness to the design of the facility. These features have been included in the convenience store, car wash, canopy, trash enclosure and the landscaping and create a unified design. Based on the location of the site decorative landscaping, brick walls and fencing are incorporated to de-emphasize the proximity to the

cemetery. The nature finishes used and signage meet and comply with the City of Novi’s ordinances. They went beyond their normal standards as an Exxon Mobil Station and produced something unique for this site.

When looking at the renderings, it was noted the roofing is not orange. It is a copper coated roof and similar to other facilities down Novi Road. The stone and brick complement each other within all the facilities on the site.

Mr. Klaver, on behalf of the Housing and Community Development Committee, presented recommendations for the 2003 CDBG spending program. Mr. Klaver introduced Sarah Gray and Marianne DiGiusto who were two of the Committee Members making the recommendation.

Mr. Klaver said they had been asked two years ago by Council to refocus the money, which is Federal dollars passed through Oakland County. Previously, they had problems with having large amounts of unspent funds so one of the Committees first projects was to significantly reduce the unallocated monies. They did and because of this it might be possible to capture monies from other communities that did not achieve the spending ratio. Novi City Controller, Marina Neumaier, assisted them in this task.

One of the features of the CDBG Fund is a target area based on income. Mr. Klaver said within their target area there are infrastructure monies that are being used for capital improvements and they are about to complete a new playground structure for Lakeshore Park. Mr. Klaver said they previously had to request waivers so they wouldn’t lose monies that were unspent for prior years and this year no waivers are needed because they are current with all programs.

Mr. Klaver reviewed last year’s program saying for a number of years they have had public service allocations, which included Jan McAlpine, Senior Citizens Center Manager, Senior Van Program, Youth Assistance and H.A.V.E.N. Mr. Klaver reviewed his documentation of program requests and said they had a total of 31 requests this year and believed they would be able to honor all those requests that qualify through the guidelines.

Mr. Klaver said Youth Assistance is funding the scholarships for the Summer Camp Program and H.A.V.E.N. provided services to 106 residents in Novi, four of these were a part of there residential program where they were in need of housing. There were 12 individuals that participated in the domestic violence-counseling program, 7 individuals that dealt with sexual assault and child abuse programs and 82 were in their advocacy program, which are people in a court or hospital environment. There are 11 people in supervised parenting programs and there are 126 people in several other smaller categories and 59 individuals received guidance through the H.A.V.E.N. crisis line.

The Senior Van serviced 10,069 passengers in the last year.

Mr. Klaver advised Council of their recommendations for this year:

Senior Citizen Center Manager $ 9,000

Senior Van Program 20,000

Youth Assistance 6,000

H.A.V.E.N. 12,000

Minor Home Repair Program 62,749

The Minor Home Repair Program reflects an increase over the money that was funded last year because the Committee is very pleased with the success of that program and how much they would be able to provide. It was necessary to increase this program and there is a reduction to the Senior Van Program, which was not based on the merit of the program but on the fact that they had to find money to increase the Minor Home Repair Program. The Committee was hoping Council could offset that through the General Fund during next year’s budget.

Member Landry asked Committee Member Gray if they would be able to address all those who qualify for the Minor Home Repair Program. She said yes and Mr. Klaver said there were only a couple that didn’t qualify and 28 that did. Member Landry asked if they were doing better getting the word out about the program. Ms. Gray said with Council’s support over the last two years, Mayor Clark’s letter to the residents in the area and having information on the City calendar, the outreach program had been incredible. She was also very pleased, although skeptical at first, with the contracting of a third party administrator through OLHSA who has access to so many other programs, Federal, County and State level. She was pleased with Mr. Klaver, Ms. DiGiusto and Ms. Neumaier’s contributions and felt they were on the right track and she supported the recommendations. Ms. Gray said Mr. Bartlett has moved out of the area so they need a new committee member.

Member Csordas wanted it to be very clear to the community that the funds they are speaking about are Grant Funds and that this program was unlike anything else in the City and the goal was to spend all of the money so they could get more and that it is not taxpayer money.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi advised this item would be on the Council agenda of November 12^tth and asked for public response.

Hedy Nuriel, President and CEO of H.A.V.E.N., was present and thanked Council for their support which began in 1994. She said they were asking for $12,000 and felt the service they provided was a valuable one. They serve in a variety of different ways from a shelter to counseling centers. They work with everyone from the perpetrator of domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse to the victims, and from adults to children. There are offices throughout Oakland County and they get a large number of referrals from the 52^nd District Court where they have a staff person stationed on a regular basis. They work closely with the judges and magistrates and with probation.

Ms. Nuriel explained their newest program that has already seen 128 people. It is called START, Safe Therapeutic Assault Response Team, which addresses the needs of the sexual assault victims, people that are raped in this community, who have no where else to go. Often, when they go to hospital emergency rooms they get someone who has not been properly trained in doing rape exams, busy doctors, residents or interns who have no specialized training in sexual assault. Their program has specially trained forensic nurses and physician’s assistants who have gone through specialized training to take forensic evidence and testify in court with the goal being to increase prosecution rates and getting rapists off the street.

Member Csordas asked how many residents of Novi take advantage of their services. Ms. Nuriel said this past year there were 126 residents that utilized their services. He asked what percentage that was. She said Novi is about the sixth largest community that has utilized their services and within the top ten of all the communities in Oakland County. She said they service about 5,000 face-to-face calls.

Being there were no other questions or comments Mayor Pro Tem Bononi closed the Public Hearing.

Mr. Helwig suggested the following three Saturdays for Council consideration to finalize their work and to look at possible additions to both short term and long term goals.

Saturday, November 16^th, Saturday, December 7^th, Saturday, December 14^th

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi suggested November 16^th, Mr. Helwig suggested 8:30 a.m. until noon and there was Council consensus.

Mr. Helwig asked Council to bring their suggestions for short or long term goal additions and they would go through a consensus process. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi suggested prioritizing their goals and Mr. Helwig said it would be helpful and appreciated.

Mr. Helwig thanked everyone for their patience and encouragement during the intersection improvements of 12 Mile and Novi Road that was closed to the public for a month. The project was completed safely, on time and is high quality. He hoped people were noticing the thank you signs arranged in close proximity to the intersection and on the freeways to thank the motoring public and to indicate that the intersection is now open.

Mr. Helwig said regarding the replacement of the Grand River Avenue Bridge over the CSX railroad tracks they received a letter forwarded from State Representative Nancy Cassis from the Director of the Michigan Department of Transportation, Gregory Rosine, who indicated they had received the final environmental clearance from the Federal Highway Administration. They were also advised in the letter that a December 6^th bid letting might still be possible as opposed to January 10^th that had been advised by the State. So, he thought they were finally getting this corralled, it was good news for the community and Maybury would be bid as early as December.

There was an article last week concerning the repaving of Galway and Council Member Lorenzo was directly or indirectly taken to task for this paving. Mr. Helwig said he had stated publicly, a long time ago, that this met our PASER three, one of the poorest category criteria.

In the article, the reporter mentioned that City Engineer Nancy McClain said "Although the PASER system gave it a three she did not recommend doing this section", by context referring to the portion near and in close proximity to Member Lorenzo’s property, because in her professional opinion it did not seem poor enough. This is the section that was at the far western portion of this intersection-to-intersection portion of Galway. It’s as far away from Member Lorenzo’s property as possible. It is close to Windermere Court and our policy is to do intersection to intersection. He wanted to make it clear because the article implied that the portion that Ms. McClain was saying didn’t warrant was the section in close proximity to Member Lorenzo’s property and nothing could be further from the truth. He said he knew Council had thankless jobs and it is made more thankless when innuendo or something like this is put out in full view of everyone. He said he had been steadfast in the facts since day one on this and it’s been PASER three for over two thirds of that intersection to intersection and the portion that Nancy was referring to was the far western by Windermere Court.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said it was very difficult for citizens to keep track of everything that is going on but at the point that improvements are proposed for anyone’s neighborhood it is time to come forward and ask questions and make comments for the record. It would help Council and prevent misunderstandings such as this.

Mr. Pearson updated an item brought to Council September 9^th regarding the Novi Promenade area south of Grand River and east of Wixom Road. The main landmark is the Target development. East of the Target building there is an area that is heavily wooded and a wetland area where there has been dumping of construction related material such as cables and concrete forms. A resident who lives south of there brought this to Council’s attention. He said they had been in contact with the property owner and the holding company, Landon Companies, about their need to get the property cleaned up and restored. This is a restoration project and there is no indication that it is any kind of mitigation or any other kind of site requirement because of contamination, but it is a restoration that needs to move forward. The City’s wetland consultant from JCK has been to the site and is present tonight for questions. They have had contact with the MDEQ and there’s no indication the property owner dumped this but they have been given adequate time to come up with a clean-up plan. Mr. Pearson said a formal letter was issued to the property owner informing them that they need to make plans on how this would be cleaned up and they were given a November 12^th compliance date to offer a formal response.

Member Csordas asked if he was saying that the current property owner did not cause this pollution. Mr. Pearson said yes. Member Csordas asked if he was saying that in the City’s opinion it didn’t make any difference because the person who owns the property needed to clean it up. Mr. Pearson said yes. Member Csordas asked Mr. Fisher how likely it was that the City would be sued regarding this? Mr. Fisher said generally speaking that is a viable position. The property owner has that responsibility. If a nuisance condition exists on their land that does not mean the property owner doesn’t have recourse to the actual perpetrator if they can identify them. Member Csordas said it sounded like the City would get sued over this if we pressed this. Mr. Fisher said he didn’t have any indication of that to this point and Member Csordas asked Mr. Fisher and Mr. Pearson to be very cautious and to keep Council advised.

Mr. Pearson said the conversations with Landon Companies had been very cordial. It has been five weeks and it was just last Friday that a letter was decided on. It was not a citation.

Member Landry asked Ms. Kay of JCK if he understood correctly that the debris has an adverse affect on the vegetation that should be growing but is not growing next to the water in this area. Ms. Kay said, whether it is the property owner or the City, someone needs to test the water and the soils for potential contamination. Also, just by virtue of the City ordinance requirements for wetlands and watercourses there is a tremendous amount of displacement in the area. The displacement of vegetation or lack of is an indication that there might be pollution in this wetland. Typically, there should be a very productive vegetative community around this wetland pond and they are not seeing that now, so it becomes a concern.

Member Capello asked what kind of pollutants would be in this wetland area. Ms. Kay said she didn’t want to hazard a guess but there was some common sense speculation that it is adjacent to a long-standing industrial use. They had not done a thorough investigation and had only been out to the site twice, but they had put two and two together. It would be prudent that someone test the soil and water.

He asked if this was the small corner of the wetland on the Target site that Mr. Wizinsky was brought to Council’s attention. She said it was. He asked if she went out and inspected it during the planning approval stages of the Target store. Ms. Kay said they inspected the wetland boundary and some of that did encompass this area and at that time they made general notes. Shortly thereafter through locating mitigation areas, the question came up. The water levels were at normal levels and they only saw a small amount of concrete, which was not unusual for this community or any other. They raised it as more of an access issue if they wanted to clean up that wetland. They did recommend it at that time but it was more informal. They sent a memo to the wetland consultant for Landon Companies and recommended they restore that wetland as a negotiation for ratios and they turned them down. Now, they see a great deal more displacement of the actual wetland and that’s why they were raising this issue.

Member Capello asked if they were looking at both the Target site and the steel industrial site. Ms. Kay said none of the cable and concrete was on the steel

company’s property. The access to Profile Steel is off Wixom and at the edge of their property there was no demarcation. She said they believed that when they changed hands and changed the manufacturing community, they got rid of material in the wetland. They might have unknowingly put it on someone else’s property. She was not saying it was intentional.

Member Capello asked Mr. Fisher if the City had accepted the conservation easement yet. Mr. Fisher believed it was accepted at the time of the judgment and assumed it was done to avoid the property changing hands and losing the ability to secure the conservation easement. Mr. Pearson said they had accepted the conservation easement and that it was a part of the judgment.

Member Capello asked what the City liability was if there was pollutants there? Mr. Fisher said, for having a conservation easement, he didn’t believe the City had any liability.

Member Lorenzo commented that the old real estate motto was let the buyer beware. She said with the situation we are in with Sandstone we have to clean it up. We bought it and we are cleaning it up and we are paying big taxpayer dollars to do so. She felt they should be citing these people and enforcing the cleanup expeditiously. If they don’t respond in a timely manner, they should be cited and the City should make sure they do what is right.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi referred to Ms. Kay’s letter of October 15^th regarding her question to Landon Companies about whether they performed a Phase I environmental assessment as a result of the acquisition of their property. She said Phase I requirements would have shown this material to be present. She said that Ms. Kay said in the letter "No information was ever provided by the Landon Company with regard to this informal request". She asked if additional information had been received about the Phase I since the citation was issued. Ms. Kay said not to her knowledge.

Ms. McClain noted they had been looking at the problems in Westmont Village. She said there are problems with the streets throughout Westmont Village with a lot of cracking and spauling along the joints. There is also a problem with drainage in the side yards and water seems to be staying under the roads. Westmont Village was built prior to a change in the ordinance requiring edge drains along the roads and that might be partially to blame for this as it is not taking water away.

Mr. Helwig, Mr. Pearson, Mr. McCusker and Ms. McClain had met with Mr. Lewiston, the developer, and he had petrographic cores of the area done which showed that the problems could be cause by either not enough air in the mix or too much water in the area. Currently the subdivision has not been accepted by the City for its streets and we have approximately $23,000 in funds available to the City for fixing the streets but that is not close to what would be needed and no design has been done to see exactly what those would be. A rough estimate would be $600,000 to $800,000 to place edge drain and replace the concrete along the streets. A worst case scenario would be that all the streets would have to be replaced and additional drainage would have to be done. Mr.

Fisher was working on how to recoup the cost of this restoration and in the meantime City money would be used to front the construction and start the restoration.

Member Csordas asked what that amount would be. She said $600,000 to $800,000 total but designs had not been done and they didn't have a better cost estimate. He said this is another situation where we can talk about not reducing the performance bonds. He asked if the developer was doing anything else in the City. Ms. McClain said he has Orchard Hills West in front of Plan Review. He asked what leverage could be used on the new development to have him do the right thing.

Mr. Fisher said they are separate developments and development couldn't be prohibited in one project as it related to a failure in another project. Member Csordas said he would never imply that Council would prohibit or impede anything. Ms. McClain said the Orchard Hills West development would probably be sold and built by a different person. Member Csordas asked again about leverage that could be used. Mr. Fisher said he was in the process now of just garnering the underlying facts of this project and some of the shortcomings and now he would formulate a legal position on the best way to go. He thought to the extent that we caused no problems with the roads and they were defective when we received them it seemed to him we would have some position.

Member Capello commented we took defacto control over the roads and that means the residents have moved in and the City took over the snow removal and the maintenance of the roads even though we have not accepted the roads. Mr. Fisher said that he was correct and that the City had received monies from the State of Michigan for that purpose. He asked if there was anything in the ordinance that would allow the City to go after the developer for additional monies to fix the problem with the roads. He wasn't sure there was anything the ordinance and that would be part of his analysis. Member Capello asked if there was a way to require the developer to do the additional engineering for the edge drain if the ordinance didn't require it when the subdivision was approved. Mr. Fisher said we might not be able to acquire some kind of procedure or improvement based on the fact that it is now required and wasn't required before. However, if we are being provided with a defective situation for whatever reason, it seemed to him that unless we created or made the problem worse ourselves, there should be recourse.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she understood the function of an edge drain and also understood that her subdivision was built prior to Westmont Village and they are not falling apart. After having walked a lot of the drainage problem areas, she understood that there are rear yards that do not drain and are sopping wet and drainage structure that would have to receive water flowing up hill in order to drain. We are talking about other things here and those are for Mr. Fisher to address. She asked if Mr. Fisher or Ms. McClain responded to the report that was sent of concrete petrography. It said unless someone requested the samples they would be destroyed and she suggested the City write a letter informing them that we would take possession of those core samples prior to the December 12th deadline. Ms. McClain said she did request the data.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Ms. Cornelius if she was aware that the conservation easement in Westmont Village was recorded and if it was, when did Council approve it. Ms. Cornelius said she would research it. She asked because she had heard a comment from a developer who said that the conservation easement was filed in the Clerk's office. Ms. Cornelius said he would have been referring to the County Clerk's office and she would check.

Member Lorenzo said this situation has been repeated in Novi over and over again and she thought an opinion was needed as to how and if there was any recourse on any of these streets. She said there had been complaints from Walden Woods and Bradford III. Mr. Fisher thought these situations would be fact sensitive and it would depend upon what the problem was, whether the roads had been accepted by the City and what the cause of the problems were. It would be difficult to give a "one size fits all" for these problems. She asked if they should be raising these issues for each subdivision that raises the complaints and Mr. Fisher said yes.

Member Lorenzo would ask that Bradford of Novi III be placed on the agenda for the next meeting under Mayor and Council Issues. Mr. Helwig said he and Member Lorenzo had talked about this and he would have an answer for her before the next meeting.

Mr. Fisher commented the RUD development process was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. He said following the Council approval of the RUD concept and following the approval of an agreement between the City and the developer, the question is whether or not it is necessary for the property owner to go through a preliminary site plan review or would they go right to final with the earlier plan being the counterpart of the preliminary site plan. Based upon a technical reading of the ordinance, they were moving in the direction that the developer could go right to final site plan review. He said because of planning ramifications related to that in discussions with Mr. Evancoe, they asked Mr. Arroyo how it was treated on a consistent basis in the past. He indicated that the project had always gone through preliminary as well as final site plan review. Mr. Fisher wanted to make it clear that they are still deliberating on that and it appears to be moving in the direction of requiring preliminary as well as final site plan review in those projects.

Mr. Fisher said, regarding discussion of an executive session, they are exploring the potential of reviewing the Block Grant Property on the Sandstone land on 12 Mile Road. Based upon earlier discussion, he and Mr. Klaver met with the County Administrators of Block Grant money. The issue was whether we would be able to make an exchange of land that would result in the saving of trees further to the north and also making the park a more efficient, utilizable and accessible to the people who use the park. He said they had been advised it would not be a simple process and that there was no fast and easy solution to this although it might be something that can be resolved in 60 to 90 days. It would require a public hearing, the City would have to send a letter to the County requesting consideration and they would file a formal request to the Grant administrator who would review our request in terms of advantages and disadvantages for accessibility to the parkland by low and moderate income people and then make a decision. In order for us to write our letter to the County we must identify the land we seek to utilize to the north that would be more of an advantage for the park program. That would require a mutual agreement with Sandstone. He said he informed Sandstone’s legal counsel with a phone call last week and a letter today that they need to start working or considering that issue of mutually agreeing on the property to be identified that would be a part of an exchange that would be advantageous to the City and agreeable to Sandstone. He said they expect that would be something to be discussed this Thursday.

Mr. Fisher said regarding the status of the arbitration issues with Sandstone, he had asked them to provide an answer on the status arbitration and hopefully to dismiss the arbitration last week. The indication on their part was that they were not ready to give a firm and final answer. There were two issues they requested arbitration on. One being to question some technical issues on remediation and the other was the scope of what we have called the grubbing of the property by the City. He thought the general agreement was that the remediation issues had been resolved and he asked them again today in a letter to give us an immediate position on these remediation issues. Mr. Hughes who manages the Sandstone matter indicated that he was in the process of reviewing the grubbing issue and just didn’t have his information for us. The timing aspect in the process of arbitration is important in the sense that within a specified period of time after a demand for arbitration is submitted the City must name its arbitrator. Based on the status of these considerations for dismissal of the arbitration, it has been agreed that there would be no requirement to name arbitrators at this point while the dismissal is being considered. Mr. Fisher recommended that we do not let this just unwind with no end point on it and he has asked for an immediate response on these issues.

Member Capello said regarding RUD developments and whether or not after the Council gives the RUD approval to a project whether it went to preliminary site plan or final site plan approval, he said he had brought this to Council’s attention several times. He had stated that the RUD ordinance in effect doesn’t work and asking the City attorney to give them a legal interpretation on what it says brings that home again. He said he thought he would bring this up under short term goal and see if Council could rework the ordinance rather than have Mr. Fisher give an opinion on what the ordinance says. He believed the first RUD project was Island Lake and they did not have any of their detailed engineering or specific site layouts ready when they got the RUD contract signed by the City. So, naturally for each phase they have to come back for preliminary site plan approval. He thought the other two were Maybury Park Estates and Tuscany Reserve. They were smaller projects and as they came back, they had a lot of the detail already accomplished and maybe those two smaller projects were in such a form that they didn’t have to go through preliminary again because they were to that stage and could have probably gone directly to final site plan approval.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked how the request for this interpretation was initiated? Mr. Fisher said it was at the meeting in which the Tuscany concept plan was presented and the question was the motion was made at the Planning Commission for the site plan to be returned to the Planning Commission for further review as part of the approval. That gave rise to the question whether it would be the preliminary site plan or the final site plan. She said then it came from the applicant. Mr. Fisher thought it was a discussion between him and the staff.

Karl Wizinsky, 26850 Wixom Road, commented on the Novi Promenade issue. He displayed a photo of the amount of debris in the area. The area had excellent access adjacent to the area when the land was dry during the summer. He displayed a time table that on September 9th he presented pictures at Council, on October 10th, JCK indicated it was prudent to plant for mitigation, on October 10th, temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued and on October 18^th, the City issued a citation. He felt more could have been done with the opportunity of timing on this. He also wished the City would have included the restoration of his property and lawn prior to the Certificate of Occupancy.

Pastor Ratz, Brightmoor Church, stated they were on the agenda as Item #6 and wanted to speak regarding that. His Church had been in the community for over 2 years now. Pastor Ratz said they counseled disadvantaged, abused and neglected people every week. He spoke about how the church members have been active in the community cleaning up City streets, and parks etc. They have yet to get the sewer connected. It would be soon but that had cost them, for two years, $1,000 a week for pump and haul service. The water main payback item is on the agenda and it's within Council’s discretion to grant the full payment of that on special application and that is why their attorney has applied for that. This is very critical and necessary to the Church and asked Council to expedite the payback according to the agreement. He said it would facilitate the programs of his Church greatly. He appreciated the support of the Council in supporting their efforts.

Jim Korte, Shawood Lake, commented the party store dumpster is still not in the corral. Also regarding the drainage easement, on May 8th, the City was supposed to start this connection. He's lost the whole summer because the City won't run the drainage. It's going back behind the party store and into the detention pond behind the veterinary clinic. It's running on 3 private properties. He expected the drainage to be put where it belongs. He complained about the pile of debris behind the party store and noted a City vehicle with court workers picked it all up. He felt they should be back charged for this. The issues of the home at 2030 are still not resolved and he cannot put his fences up. He can't use the staircase and he has an inspection from the insurance company who might cancel his insurance because of the City of Novi. 2060 has a staircase that should have been paid for with HCD funds. He wants what was started in front of his properties finished.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she understood, regarding the first point Mr. Korte made was supposedly resolved as a matter of an administrative site plan approval and asked Mr. Helwig if that was correct? Mr. Helwig said it was and she asked if he considered the matter to be closed. Mr. Helwig responded he did.

She asked about the proposed drainage plan and if there was one in the works? Mr. Helwig said he was not conversant with the drainage plan and would have to work with staff on that. She asked that he bring a report to Council at the next meeting and a status report with regard to the completion of any items Mr. Korte mentioned that are a City responsibility.

Brent Canup, spoke about the Mobil Oil presentation of what they wanted to do for the residents of this City. However, no one ever mentioned the public trust that they were about to violate, which meant the entrance to the cemetery. The cemetery was started in the 1920’s and the arches that lead into that cemetery were kind of a landmark and he felt what has been done here is a gross misuse of public trust. This wasn't master planned to be anything but the cemetery property. He thought those who separated the acre off on the front grossly misused that trust and he asked Council to keep that in mind regarding any decisions on that property.

Paul Weindorf, 1641 West Lake Dr., spoke about the tree on his property. He displayed a letter sent to Council and noted Mr. Printz, City Forester, stated the tree was already growing under stressful conditions and anything else done would stress it more. When he talked with his arborist he said when the base for the road is laid the roots would be affected. He said the letter said this conclusion was reached and shared with him several months ago and for the record, no one ever talked to him from the date of this letter. The letter made it sound like everything was ok and it is not. He displayed a map showing where the tree is and asked Council to explain how the tree would be saved. He asked Council to reconsider an alternative solution to save the tree. Mr. Helwig stated the last paragraph of the letter advised that the woman who resides there agreed to pull up some concrete and other things to provide some nourishment to the tree. He said they thought the alignment of the road can be put in without harming the tree.

To approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. September 23, 2002, Regular meeting

2. October 7, 2002, Regular meeting

B. Enter Executive Session in the Council Annex, for the purpose of discussing pending litigation.

C. Approval to award bid to Will Gould Landscaping for snow removal of drives, sidewalks and salting of same at Meadowbrook Commons, the low bidder (cost will depend on snow fall).

D. Approval of request from A.K.E.G., Inc. to transfer ownership of 1998 12 months Resort Class C SDM licensed business issued under MCL 436.1531(2) with Dance Permit, located in escrow at 3171 Round Lake, Manitou Beach, MI 49253, Rollin Township, Lenawee County from Sassy’s of Manitou, Inc.; transfer location (governmental unit) to 40380 Grand River (formerly Billy’s-on-the River), Novi, MI 48375, Oakland County; and request a new entertainment permit.

E. Approval of Ordinance 02-23.21 amending Section 22-46 to provide a  specific penalty for domestic violence assault and battery – 2nd Reading.

F. Approval of Ordinance 02-23.22 amending Section 22-50 to allow police officers to arrest an individual in a dating relationship for domestic assault and battery – 2nd Reading.

G. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No 634.

Member Csordas asked someone to expand on this issue of including this in next year’s repaving program and what cost savings that would bring about.

Mr. McCusker said they originally looked at the engineering for this piece of the subdivision about the same time they were reviewing the PASER maps to be sure nothing would be put in that would have to be torn out in the future. At that time, this piece of Pioneer Meadows Subdivision rated a #2. There is bad ground there and cores were poured to be sure that when we were putting the underground infrastructure in, it could support the grounds and utilities. They found that it did meet the criteria for next year’s program. If the utilities are done, there would be an automatic savings because Pioneer Meadows has paid for their streets when they moved into the house so it would reduce the cost per resident by about 25%.

Member Capello asked why would we charge these residents to repave their road when not charging any of the other residents in the City. Mr. McCusker said because this is an older sub and the storm system runs directly beneath the pavement, we would have to completely reroute the storm system. Some of the gas mains have to be rerouted in this process and the gas company has agreed to do that. The only place utilities can go is where we have them located to keep the water and sewer ten feet apart from each other and the storm drains in place and the gas and the other utilities that are underground. We have to tear up most of the roads, driveways, existing side drainage and some of the cross drainage. Member Capello said then next year they would still have to contribute because we are doing more than just resurfacing. Mr. McCusker agreed.

Member Capello asked if there were bonds being issued for both the sanitary sewer and the water main to pay for these. Mr. McCusker said it would be set up as an SAD or however Ms. Smith-Roy decided to go with it. Member Capello said if we are going to

issue bonds, wouldn’t it make more sense to combine them so there’s only the cost of issuing the bonds for one SAD instead of two? Mr. McCusker said they usually set up the SAD based on the type of utility they are putting in and that is why there are separate designations. Member Capello asked wouldn’t we be charged double attorney and bond fees?

Ms. Smith-Smith Roy said in recent years with smaller water and sewer projects the City elected to fund those out of the Water and Sewer Funds instead of pursuing bonds. She said the funding issue could be addressed later.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if the engineering costs were 23% of the costs and if so was he comfortable with that? Mr. McCusker said yes they would be 23% with inspection and the in ground inspection services also. He said the engineering curve now was between 17% and 20% and she asked him to look into this. Secondly, she realized there was a previous proposal that failed with regard to the person's interest in pursuing this. She advised on the map what area she was talking about and asked if those properties not included on 11 Mile already have sanitary service or would there be a point when they could opt to tap into this? Mr. McCusker said this was specifically for this project. There was enough sanitary that the area could connect to with adjacent areas. The 11 Mile area he thought would be picked up as part of Asbury Park when that goes in. She asked if these folks decided that is what they wanted to do, how would their request be entertained. Mr. McCusker said it would be the same process and they would be given an availability fee structure to do it. He said he had met with the whole subdivision and there is interest for the rest of the subdivision also.

Member Capello said if this subdivision is scheduled to be repaved next year, we would hold that off if the sanitary sewer was coming in within a couple years. Mr. McCusker agreed and said with this phase of the project they would build it with stubs far enough for any future connections and the pavement and the paving at the point this is ended they would leave enough girth to do future connections and paving without disturbing this end of the project.

Member Landry said in reviewing the information, it appeared to him that in the contingency account $137,000 is already committed to the hiring of police officers this year. That was to be our portion of the matching funds if the COPS Grant was received. He said one of the options is to hire the three police officers beginning January 1 at a cost of $112,061 and in the interest of public safety that should be done. That would leave an extra $24,939 in the Contingency Account, which we never thought there would be.

Member Csordas said he discussed this with Chief Shaeffer and thought this was probably the best solution because he could hold up the purchase of the cars and computers while these people are in training for six months.

Member Lorenzo would not support the motion as she thought it would be more prudent to wait until the next funding cycle for the grant. They are holding our application and we may still receive that money. In addition, considering our financial situation at this point in time, if we settle some pending litigation cases from her estimates we would have in excess of the 10% in our General Fund Balance $722,459. At the last meeting there was lengthy discussion regarding possible additional remediation costs at Sandstone. We have approximately half of what was estimated and would have to come up with the other half and it could be more. We need to maintain these dollars.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said her dedication to public safety is clear. However, she also had reservation due to our financial condition and the necessity to do this right now. There hasn’t been anything to show that we need to do it right now as opposed to several months from now. She said it was interesting that even though she asked for a reason why we didn’t qualify for the grant, she had not received a reason. If we are talking about need, perhaps our numbers were not as needy as other communities and she understood that. She was also concerned with the amount of money that would be needed to complete our obligation with the Sandstone remediation and she thought by the time the March filing time came, we would know a little bit more about the cost in that circumstance. She would not support the motion at this time.

Member Csordas asked the status of the unauthorized clearing of this land. Mr. Helwig said any further clearance is on hold pending Mr. Stewart’s legal review of the laws for complying with farming. The notification has been provided and they have agreed to stop but they would get back to us with additional information and justification for doing what they were doing. Member Csordas said they stated they want to farm the property and he asked what it was zoned and master planned and if they could farm? Mr. Pearson said it was pre-existing and his experience with Bristol Corners was yes. Member Csordas said for them to say they want to farm that land is ludicrous, they cleared that land without proper authorization from the City and he thought action should be taken on that in some way because he didn’t believe for a minute they would farm it.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said, for the record, she wanted the public to understand the amounts of money and magnitude they were talking about here. She asked whose attorney’s fees were designated here for $32,546? Mr. Fisher said they would be attorney’s fees for the property owner and represents a third of the increase in money over the initial offer made. She said from the standpoint of an alignment being a traffic concern, she understood. An alignment with regard to being a land use and a planning issue, they are supposed to be handled up front and not after the fact. If we are going to chose aligning a road after the fact when we didn’t think it was important enough to do it when the property was acquired and then we are going to do it after the fact and it is going to cost us over a quarter of a million dollars, who cares about the alignment. Her point was to say she did not want to be in this circumstance again for the total of $281,185.20 we could do a lot of projects.

Member DeRoche questioned some of the species on the bid list and expressed concern about their ability to thrive. Mr. Helwig said a variety of trees would be planted, which would help if disease of a certain variety came, all trees wouldn’t be lost. Mr. Helwig said what has been seen with Steve Printz is a variety of species and planting distances that would support thriving trees and at the appropriate distance apart.

Member Bononi said three of the items on the documents are not native and asked Mr. Auler if that was correct? Mr. Auler said he would have to check with Mr. Printz. She shared Member DeRoche’s concern about the ability to thrive and to propagate those trees that are considered native. A native tree would have a much more likelihood of thriving, surviving, not requiring fertilizer and less water. She asked him to look into that with regard to any further specifications or if substitutions are needed because they can’t be found.

Mr. Klaver said many of these are replacements so some of the species they are seeing would not be seen when planting new subdivisions. They are trying to match a subdivision where there might have been two or three different species. The most significant change in the last two years is that we no longer accept any bids where trees are not guaranteed.

Member Lorenzo said it stated on the documentation that the $100,000 for the R-O-W and all the easements, which is within SAD 155, budget for the acquisition. Ms. Smith-Roy reported that SAD 155 is already in arrears so she found it an ironic statement that it is in the budget. We are obviously going to be taking that money out of other SAD funds and then reimbursing those funds. She asked if that was correct.

Mr. Fisher said he didn’t know all the details on that but the budget being referenced is actually the budget for the project. He thought she was referring to the fact that PLC missed its most recent installment payment and therefore there is some lack of cash flow. There is some money in the account but not enough to cover all obligations. In terms of the actual long term budget on this, the amount to be paid here is under the amount budgeted for this easement.

Lorenzo

Nays: None

Carol Crawford, Beck Road, said she felt the Exxon Mobil Station was a sacrilege and a disgrace. She couldn’t believe that Council would even consider it as an option. A gas station doesn’t belong next to the cemetery.

Member Csordas thought there was an agreement with the petitioner annually within 30 days after the fiscal year and it is Council’s option to change that but there is no money.

He agreed with the City’s recommendation that any monies received for the tap in fees from Erickson would be passed along to Brightmoor at that time.

than making them wait 30 days after the end of the fiscal year and that it only be for this particular tap, this Fox Run tap and not for any others

Member Capello said the ordinance said that if the full $147,000 isn’t collected, that Brightmoor would be responsible for any shortage and the City had no guarantee to pay them and asked Mr. Fisher if that was correct? Mr. Fisher said yes. Member Capello

asked if the ordinance needed to be amended to provide for a payment out of collected monies quicker than within 30 days after the fiscal year? Mr. Fisher said no, we have no obligation but do have the choice of doing so. Member Capello said if the $147,000

were paid out of the City’s budget, we couldn’t collect the additional 10% administration fee even though we are doing the same things in administering and collecting that we would be doing if we were paying the money over to Brightmoor. Mr. Fisher said that was correct.

Member Capello suggested a friendly amendment to deny the request from Brightmoor and then approve an immediate payout of the $50,000 from Erickson. He asked Mr. Fisher if it would be correct to take action on what is before us? Mr. Fisher asked if the motion was to pay money before receiving it? Member Capello said no, it is just to pay the $50,000 from Erickson when it is received rather than waiting until the end of the year. Member Capello asked if they had to deny the request from Brightmoor because it is in front of us to pay the $147,000? Mr. Fisher said Council either had to deny it, table it or defer it.

Member Capello suggested as a friendly amendment to deny Brightmoor’s request for $147,522 and agree to give them the $50,000 from Erickson as the money comes in rather than making them wait 30 days after the end of the fiscal year. Member Csordas agreed.

Member Lorenzo said obviously there is a policy and she assumed it was for good reason. She asked if there was a reason for the policy and why they waited until the end of the year. Also, she felt if this was done for one person shouldn’t it be done for all? She was concerned about the equity issue and the policy issue. If there is no good reason for the policy, then it should be changed but if there is a good reason she would be opposed to this, as it would be setting precedent.

Mr. Helwig said in his humble opinion, there is no rationale for waiting until the end of the fiscal year, July 1, that is arbitrary. However, he didn’t know the history of why it was in place, he had never seen such a requirement before and in brainstorming this with staff, they felt it was a fair alternative for Council consideration. Member Lorenzo asked for an explanation from Ms. Smith-Roy regarding the history on this and why there is such a policy.

Ms. Smith-Roy said the rationale was that administratively, the paybacks are set up and done on a very manual basis. It was set up to be on a fiscal year basis so they could compute all of the fees collected throughout the year and make the payment at the end of the year. It also allowed them to reconcile the account because there are several paybacks that are being collected throughout the year. It allowed them to reconcile all of those accounts at the end of the year and make the proper payments so there were no mistakes. Member Lorenzo asked if the policy is changed for one person and by doing so set precedent, where we would continue to do that would it be a problem for her? Ms. Smith-Roy said Council had the administrative ability if they would like to direct her to make an exception in this case. If the other people who are receiving paybacks request this exception as well, it would be quite possible. Member Lorenzo asked how she felt about this with regard to the workload in her department if this is

done manually? Ms. Smith-Roy said they would do whatever the direction of Council was. Member Lorenzo said she would not support the motion.

Member Landry said it appeared to him that this suggestion was made in part because the Fox Run tap fee is a nice big round number of $50,000 as opposed to $1,200 here or $1,500 here. So administratively, he could see that there might be a reason to make an exception in this case because he didn’t think that in many of the paybacks do we get a number this big from a single tap source. Ms. Smith-Roy said it varies but he was right. If the exception were to be made not only for this one payback agreement but for this one connection for just this year only, that would help. She thought the future taps to be paid would trickle in at a smaller basis.

Member Landry asked the maker of the motion if he would accept that friendly amendment that it only be for this particular tap, this Fox Run tap and not for any others.

Member Csordas accepted the amendment.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said everybody is always a special exception. She understood a church, in particular, looking to be able to support its activities, but she didn’t think it was a matter of equity. When you get into a deal, you get into a deal. The terms are known and the deal is accepted and you sign on the bottom line. She would support this motion as amended but she had real reservations about doing this again and she thought putting a limit on it with regard to if your thinking about another request, don’t think about it. Also, hopefully the Ordinance Review Committee would have something to offer Council in the near future with regard to language of a new regulation that would regulate paybacks. It would remove them from the nether land of policy versus ordinance.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Mr. Helwig for an explanation of this item. Mr. Helwig said this had been brought to them from the County: a mandate to decrease the size of the pumps associated with this main interceptor sewer running though the OST zoning and increase the size of the pipe. The course of events was that the Council awarded the contract for the sewer extension in February. They wrapped up the land acquisitions and were in the permitting phase and during that process there were reviews by both the Oakland County Drain Commission and MDEQ. Evidently the Oakland County Drain Commission, which has to maintain the facility after it is built declared they wanted a different pump size and that necessitated different pipe sizes. The engineers were meeting with both the reviewers and the contractor trying to keep the cost factor down to a minimum. The net increase is $302,465.00 and he had asked for documentation through JCK on the change and apparently they don’t publish exact specifications but our previous design was based on what was acceptable before.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she requested documentation of the county standard change and didn’t receive it. Mr. Pearson said they asked the same question, per her request, and apparently there is no manual or design specs.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said from the standpoint of the engineering responsibility to keep current with standards that the Drain Commissioner’s office or any other County or State agency would change, she considered that a professional responsibility. She didn’t consider a $300,000 plus change order to be acceptable and would not support approval of this and would look for it to go out to bid again. She had reservations about doing business this way and particularly with regard to not having any documentation

from the county about how this ensued. We need to know how these things work so this doesn’t happen again.

Member Landry asked what the options were and if they could say no? Mr. Pearson said we have a contract. The contractor is working on the gravity portion, which isn’t affected by this and that gravity section would provide service to Erickson, Fox Run Village, Brightmoor and it allows Brightmoor to get off of the pump. If there are options, they are limited.

Member Landry said the county said the size of the pump and pipe had to be changed and we didn’t know this when it went out to bid the first time and asked if there was a reason they should have known about this when it went out to bid the first time?

Mr. Pakkala of JCK said the bids were taken in December of 2001. When the alignment was finalized with the north end property owners, these were failures that the county was experiencing at that time. After the alignment was finalized, plans were submitted in early March and when the project was bid, the 47 horsepower pump was the maximum pump the county allowed. In that time frame, they were reviewing the plans at the same time, they had two similar pumps fail in other projects and that was when the County said they wouldn’t approve it. The pumps that were their standard at the time it was bid. There was no way to foresee that.

Member Landry asked if, in the process, county approval was sought before the City entered into a contract with anyone. Is there any pre-approval that we ask them for so we could commit them to it?

Mr. Pakkala said it was difficult because this project was changing so rapidly with the alignments, wetland problems and every thing else. So, no there was no tentative approval of plans. Member Landry thought it was unfair that the county could force them to make this change after the fact. This was done according to county standards and they changed the rules in the middle of the game. He asked Mr. Fisher if there were other choices.

Mr. Fisher said he had not studied this issue to make an analysis or conclusion on whether the City had a choice in saying no or negotiating in anyway. Member Landry asked if time was important here. Mr. Pakkala said it was but he didn’t think a two-week delay would be a problem if Mr. Fisher wanted to look into this.

Member Capello asked if the sewage was running from Thirteen Mile to Fourteen Mile? Mr. Pakkala said yes. Member Capello said the forced main area is critical because we can’t get the sewage from Brightmoor to Fourteen Mile without the forced main. Mr. Pakkala said there was a temporary pump station constructed on the east side of M-5 south of 13 Mile Road that would accept the Brightmoor sewage. They could run for a short time on the temporary pump station but as the district develops and with Erickson on line, this improvement is critical. The pump problems came in because there is such an elevation difference and it is such a large station. The elevation is 90 feet and it has to be pumped a mile.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi reiterated that she was requesting documentation of communication and or standard with regard to how this situation was derived. She asked Mr. Pakkala if the MDEQ approval would have to be revised as a result of this change and if the request had already gone in, she asked for that documentation as well.

Mr. Pakkala said it would have to be revised if they went back to the forced main, larger pumps smaller forced main, then it would require a new complete approval from the DEQ. That could be a serious delay on the approval process.

Mr. Helwig said this was part of the Year 2000 Road Bond Program and the timing of it is coming up quickly with Grand River in complete disarray from Beck to Novi Road the next calendar year, the ability to have guaranteed left turn signal movement in all directions of this intersection is very important to expedite traffic through the intersection as well as to add a westbound turn lane northbound at this intersection. The Change Order is being requested so that the lane could be added this construction season since the City owns the right-of-way. The signalization would be put in place before the detour was necessary.

Member Lorenzo asked what was anticipated and if the $235,871 was only for a portion of the roadwork. Mr. Helwig said it was never specified and that he had gone back through all the road bond information and it just talked about lane additions and signalization improvements. Member Lorenzo said we are talking about one right hand lane change on the northeast side of the intersection and signal adjustments. She asked if more than that contemplated when they talked about the $250,000 towards that? Mr. Helwig said he could not document that. He said with a $250,000 budget this is what it is and we don’t have the ROW and there is no vision in that particular

intersection discussion in the road bond. She asked if more funds would have to be found to do the additional work.

Mr. Pearson said the paving portion is a small amount and the majority of this is signal work and this would provide dedicated turn lanes which do not exist now at all four legs to that. Member Lorenzo said all the adjustments of the lights would be completed at this time.

Ms. McClain said yes. There will be an exclusive left turn for all for legs and the capacity to handle additional legs in the future and this would be added to the S.C.A.T. system. The S.C.A.T.’s technology is one of the reasons the signal costs so much as it is about $160,000 total to put a intersection with left turns on S.C.A.T.’s

Member Lorenzo asked if any modifications to that system if additional lanes are constructed? Ms. McClain said if additional lanes were constructed, the system would have to be retimed and if necessary, the heads might have to be moved or adjusted and it is not a costly proposition.

Member Lorenzo asked if the electric work was included in this figure? Ms. McClain said no, DTE would pay to relocate their poles and we are not looking to place things underground because there is no ROW on the other three legs to take things underground. There would be no cost to the City because they are in the ROW and we are moving the road. Member Lorenzo asked if bidding the electrical work independently was a consideration. Ms. McClain said the work is included in this figure unless Council decided they wanted it bid separately under a separate contract. We have given them an $110,000 traffic signal lump sump so that everyone had the same number for the electrical work. They would have to submit subcontractor bids at the time. Member Lorenzo asked if when the additional left turn lanes are constructed would there need to be any adjustment of the new right turn lane. Ms. McClain said no because there are existing left turn lanes there and any additions would be of right turn lanes. She explained with a visual what would be done. Member Lorenzo asked if we had all the necessary ROW to complete this project. Ms. McClain said yes we do on this side.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she remembered either schematics or conditioned diagrams that someone in the internal organization had at the point that the road bond issues were being looked at by Council. She believed these were in Mr. Nowicki’s purview and perhaps they still exist.

Absent: Clark

Member Csordas said reviews were done a couple of months ago and he thought if he gave his staff a review and took two months to act on it, it would probably be bad for morale. He said the reviews were favorable, a pay increase is due and he assumed it would be retroactive back to their hire date and he wanted to move this along out of respect for them both, this should be moved along. He suggested it be placed on the next agenda and Council concurred.

Member DeRoche said at the next meeting, Council members needed to come prepared to make a recommendation and motion for salary increases.

Member DeRoche said he had observed over the years a number of changes in how the Council members interact with the staff and vendors. He thought a lot of the changes have been good and some have not. This Council does not have a policy regarding this and he felt it was something that should be scheduled at a future date to get feedback from the staff through Mr. Helwig what their expectation levels are, what would make their job easier and things they would like to see changed to help them focus better on their job. He thought a policy would be a benefit to the City now and to future Council’s. He suggested setting aside an hour before a Council meeting for discussion regarding this or if possible an hour fit into a regular meeting and he preferred this be done before January. He suggested adding this to the second meeting in November.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she would be concerned about initiating policy for which the person who is making the proposal would not be here to enjoy it. She would also be concerned about setting policy that would affect the performance of elected officials. Although, there is no formal policy, she did recall early in her tenure, questions being asked of legal counsel just what were the responsibilities and accountabilities of Councilpersons with regard to effectively and judiciously using their resources. She thought they received a solid answer at that time. She would look forward to disagreements among Council members about how to effectively represent those folks who vote them into office and wouldn’t suggest any homogenized method would work for all of them to try to do that effectively. To save the City’s resources, absolutely but she thought they were talking about one situation on Council that is a highly individual and personalized one. She had reservations for the discussion, which she fully supported.

Council entered into executive session at 10:30 p.m. for the purpose of discussing pending litigation and would return to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Fisher said they might have to return and take action.

Council reconvened at 11:15 p.m. and called the meeting back into session.

Member Landry said with respect to the litigation of City of Novi versus Siena Group LLC et al he offered the following motion.

Member Landry indicated for the record that the money to consummate this Consent Judgment would come out of SAD #155 and the GAP Fund and General Funds would not be used to settle this case. Mr. Fisher said that was his understanding and roughly $152,000 from SAD #155 and roughly $20,000 from the GAP Fund.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

________________________________ _____________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: ________________________

Charlene Mc Lean

Date approved: November 12, 2002