REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI

 MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2000, AT 7:30 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBERS-NOVI CIVIC CENTER -45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: First Grade Brownie/Girl Scout Troop #1921

ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, Mayor ProTem Lorenzo, Council Members Bononi, Crawford, Csordas, DeRoche and Kramer

Member DeRoche removed Item C, Schedule an Executive Session March 20, 2000 at 6:30 PM to discuss litigation.

Mr. Klaver suggested keeping the Executive Session meeting and changing the topic to union negotiations. Council concurred.

Member Kramer added as Item 7, to Mayor and Council Issues, Discussion of Oakland County Drain Commissioners proposal for resolution to support Senate Bill 781, creation of a Regional Water and Sewer Authority.

Member Kramer also added Item 8 a brief discussion on Michigan Week plans.

Mayor Clark would like to add Item 9, Hanging Fire Items.

PUBLIC HEARING - None

Mr. Klaver advised Council that Mr. Helwig had been notified of Council’s decision to offer him the City Manager position. He talked with Mr. Helwig this morning and he is unavailable next Saturday to meet with Council. Mr. Klaver discussed this with Mayor Clark who suggested March 18^th. He said it was previously suggested that the first round of interviews for the City Clerk selection be on the 18^th. He said perhaps the two meetings could be combined. There was consensus but Member DeRoche and Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo would be absent.

Mr. Klaver said Mr. Helwig was extremely pleased and asked him to pass along his appreciation for their decision and is very excited about coming to Novi.

Debby Orloff-Davidson, representing the Novi Chamber of Commerce, thanked Council for attending their dinner last month. She said the Annual Charity Auction is Saturday, March 11^th and invited Council and residents to attend. They will make a donation to Paralyzed Vets of America.

David Ingmire, 21711 Shadybrook, referred to a letter he wrote to Council pertaining to an ongoing ten months of complaints that he has had against some homeowners in the City. He reviewed the February 7^th minutes of Council and was disturbed that some Members believe this issue is behind us. He wrote a letter to Council to identify what still existed as outstanding items. He has written several letters since August to Don Saven, Tony Nowicki and Ms. Conley and has not received any satisfactory answers. There are procedures that have not been followed and no one is responding to those. He wrote three formal complaints and one of them has nine different violations of ordinances. He did not understand how any Member of Council could think this was a resolved issue when there are nine outstanding ordinance violations from one homeowner. He would like someone to tell him what is going to be done? He asked for a contact within the City to help him resolve these issues.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Watson if he had seen a copy of the latest letter from Mr. Ingmire?

Mr. Watson stated he had seen it but had not reviewed it in any detail.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Watson to review it and get back with Mr. Ingmire and who also had questions about some previous meetings.

Mark Adams, East Lake Drive, commented on Item 4, East Lake Drive Water Main Extension. He encouraged Council to pursue this project because paving East Lake Drive and a Bike Path have been in the works for years and he felt this has not been done because the City wants a water main in place first. He wants to see a safety path on East Lake Drive for the children. He commented on Item 7, Dredging Meadowbrook and Villagewood Lakes. He said the City has assumed the responsibility of maintaining the storm water basins and asked them to look into this. He said Shawood Lake could use some dredging and some work. He said Toll Gate Farm has a pond that was in deplorable condition a few years ago and within a couple of years they completely turned that around and he believed it could be done with Shawood Lake.

Cindy Gronachan, 21668 Garfield Road, represented Garfield Road residents, to ask that any further dealings between M.D.O.T. and the City of Novi regarding the purchase of the 106 acres of mitigated wetland be stopped at once. She asked that Council step in and review what has been going on for the past year; which in the residents case has been absolutely nothing.

In 1994 the State of Michigan, City of Novi and the residents of Garfield Road worked hand in hand on the mitigated project. The project was to off set the Haggerty Connector ramp and it was 106 acres purchased by the State of Michigan. The project went on, the residents were notified of the hauling of dirt and the insurance that was purchased on the houses. Upon the construction completion the residents came before all of the boards and the Council and said "before this project is completed and sold to the City the residents would like to be apprised of any and all communications that take place in regard to this project." They also wanted to know that what they were told in 1994 did not change in 2000.

In March of 1999 the Novi News printed an article that said the City of Novi was purchasing this property for a dollar and turning it into a park. The residents wondered where their notification was and why were they not told anything.

In April of 1999 she came before Council with those questions on a fact finding, sharing information approach. She had the file, conservation deed restrictions and all the information and asked to help Council and work together. Mayor McLallen told her to talk with Ed Kriewall and Tony Nowicki and they would be in touch with her on what is going on.

Mr. Nowicki and Mr. Davis met with the residents in May and said they would like a park on the wetland and asked why they were against a park? The residents said it was not about the park but about the 106 acres being in their back yards and they want to protect the residents on Garfield Road. What is going to happen to this 106 acres? In 1994 Mr. Nowicki said there was a conservation deed restriction on this property and she asked where it is now? Mr. Nowicki said he did not know.

Ms. Gronachan said she received a packet from the City Attorney’s office and in it was a letter addressed to David Potter and Louis Bugbee from Tony Nowicki. She found a conservation deed restriction dated January 25, 1999 but for the past 12 months they had been told this document had not been created. They had been to meetings, made phone calls, begged, pleaded, written letters and been in front of Council looking for this document and were told it did not exist. She wanted to know why in 12 months they did not have any of the letters that were sent?

Ms. Gronachan said they needed Council’s help. She asked if they needed to hire an attorney to get this resolved and to be a part of this process because they would do so

Ms. Gronachan said the rest of the residents have information on the meetings that took place and the things they were told that did not exist. She said the Council, the Mayor and the new City Manager needed to stop whatever else is going on with the M.D.O.T. mitigation project purchase of this land and make them a part of this group

Yona Fisher, Garfield Road resident, was at the meetings back in 1994. She remembered being told that if anything was done with the property once it was turned into a wetland it would be a passive park without outhouses or anything that would keep people there for any length of time. She was also in attendance last spring at the meeting that Ms. Gronachan was talking about with Mr. Nowicki and Garfield Road residents. They were assured there were no plans for a Garfield Road Park and that the article in the Novi News was simply jumping the gun and it was just a discussion that someone picked up on. There were no plans for anything and the discussions were preliminary and no decisions were made and none would be made without first informing the Garfield Road residents. She specifically remembered the issue of the conservation easement coming up and being told they could not find it and did not know anything about it.

Ms. Fisher commented she is now hearing there might be plans that are in final stages, widening Garfield Road and installing sewers but they have not heard anything from the City. She is disappointed and is concerned that something sneaky is going on. She hoped that the Council would see that they are better informed in the future and whatever is going on would be stopped.

Lisa Hoag, 21850 Garfield Road, and owns the property that abuts approximately 800 feet of the proposed land being discussed. She said they went to a meeting last fall with Mr. Nowicki and the purpose of the meeting was to understand the use of the land, what it was all about and to get the true facts from someone who represented the City. The City said there were no agreements, no information as to how the land would be used and there was an opportunity that the City could purchase it if they desired to. The City said when there was further information available from M.D.O.T. regarding the purposed uses on the land they would be informed, asked to participate, review the documents, understand them and understand how she might be affected by them. That has not happened to date.

Ms. Hoag said as their representatives in government they expected to be kept informed of what is going on in their neighborhood and allowed to be active participants. She asked that Council keep them informed.

Joe Delcapo, Garfield Road, concurred with the previous speakers.

Scott Hoag asked Council for documentation on what the process would be to keep the Garfield residents informed on every action concerning this wetland from this point forward. He wanted a positive response on what protocol was to be followed and then there would be checks and balances to see if the process was being followed. He said there are personal agendas that are taking precedence over the agendas and rights of the Novi homeowners. They want to be active participants in their community and their neighborhood and continue to preserve the value of the community.

Mayor Clark said there would be discussion on this later in the meeting.

Member Bononi removed Items F and H.

A. Approve Minutes of:

February 24, 2000 Special Meeting

Approval of rescheduled Council Budget Meetings

C. Schedule an Executive Session for March 20, 2000 at 6:30 PM to discuss union negotiations.

D. Approval to solicit construction bids for the 1999/2000 Concrete and Bituminous paving

Improvements Programs

E. Award bid for Softballs to Burke Sports, the low qualified bidder, in the amount of $7,971.93

G. Acceptance of streets and utilities in Chase Farms Subdivision No. 2

I. Approve Claims and Accounts:

1. Warrant No. 562

Mr. Watson assumed this is here as a result of the development of the property and the granting of the wetland permit. As a part of that process the City requires and the State of Michigan requires the granting of a conservation easement to those areas to be preserved. This is in a form approved both by the State and the City.

Mayor Clark asked if Mr. Watson was satisfied with it?

Mr. Watson said yes.

CM-00-03-053 Moved by Kramer, seconded by Csordas; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

Irwin Arkin, owner of Arkin L.L.C., said they had a lease with Home Sweet Home Restaurant. who had to sell the restaurant business because of health problems. The restaurant was sold to White House Manor who were inexperienced and eventually failed and went into bankruptcy taking the liquor license with it.

The City of Novi originally granted the Class C Liquor License in 1982. In 1997 Mr. Arkin said he came before Council and they granted the Liquor License transfer from the then bankrupt restaurant to Arkin L.L.C. This enabled Mr. Arkin to have a license put in escrow awaiting a qualified operator.

He said he has been a caretaker of the license for a number of years and has had many opportunities to sell the license but had refused to do so. He is before Council now asking that the Liquor License be transferred to Roasters, Inc. whose plans are to open a first class Japanese restaurant, called Shiro.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked what kind of entertainment was being proposed?

Mark Martin, president of Roasters, Inc., said the entertainment would be Kareoke.

Member Bononi said the structure is a historic one and asked if there would be façade renovations?

Ms. Hannan said the porch would be enclosed and would fit with the present façade and would match all of the existing materials.

David Zaitchik, representing Singh Development, stated they had applied for a building permit and sign permit for the structure and sign for the entryway to Willowbrook Farm No. 2. The sign Officer advised them an amendment to the ordinance required them to supply the City with a license agreement and a hold harmless agreement in order to put the sign in the boulevard.

Member Kramer asked Mr. Watson if this was consistent with the manner all recent applications were treated?

Mr. Watson said correct. This is a boulevarded area on one of the streets and because it is at that location it is part of the right-of-way and in essence it is City property. Therefore to put any structure there they need City permission and the way to do that is through a license agreement. The form of the agreement is identical to the ones that Council had previously approved for other entranceway signs. It requires they indemnify the City for anything that might happen as a result of that sign and they are required to maintain the liability insurance.

Mayor Clark said it was his understanding that during the time the construction is ongoing until there is a homeowners association up and running it would be the responsibility of Singh Development to maintain that sign in appropriate fashion.

Mr. Watson said correct. There will be some point as the subdivision builds out that they will transfer the common areas to an association but until then it is Singh’s responsibility.

Mr. Nowicki said they are going through the process of designing a pavement rehabilitation project for East Lake Drive from 13 Mile Road to 14 Mile Road. They have been approached by residents requesting water service to their properties and were investigating the potential of a Special Assessment District. After several public meetings and discussions that concept failed.

Mr. Nowicki said there is still a need for the City of Novi to construct the water main. There is only one water main between 14 and 13 Mile Road and it is the 36-inch water main that carries the majority of the water. There is no bypass or supplementary feed. If anything happens to that water main the majority of the City to the south is out of water and that is why he has come before Council for authorization to design and seek sources of funding for that water main. It would not only provide a source of water for the residents along the road, fire protection, etc., it would also supply a critical bypass should anything happen to the 36 inch water main.

Mr. Nowicki said they would like to move the water main project forward and construct it prior to any roadwork because the main would have to go beneath the pavement.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said she would support the exploration and pursuing of funding for the project. However, it would be premature to go forward with any designs. She also thought it would be premature and presumptuous to think that J.C.K. would automatically be given this project. It would be her intent to bid it out.

Member Crawford saw no problem with J.C.K. getting the bid because they are the City Consulting Engineers. He did question the way this was presented to Council to explore sources of funding and prepare plans for the proposed East Lake Water Main. Then further back in the document it showed that it is final design and contract administration. Member Crawford asked Mr. Nowicki if he was asking for action on a proposed plan or a final design?

Mr. Nowicki said they did not have a plan. Plans would have to be prepared and if the water main construction is delayed now it would also delay any pavement rehabilitation projects to East Lake Drive and East Lake needs pavement work and rehab work. He requested authorization to begin design so that by the time they are in a position to bid this project, both water main and pavement, and move it ahead both projects can proceed with the same contractor coordinated and in a timely manner.

Member Crawford asked if final design for the water main is being requested? Mr. Nowicki said correct. Member Crawford asked if he knew what the sources of funding would be?

Mr. Nowicki said the SAD would not work but there could be certain percentages of it recaptured at a later date should property owners tie in. He said the overall Master Plan would have to be looked at to see how the system fit together with respect to funding. He said when the plan was originally put together he did not see an East Lake Drive bypass there and he believed there should have been a safety measure built into the design. He thought a certain amount of that would have to come out of the capitol funds out of the Water and Sewer Fund to pay for the main construction. He said they would have to make sure the revenues and the fund balance is sufficient in order to construct that.

Mr. Nowicki said there is the Oakland County funding that they used to purchase some of the property for the water reservoir tank. He thought that was still available. He did not know what the limits were this year but last year there was $270,000 available. He thought sources of funding should be looked at to provide service to that area.

Member Crawford asked if these resources should be sufficient to cover the $54,000? Mr. Nowicki said definitely and right now the Water and Sewer Fund could pick up the $54,000.

Member Crawford asked if the bypass was critical?

Mr. Nowicki said there is only one north/south main between 13 and 14-Mile Roads and that is the 36-inch main that runs up and down Novi Road. There have been problems with that main south of 13 Mile Road because of leaks and a section had to be repaired and replaced. This is an aging main and he would feel more comfortable if there was a means to provide pressure to the system should a break occur.

Member Crawford said it sounded like it was needed and made sense to do it before East Lake was reconstructed. The motion is to explore funding. He asked if that presented a problem? He thought Mr. Nowicki could have the funding answers in a couple of weeks, come back and Council could take action on preparing the plans. He asked if it would be a major delay if this waited a couple of weeks.

Mr. Nowicki thought it would because every minute it is delayed any design work on the water main and the East Lake Drive paving is being pushed back. East Lake Drive was coupled with South Lake Drive in order to put both projects together and get decent prices when both are bid at the same time.

Member Crawford asked why he did not bring the alternate sources of funding tonight?

Mr. Nowicki said the potential for the SAD started falling apart not to long ago.

Member Kramer said in regard to establishing a design cost the one element that was important was timing. He asked if Mr. Nowicki needed this work element to be done in order to address the funding issue. Mr. Nowicki said they are independent.

Member Kramer asked why he was asking for the design costs?

Mr. Nowicki said he would like to construct it this construction season.

Member Kramer said the SAD would have funded the main and would have been 51% of the homeowners. If the City puts it in would there be partial recovery of the main cost in addition to tap fee?

Mr. Nowicki said for the capitol costs of the main there could be partial recovery when the property owners tie in. It would be very similar to many of the other SAD’s or payback ordinances that we have.

Member Kramer said from a resident’s perspective those that want water lets say it is less than 51% can have water. They would pay at worst what their share on an SAD would be but if recognizing some City benefits it would be proportional. So over time every resident that wants water could have it.

Mr. Nowicki said they could have water.

Member Kramer thought there should be a proposal available for what it meant for residents interested in tapping in as well so that would be at least a partial payback. He would not expect that any individuals would be obligated to tap but a scenario could be put together that said there were 30% that might be interested and if they tap in within two years then it would payback X%. He asked if J.C.K. had done the infrastructure design for the water and sewer lines?

Mr. Nowicki said yes.

Mr. Kramer said this is basic service that is up front and the rest detailed on the sheet are some additional engineering.

Mr. Nowicki said special services typically come into place if soil borings are needed. He said the origin of the basic service category came in a number of years ago when reviewing J.C.K.’s costs with respect to published data and criteria by the American Society of Civil Engineers in comparing them with historical costs of engineering versus project costs.

Member Bononi had concerns about the project area and the fact that they are talking about an extremely environmentally sensitive area and also a right-of-way that in many cases is in very close quarters. She believed that the project should be bid out from the standpoint of engineering design because of that. She thought they should be looking for engineering design firms that specialize in this kind of thing and they could hope to get a very environmentally sensitive design. She did not doubt that J.C.K. had the engineering expertise but she disagreed that a firm that designs a project can review itself and felt it was not appropriate. She would support looking at the funding but felt they needed to look at that item carefully and look at the implications this project could have with regard to all of the water that was there; specifically to the drainage proposal that went along with it.

Mr. Nowicki said there would be some real significant challenges on this project. The drainage issues are being addressed with the design of the pavement itself. They recognize the environmental sensitivity and that is why the main would go underneath the road.

Member Bononi said it made a lot of sense to do it at the same time. However, she realized a concern of Mr. Nowicki’s was time frame but she was not as concerned about time frame as she was about a top notch job. She would support funding research but beyond that she would not support at this time.

Member Csordas asked what the time frame would be to get something back when sent out for alternate bids and how many bids would be submitted?

Mr. Nowicki said it depended on the engineers how many bids would be submitted and it could be four to eight weeks.

Member Csordas said the process could be started in this construction season.

Mr. Nowicki said the design could be undertaken in this construction year. However, by the time the engineer got the design they would be, right off the top, four to eight weeks behind schedule. He did not think it would put them in a time frame by which they could construct this project this construction season.

Member Csordas asked how long would the project take?

Mr. Nowicki said it is a rough guess because they have the pavement work to do and they have to be coordinated together. The water main would not be as long to construct as the paving because there are a significant number of environmental issues that have to be addressed. As a road is built they do not just look at the road within the pavement they look beyond that to address some of the area drainage situations.

Member Csordas asked if it was a curbed road?

Mr. Nowicki said no it would be an attached bike path.

Member Csordas asked if the drainage would be to the side of the pavement?

Mr. Nowicki said that is correct.

Member DeRoche asked when the funding was put in place to repave East Lake Road?

Mr. Nowicki said East Lake was scheduled to be repaved last summer and this matter was brought back to Council because they had property owners who were interested in a potential S.A.D. for the water system. Council authorized them to delay the project.

Mr. Nowicki said the funding comes out of the Six Year Road Program and there is an annual allotment that comes in from Act 51 and from the one-mil road tax.

Member DeRoche asked when it was ear marked to repave East Lake Road?

Mr. Nowicki said it was part of the Six Year Program and it could have been 8 to 10 years ago that East Lake Drive was originally identified as in need of reworking.

Member DeRoche thought that even though the residents were not interested in pursuing the SAD., they were probably interested in the road being done after all these years.

Mr. Nowicki said they are interested in water but they are also interested in the road being done.

Member DeRoche asked if this is of such importance to the City of Novi the City should pay for it and pursue it?

Mr. Nowicki believed it should be pursued.

Member DeRoche said and maybe the City would have been lucky if the residents had pursued their S.A.D.

Mr. Nowicki said there still would have been a proportionate share.

Member DeRoche said regardless if nobody tapped in you would still be in front of Council saying the City of Novi is going to have a significant problem here if this water main breaks. This is a health, safety and welfare issue and Council is on notice that the south side of the City will suffer greatly if this system fails without a plan B.

Mr. Nowicki said there would be problems; yes. This would not be a pipe to cure all the problems and to provide us with all the water but at least there would be positive pressure within the system and any potential contamination to the system could be avoided.

Member DeRoche asked if there would be any increased pressure with the new pump station going in?

Mr. Nowicki said not particularly. The pressure will be pretty much the same but it would be a constant pressure all the time instead of fluctuating the way it does now.

Member DeRoche asked when it became as big a concern as it is now?

Mr. Nowicki said when the potential for the water main S.A.D. began to fall apart. It did become noticeable when he became involved a little more heavily a number of months ago.

Member DeRoche asked what month did he draw the line and say residents are coming along in this and it has to be pursued?

Mr. Nowicki did not recall what month it was but it was not that long ago.

Member DeRoche said the concern was this is the type of thing they would normally bid out. He asked if they were just talking about the basic service portion of the contract?

Mr. Nowicki said yes.

Member DeRoche said once that got going, the preliminary design work, the rest of the project would be bid out and J.C.K. would slide back into their role as supervisor of the site.

Mr. Nowicki said they would be the construction engineers as part of it as well under the resolution the City has with them.

Member DeRoche said he understood that the City paid for certain things that they do under a retainer, property acquisition, easement acquisition, negotiations and things of that nature.

Mr. Nowicki said it was on an hourly basis and typically it is chargeable to the specific project they are working on.

Member DeRoche asked if Council wanted to say this is an example of a project where we would like to bid out the engineering . Could he think of a break point to do that in this project and still meet the goal of doing it this construction season?

Mr. Nowicki said if Council made the decision tonight they would begin preparing a scope of services and move the project right along.

Member DeRoche said the scope of services would be for J.C.K.

Mr. Nowicki said if Council decided to bid the project then they would have to develop a scope of services and put together a bid package.

Member DeRoche said his concern was that might not get this done this construction season.

Mr. Nowicki said that is true.

Member DeRoche said it concerned him to put it off.

Mr. Nowicki said he was not saying the sky is falling and the main had to be in place today. However, he was saying that in the event that anything does happen, that main should be in place because there is no parallel system and that main has functioned since 1972.

Member DeRoche said as a matter of principal he would agree with the Council Members that spoke to meet their desire to bid out this project for engineering services. On the other hand he is trying to weigh the value of a $54,000 contract which is a relatively small contract for an engineering firm doing something of this magnitude with the potential liabilities and environmental sensitivities. He was concerned with delaying this and writing it off for the entire construction season for that amount of money.

Member Crawford said the motion is only to authorize exploring sources of funding. He asked if there was a sewer in that area already? Mr. Nowicki said there was and Member Crawford asked when it was put in? Mr. Nowicki said it had been there quite a while and had been on a 30-year payback and they are free and clear for all the residents.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said she was concerned and did not appreciate information coming forward at the 11^th hour with a chicken little the sky is falling approach. If this was a great need that could be foreseen then Council should have been notified a long time ago. It should have been brought forward that the City needed this regardless of whether the citizens wanted it as an S.A.D. or not when there were deliberations regarding the residents considering an S.A.D.

She said if funding was such a dire need the information should have been in this Council packet. She said one source could be the HCD funds that were talked about a month or so ago. She expected some creativity on the part of staff and administration in this area. She said with regard to the preparation of even preliminary plans it is going to be important to get an engineer who specialized in this sort of project.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo suggested that a RFQ, Request for Qualifications, was the way to go and would amend her motion as such.

CM-00-03-056 Moved by Lorenzo, seconded by Bononi;

Member Csordas said he concurred with Members Bononi and Lorenzo regarding putting this out to bid because it was prudent and good business. On the other hand, he could not support this motion because it sounded to him like there is some major concern by Mr. Nowicki and he would hate to delay the process and a catastrophe happened.

Member Kramer said if Council held the line at $54,000 would the rest be biddable?

Mr. Nowicki said the rest of that through special services and some of the construction engineering would be biddable. Typically, the design engineers build their projects but Council could bid construction engineering.

Member Kramer said common sense and rational operation would tie the two together. If the $54,000 is awarded to J.C.K. then we are also piggy backing $79,200. He asked if that would be a good decision?

Mr. Nowicki said on a project like this he would like to see the design engineers also construct the project.

Member Crawford asked if there were pros and cons to an RFQ compared to an RFP?

Mr. Nowicki said when bidding engineering projects of this nature an RFQ works well because qualifications are solicited and when the top qualified firms are determined the price quotations are solicited.

Member Crawford said that means they might not go with the low bidder. He did not see a problem doing an RFQ as opposed to the RFP.

Mr. Nowicki said initially the qualifications of the engineer are focused on. The way they had been doing it on the Federal Projects is they would solicit qualifications and then the top three or four would be solicited for price quotations and then the low bid would be taken from that group.

Mr. Davis presented the proposal regarding Cellular Communications Lease Proposals for City owned property. He was before Council in early December 1999 reviewing prior authorization that Council had given administration to begin discussions with a couple of cell communication companies. At that time, Council requested additional information regarding current locations of cellular facilities in the City of Novi. He said Mr. Maurice put together a cellular tower coverage map, which is in Council packets. There are currently 11 facilities within the City of Novi. The radius loops shown on the map represent a quarter mile, half mile, three quarter mile and one mile radius coverage area. Each company is different and it depended on the actual service needs of that company and the location and height of their antennas.

Mr. Davis said there are two current active proposals they are considering. One site is located at the Novi Ice Arena just east off of Novi Road south of Ten Mile and is an Industrial zoning. They are looking to put the facility in the far eastern section of property as it abuts the CSX railroad tracks.

The zoning to the east is Industrial, south it is an Industrial Park, west is the Ice Arena and farther to the west is a multiple apartment complex and to the north is the Sports Club of Novi.

Mr. Davis said the other site they are looking at is at Community Sports Parks, which is at 8 Mile and Napier Roads. This site is zoned Residential which allowed them to build a community park. There are some issues regarding whether a cell tower could be installed there and Mr. Arroyo has provided some information regarding the permitted uses. At this time they are not seeking any approvals from Council but are talking about continuing the process.

Mr. Davis said the two issues he wanted to point out are the ability for the City to work with these cellular communication companies in providing the service provided two basic components that the City could look at. First, there would be continued and expanded coverage for our residential and business community. The areas depicted for use are basically in the 96-corridor area and in the central part of the City where our heavy base of population is concentrated. There are also locations in the southeastern quadrants of the City which picked up the Eight Mile and Haggerty corridor and paralleled the 275 expressway corridor and the population base in the southeastern part of the City. These companies are looking to pick up the void area within the coverage areas they provide and as the communities continue to expand to the west, where the Community Sports Park is, it made a viable location for consideration.

The first proposal is Sprint PCS that is the Novi Ice Arena location. It is an Industrial zoned piece of property and a sub lease agreement is included in Council packets prepared by the City Attorney. He asked that Council reaffirm and reauthorize the administration and the attorneys to get together and continue the process of negotiation. This document would be back before Council for their approval.

The second proposal is Trinity and is for the Community Sports Park location and it is Residential zoning. They would want Mr. Arroyo to review this from an issue of permitted use. There are provisions within Section 2508 of the Code.

Mr. Davis said it was suggested that a Master Planning of cell towers in the City be considered, which is before the Planning Commission and the sub-committee of Planning and Zoning would be taking this matter up. They had a meeting scheduled for late last month but it was cancelled and they would be bringing it forward in another meeting this month. Mr. Arroyo is coordinating that with them and working with their staff. The information given to Council does show the void areas and they do have the Act of Proposals that they want to continue to pursue. They are asking Council for the ability to reaffirm their position to move forward with them and to allow City staff and attorneys to move and talk about these issues and bring them to Council for their consideration.

Member Crawford thought they missed an opportunity when they did not put a cell tower on Power Park. They simply moved 100 yards to the west which is closer to some residents and constructed their cell tower and the school got tremendous benefits from that tower that we missed and could have used in the Parks and Recreation Program. There has not been one complaint made to Council after the installation and he doubted there had been any to the school district.

He encouraged them to do this and thought the two locations sounded reasonable. There might be some things that needed to be worked out but he encouraged them to proceed investigating whatever ordinance or contracts were needed. He felt there was a demonstrated need for the service for the residents and if the City can derive a benefit from those two locations it should be pursued.

Member Kramer said when that cell tower came up the Council wisely requested the Planning Commission to come up with a Master Plan for cell tower locations in the City. He is disappointed that they do not have a finished product here at the table and he is not prepared to support this until they do that. He would be very much in support of authorizing the Planning Commission to proceed with the requested study and bring it to a conclusion. There are questions of planning, zoning and how to handle it in the ordinance. He did not think the proposals were bad but they did have issues to be resolved. He did not think it was an overwhelming task to ask the Planning Commission to come up with the Master Plan that Council requested. He requested that they do that and the two applicants, Sprint and Trinity could monitor and work with the process to get that to fruition as soon as possible.

Member Kramer proposed to pursue these lease proposals when the Master Plan is on the table.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo agreed with the previous speaker. She was also concerned how these towers would affect the adjacent residential neighborhoods. She was concerned with the lack of information that has come forward. There are no pictures of the towers, no specific locations, maps, topography of the areas proposed and would need answers to all of these before going further. She felt if the tower had been located in Power Park it would have been much more intrusive then in the location that was selected.

She asked how it would affect the agreement if the City sold the Ice Arena or any of the property associated with that? She asked if either of these tower proposals were proposing the ability to relocate other cellular providers? She also asked with the ten towers we currently have how many provide for relocation on those? She would like this information to come back to Council before proceeding any further.

Member Csordas said he was involved with the cellular industry for a while and to Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo’s concerns about the tower it would be a different type of a tower that would go on top of a building. He agreed with Member Crawford and thought that it was Council’s fiduciary responsibility among others to take a look at the numbers. The numbers that are on the agreement are significant. There would be a $50,000 down payment, base rent $50,000 and then $15,000 after that and the first renewal is $17,000. He said it is a significant piece of revenue for the City and could certainly be put to good use in the Ice Arena and the Parks and Recreation Department. He believed it is critical to address the fiduciary responsibility to the City and the citizens. He said there is no harm from whatever comes out of those towers to make your telephone work.

Member DeRoche said he was sympathetic to the views Member Kramer expressed earlier. He felt that was the kind of information that Council needed to have before executing a contract. However, he also looked at the request tonight as a reauthorization of the City administration to go out and investigate things and negotiate them.

Member DeRoche said hopefully the Planning Commission would get the message tonight that Council wants their input on this, the feed back and the zoning and planning ramifications. If it turned out to be a place that a cell tower was needed and it would be Master Planned he would hate to see the City lose out on revenues that could help an ailing Ice Arena because Council was not allowing staff to talk to these people while they were next door talking to the Sports Club of Novi. He would like to see staff talk with these people and negotiate with them. He would support the motion.

Member Bononi said Member Kramer is absolutely right. This is not a Parks and Recreation issue, it is not a money making issue, it is not an economic issue, it is not a bail out issue but it is a planning issue. There has to be a plan and there is none. This is a planning issue and we need to have this Master Planned so that Council can decide where these facilities are going to be. We are not intending to propagate a tower farm.

Member Bononi said being this is a planning issue she did not think Council could disregard the proposed placement of a cellular tower in a Single Family Zone. She thought the most important thing is that Council needed this plan. There is nothing to prevent doing this the way it should be done, let the Planning Commission do their job and present Council with the plan and proceed then. She opposed moving forward with negotiations.

Member Crawford thought Members Kramer and Lorenzo had some very valid points and he expected those would be answered before the contract was signed. However, he thought it was appropriate to proceed with negotiations knowing that visuals, topography, and a plan from the Planning Department on where these towers would be located are needed before the contract is signed.

Member DeRoche asked if the staff and attorneys would be involved in this?

Mr. Davis said absolutely and all they are seeking tonight is does Council want this to move forward or not. All the questions that have been asked would be a part of the presentation if authorized. He believed that a Public Hearing would be required through the Site Plan Review Process at the Planning Commission level before it came back to Council. There is a double check and balance with the contract and the approval process.

Member DeRoche said to shut this off did not seem like a good decision. Staff and he City Attorneys are still going to have to talk to these people and he did not see any sense in not allowing them to continue to do that. He appreciated them coming before Council regarding this.

Member Bononi said Council is talking about controlling our future with regard to this situation. The message could suggest that when talking to these providers Council keep in mind that they could require them to submit a plan. She said they are not looking at this stuff piece meal. She could ask where they intend on going with the next one? Council has the right to have those cards on the table so it can be correlated with the request of every other provider. She said by not having a plan Council is just whistling in the dark and they do not know where the next request will come from. If this Master Plan is already being created she did not see any kind of terrible negative that would be resolved by getting our plan and house in order.

Mayor Kramer said he did not say not to talk to people proposing cellular towers. What he said was lease proposals should not be generated to place these towers until there was a Master Plan in place. He recommended they do talk to them, refer them to the Planning Commissions Implementation Committee so that they can work together and get a good Master Plan.

Mayor Clark asked if Council could require that if a lease arrangement were approved with a suggested initial payment of $50,000 that the income from that lease be dedicated 100% to debt reduction at the Ice Arena?

Mr. Watson thought it would be done through the budget process and not through the lease.

Mayor Clark said a Master Plan is needed and he did not want to see the City have cellular towers all over. He did not have a problem with pursuing discussion for possibly finalizing these but it was important to send a loud and strong message to the Planning Commission that Council expects to see a Master Plan for these types of towers in short order back to Council. if any more come forward he would not look very favorably on them no matter what they were offering.

Member DeRoche stated he would fax his choices to Ms. Gronlund.

Mayor Clark said there were eight applicants and one withdrew and Council has reviewed the resumes. Council will give their choices to Ms. Gronlund and she will notify the applicants.

Mayor Clark said they were looking at March 18^th for the first round of interviews.

Member Kramer said the 18^th was also a potential City Manager negotiation. Mayor Clark said that could still be kept.

Member DeRoche and Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said they were not available on the 18^th and had confidence in the Council to handle the negotiations.

Mayor Clark said the 18^th at noon is good for the City Manager but we have to set a City Clerk meeting. Ms. Gronlund asked if the City Attorney would be required for the City Managers meeting? Mayor Clark said yes.

Discussion ensued on the City Clerk meeting. The absent Council Members could prepare questions in advance to be asked at the interviews and then they could watch the tapes of the interviews.

Mr. Klaver said he had talked with Ms. Bartholomew in terms of what was to be included and she offered to assist and review and they would take her up on that.

There was consensus to schedule the first round of the City Clerk interview for March 25^th at noon. Mr. Klaver will not be available.

Mr. Klaver said this could be added to the Wednesday night meeting just for the purposes of tabulating the other two Council Members votes and selects the individuals to be interviewed.

That the City Clerk interviews be scheduled for Saturday, March 25^th at

Mr. Nowicki said this is a request to allow them to move forward with some of the recommendations contained in the Storm Water Sediment and Aquatic Plant Study. This report was forwarded in draft form to Council in August of 1999 and subsequently public information meetings were conducted with homeowners associations. J.C.K. presented their report to the homeowners associations and sought their input and made minor adjustments to the report as a result of those meetings.

The report recommends a number of actions to be taken on some of the lakes:

1. Dredging of the north end of Meadowbrook Lake - Sediment is collecting in areas that are causing some backwater effect and he believed it was Bishop Creek. It also caused problems in the lake itself.

2. Dredging the eastern portion of Villagewood Lake – Sedimentation from the storm water system from the upstream contributing areas have caused back water effect in the tributaries to that lake and the discharging storm sewer system.

The report recommends the clean out of the Shawood/Walled Lake Canal and Mr. Nowicki was recommending that it be coupled with the South Lake Drive project and be conducted at that time. Also the clean out of the twin culverts under Novi Road with downstream ditch work. Mr. Nowicki looked at this and felt the D.P.W. could handle it.

Mr. Nowicki was asking for authorization to move forward with these projects and specifically for Council to authorize the preparation of the final design plan so the dredging program could be bid, look for supplementary funding for the dredging of both lakes and for the pursuit of needed easements. Most of those properties around those lakes extend to the centerline of the lake so easements would have to be secured to do the lake clean out.

Member Kramer asked where the documentation on Villagewood Lake was?

Ben Farnham, J.C.K., said it was not in the draft report it was from one of the meetings that was held with the homeowners association and determined that the sediment in the lake had been increased deposits from the storm water discharge. They went out to look at it but had not done final cross sections on the number of yards there but based on visual observation there is some that needed to be removed.

Member Kramer asked what they would come back with? He said they would seek grant funding, pursue needed easements and they needed to prepare final dredging plans.

Mr. Farnham said that is correct.

Member Kramer said then those would come back to Council. Mr. Nowicki said yes, for authorization to seek bids.

Mayor Clark asked how long ago it was they did Meadowbrook Lake the last time?

Mr. Nowicki said in 1984 they drained the lake and built the dam.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked for further documentation on Villagewood Lake?

To authorize preparation of final dredging plans for Meadowbrook

Nays: None

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

Member Bononi asked why this was needed since the theatre group has the resources they need and are self funded? Is this rental a stop gap thing or should Council be looking at other things?

Mr. Crawford said it is self funded and it comes out of the proceeds of their ticket sales to do this. He said apparently there is a problem with this bid and asked Mr. Davis if that was correct?

Mr. Davis said the program is self funded and the expenditure is budgeted within the individual theatre program itself and is planned for this performance.

Member Bononi asked who pays for this?

Mr. Davis said the program is a City of Novi program so it is coming out of our expenditure budget for that program and is paid by the City of Novi.

Member Bononi said she strongly supported what these people are doing and asked why a sound system has to be rented?

Mr. Davis said to enhance the quality of the production.

Member Bononi asked if they would do this for every musical?

Mr. Davis said no; it depended on which shows. This year there are about 12 different performances throughout the year. Each show is different and has different requirements for the support that is needed.

Member Bononi wanted to mention how the National Wet Weather Demonstration Project related to something that the City would be participating in very soon. The Storm Water Management Coordinating Representative David Maurice and Dana McGowan, J.C.K., would be working in regard to the Storm Water Management Plan with regard to the Sub-Watershed. The implication that will have will be very great on this City. Council will be looking at planning issues like the Engineering and Design Qualification Standards, Erosion and Sedimentation Controls, Wetlands Track Records, areas of the river to preserve, areas of the river that need to be restored and compliance issues as well. All of that will be coming forward and will parallel the concerns that are included in this item.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said with regard to the I.D.E.P., Illicit Discharge Elimination Plan on page 1, it states "the City of Novi has been given jurisdiction over the Bassett, Bathrick, Fenley, Garfield, Holcomb and the Novi & Lyon Branch No. 1 Drainage Districts from the Oakland County Drain Office." She asked who decided what drains Novi got jurisdiction of and on what basis?

Mr. Nowicki said it was decided a number of years ago by Council and the Drain Commission when the City accepted most of the drains within the community and assumed jurisdiction from the Oakland County Drain Commission.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said in terms of what we would do within the scope of this particular project; would we have the discretion to do every drain?

Mr. Nowicki said those are tributaries to the Rouge.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if most of the drains are tributaries to the Rouge?

Mr. Nowicki agreed most are but some are in the Huron Watershed District.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said then most of our drains could be included in this document is that correct?

Mr. Nowicki said most of them could. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked why they were not included?

Mr. Nowicki said because at this point we are doing as much as we possibly can and will continue to proceed. This grant covers for a certain amount of drain work.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked whose decision it was too only include these drains?

Mr. Nowicki said he did not know.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said she would appreciate knowing that answer. This is part of the concern she has that these documents were not brought to Council when they were being drafted. She said it is a very positive thing that we have decided to voluntarily apply for this permit but it is also both environmentally and financially sound to do this since we are getting dollars from Rouge Program Office to do these programs.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo was concerned and disappointed that the rest of the drains within the system were not included. She is equally disappointed that we only chose to apply for the General Permit within the Rouge and not the Huron. There was not enough foresight to do that for the same reasons both from the environmental standpoint and the standpoint that in a couple of years it will be mandated anyway and why not do it with grants in the areas that we can. She stated she thought it was really a stupid move on the City’s part not to do that.

Mr. Nowicki said the Huron Drainage WaterShed could not be included within the Rouge Grant Fund.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said there might have been other grants available. The Oakland County Infrastructure Fund could have been used. She felt there were other areas that could have been looked at. It was shortsighted of us not to apply for that grant.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said in July 1999 information came forward regarding the M.D.E.Q. requesting that a program be implemented for the inspection evaluation of septic systems. Apparently we sent something to Oakland County. She asked if a response was ever received from Oakland County?

Mr. Nowicki said he did not recall if a response was received but if was it would have been given to Council. He would check on that.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if it was part of the I.D.E.P.? How are septics going to be handled?

Mr. Nowicki said part of the requirement was that the City of Novi and the surrounding communities put pressure on Oakland County for them to implement a program. It was his recollection that they were moving towards that but he would have to get the specifics and get back to her.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said she would appreciate documentation from them and hopefully this time it will not slip through the cracks. She thought this would get to the point that if Oakland County is not going to take a leadership position on this then perhaps the City of Novi will have to. That is unfortunate because the County has a lot more dollars to work with. The end result is something needs to be put into place.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said she was glad that they are going to do this but she would have appreciated if it would have been done wholeheartedly instead of minimally.

Mayor Clark said in fairness to Mr. Nowicki that this proposed agreement with Wayne County can only deal with the Rouge River Watershed because the Huron River Watershed would encompass Washtenaw County and would be an entirely different matter.

Again, in fairness to Mr. Nowicki, at one point in time we had a grant writer in this City that we have not had for some time. He said a grant writer has been hired and would be on board March 20^th. He said this would take some of the burden off of Mr. Nowicki and other departments who have only so many hours of the day to do so many things.

Mayor Clark said he would certainly not be critical and thought this was a great step in the right direction. As more opportunities come on line he was sure Mr. Nowicki’s department in conjunction with the grant writer will be moving these possibilities along to get as much available funding as possible.

Pat Brunett, President of the Library Board, present to speak to Council regarding Item 5, under Mayor and Council Issues the creation of a Planning Task Force. He said he and Director Evans spoke to Council last week about their long, intensive, expensive open planning process for a new library facility. That process has led to their desire to go to the voters in August of this year with a millage request. This has been done with frequent, formal and informal communication with the Council Members. It was apparent to them that deciding on a site was essential for good planning to determine cost, size, accessibility, etc. and also for public information purposes so that the voters would be better able to make an informed decision.

It was important enough that they requested and received a memorandum of understanding with the City unanimously approved by the Council. The memorandum of understanding identified the City’s 15 acre Taft Road property south of the high school as the site of the new library and indicated the City’s desire to occupy the current library property.

Mr. Brunett felt they needed the memorandum of understanding to be certain that if the Council had other plans for the site they would be put on the table and they wanted to be sure that there would be no 11^th hour surprises like this one. He said they needed the memorandum of understanding to decide to spend considerable taxpayer money and many hours of staff and board time investigating the site for library use and preparing for a millage election in August.

Mr. Brunett said last Monday he stated that he would return in March or April for Council’s approval. He said it produced considerable anxiety when he learned that the Council would be discussing a proposal for a planning task force this late in the process. He respectfully suggested that this was an inopportune time to create such a task force. A better time would have been a year ago when the plans were announced to Council or eight months ago when they proposed the memorandum of understanding or decades ago when the City acquired the property.

Mr. Brunett said he felt the task force was unnecessary and redundant for the following reasons.

1. From the time the City proposed the Taft Road site to them they have been in close contact with the Planning Department, City Manager’s Office, City Attorney and the City Engineer. They have met with the City Administration and School representatives about the reuse of the current library property. At no time was a need for a campus raised and at no time were objections to the library plans raised.

2. Novi Citizens told them in a survey they wanted a new library in a civic complex therefore, they investigated three sites right here. The current library property, the Fuerst property and the Taft Road property and that is campus planning.

3. They are in ongoing discussions concerning connecting the Taft site by pedestrian and vehicular traffic with the rest of the City/School complex. This is the Inter-site Transportation Plan requested by Councilman Kramer last week and this is campus planning. They had discussed joint or complimentary use of outdoor space with City departments and that is campus planning.

4. They are aware of and have discussed with the architect the need to coordinate the building style with other municipal buildings and that is campus planning.

Mr. Brunett said they are already dealing with or have dealt with the question that a task

force might be asked to look into. When he saw on Channel 13 that this item was on the

agenda he spoke with Member Crawford to learn more about it and was assured that this would not delay the library’s progress. However, he spent more than 30 years in urban planning at the municipal level as a consultant and at the regional level at S.E.M.C.O.G. and he is convinced that introducing a planning task force at this late juncture will lead to lengthy delays.

Mr. Burnett asked Council to reject this new campus planning task force idea for the reasons that it is untimely, redundant and it jeopardizes taxpayer money already spent in good faith. He suggested if the Council as a whole or individual members of the Council has concerns, questions, comments or suggestion submit them to him or Ms. Evans and they would respond to them at one of the next two meetings. He said they would meet with the City staff, school staff and the school board if necessary to get the information Council requires. He invited any member of the Council to participate in the meetings to get first hand information on any concerns. This would be helpful to the planning process and should prevent any unnecessary delays. He asked Council to consider these comments and suggestions in their discussion of Item 5 and that they continue to support their efforts to provide a first class library in this first class City.

Tim Mitts, 22125 Garfield, said the first meeting was held in his house. He said they were guaranteed hand in hand working right from the beginning and that they would be kept abreast of it and he did not like being held in the shadows on things. He said when the City acquires the property he suggested that it be kept as a whole and not sub-divided. He did not want to see any other houses there because it would affect the mitigation that was done.

Mr. Kramer suggested moving Item #3 to Item #1 of Mayor and Council Issues due to the time and the audience waiting for this discussion.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said when Council received the letter from Mr. Bugbee she requested this be placed on the agenda. She shared the concerns that the residents had spoke to this evening. City Council has not been apprised of a lot of things that have been going on either. She sifted through some of the information that Council received this evening it appeared that many of the pieces of correspondence here she never recalled receiving as a Council Member. Some of the documents they had seen and a lot of them they had not seen. She said for instance, the residents had never seen a copy of the proposed conservation easement original or revised.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked staff and administration exactly when and which Council directed any negotiations with MDOT regarding the change of the conservation easement?

Mr. Nowicki said exactly when and the date he could not answer now but he did recall and believed it went to Council for discussion in Executive Session.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked what year that was?

Mr. Nowicki did not know.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said the only thing she could recall was the first hearing of it when Ms. Gronachan came forward last year. She remembered there was discussion about a problem regarding the title to the property. It was Ms. Gronachan and others that were asking about conservation easements, intended use, etc. and at that time the Mayor said Council did not have any knowledge of anything going on. After that information was received Ms. Gronachan had asked that it be copied to Council but she could not recall receiving many of these documents. She wanted to know, by the next meeting, exactly when and what Council gave formal motion directive to the staff to negotiate with MDOT regarding the conservation easement in terms of any changes to that.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said it appeared that without direction there had been a lot of things happening here outside of Council jurisdiction. Regarding Mr. Pakala’s letter received last week it was very interesting that the City Council was not copied to. Why hasn’t Council been getting these documents?

Mr. Nowicki said Mr. Pakala’s letter was in this packet.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said yes, after the fact. After she had placed it on the agenda. She placed it on last Monday’s agenda and it was in this Council packet.

Mr. Nowicki said before she placed it on last Monday’s agenda in her packet was a communication from Mr. Bugbee so that was placed on the agenda on this issue before she placed this on the agenda for Mayor and Council Issues. Consequently, one can conclude that nobody was trying to hide anything from her. When he received the communication from Mr. Bugbee it was included in the packet. The same thing with the communication from Mr. Pakala by the time it was received it was to late to be put in Council’s packet.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said her comment and her question is why wasn’t Council copied to on these documents? All of these should have been copy to Council.

Mr. Nowicki asked why the engineers did not copy to her? He suggested asking them.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said most of these documents she had not seen previously. Again, she has not had a chance to go through all the documents yet but could tell Mr. Nowicki that there are many if not most that she had not seen before. She said Council should have been the first point and should have been aware of this and should have been Council direction that started this process.

She said in terms of all this documentation and why Council had not received it is another question. The sequence of events, yes Council received the letter from Mr. Bugbee and Council should have received Mr. Pakala’s letter at that time since his letter was dated the 22^nd and should have been automatically included. Mr. Pakala should have been copy to Council all along on any of this documentation that had been going back and forth. She said she was getting very tired of being the last point of communication instead of the first. This is not the first time and she is very concerned about that. This Council did not authorize this and was her recommendation that Council postpone any further negotiations with MDOT until Council can get a handle on what exactly has been going on here and have it as an Agenda item on a future agenda as opposed to even Mayor and Council.

To postpone indefinitely any further discussions with MDOT

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo was concerned and offended that within Mr. Pakala’s letter he talked about contacting effective City parties with regard to a formal response to MDOT and Council is not copied on that. Council is not the first point of communication. She said she was very insulted about that and very concerned.

Member Kramer thought that because of the discussion this evening that Council needed to clear up a few things. He requested a status up date of where Council is because citizens have asked what Council sees as their process for going forward. He asked Mr. Nowicki where they were and what is the process for the future steps?

Mr. Nowicki said Council has the letter from Mr. Pakala and he had reviewed the proposed conservation easement and some of the changes that MDOT had made and what they had previously provided to the City. The Council did see this and was apprised of this.

Mr. Kramer said he just asked for an update.

Mr. Nowicki said the original conservation preservation easement was a canned easement.

Mr. Kramer asked what he meant by that?

Mr. Nowicki said it did not allow for anything; here is a piece of property and you can not set foot on it.

Mr. Nowicki said early on it was always the intent to make this piece of property a passive recreational area. The easement would have precluded that. Additionally, there were some title problems and we could not get a warranty deed. On top of that Council had entered into an agreement with MDOT a number of years ago to acquire this piece of property after they had proceeded through the wetland mitigation and their monitoring period for the City to obtain that property for one dollar. MDOT came back and said Novi had first right of approval at $270,000 and that is when it came back to Council to straighten this out. Mr. Nowicki said he was authorized by his supervisor to respond back to MDOT and remind them that we did have an agreement and that was done.

Then we began to go through and iron out the problems associated with the conservation easement, the title work, legal descriptions and everything else associated with that parcel of property.

Mr. Kramer asked what the function of the conservation easement was?

Mr. Nowicki said it is to protect the created wetlands. It is to insure that that wetland remains as it was created in perpetuity.

Mr. Kramer said it sets the boundary of what is permissible to do there it does not prescribe that anything be done it just limits what can be done.

Mr. Nowicki said that is correct.

Mr. Kramer said some of the documentation that is in here portrays things that could be done. What is the function of that? You had some representations and Dan Davis also had some representations. What was the function of that information?

Mr. Nowicki was not sure which information he was making reference to. He asked Mr. Davis if he knew?

Mr. Kramer thought it was input to the process of defining easements.

Mr. Davis said what MDOT was looking for was to limit what the uses could be by protecting the conservation easement and creation of the mitigation site. What they were looking at was if this does become a passive park facility for the City of Novi what uses would be in harmony with those same types of restrictions.

Mr. Kramer asked if this was conceptual level of discussion.

Mr. Davis said it was strictly conceptual. They talked about what components make up a passive park and recreation site. If it is a public park what infrastructure would need to support that such as, entryway, parking area, restroom facility and what amenities could be included;

amenities such as nature interpretative areas, outdoor education and support facilities.

Mr. Kramer said likewise, Mr. Nowicki; you made some representations along the way of various potentials with regard to the property. What type of things were said and why?

Mr. Nowicki said the property borders Garfield Road. In the future if Garfield Road is ever widened that particular conservation preservation easement would have precluded us from widening Garfield Road and paving it. He believed the property goes to the centerline of Garfield Road. Additionally, if there is ever water and sewer public utilities extended across the frontage of that property that conservation easement would have precluded that as well. Those are the items they would have like to have seen in there for the future of the area.

Member Kramer asked where they were specifically in regards to achieving an enabling conservation easement?

Mr. Nowicki said they have the reply and review of Mr. Pakala and he thought he did a good job of going through it and sorting out some of the problems associated with that. Mr. Nowicki said he had not responded back to MDOT.

Member Kramer asked what he saw as the next steps in the process?

Mr. Nowicki said asking MDOT to consider the changes that were brought up after the first review of that conservation easement and then seeing where they take it. It they have any problems with it then they would get back with us and if not they could incorporate those changes into the easement. After that is taken care of then the attorneys would review it and it would be brought back to Council.

Mr. Kramer asked what the steps after that were?

Mr. Nowicki said if Council approved it then they would go through a closing and put the legal mechanisms in place to transfer the title to the City of Novi.

Member Kramer requested that Council re-enforce the previous Council’s statement in terms of what public process they would intend to go through in terms of the actual planning for the actual use of the area. He was with the previous Council and it was that Council’s statement that they would work in partnership with the neighbors to define a mutually beneficial and useful passive use of the park area. He fully supported that and proposed that this Council also endorse that.

Member DeRoche agreed with the previous two speakers. He thought one of the largest issues here was there is a definite lack of communication. It does not sound like Council is fulfilling what was promised to the residents and were not where they wanted to be. There are a lot of residents that might be interested in paving and having enabling easement that allowed the road to be paved and widened and have water and sewer easements through it. To the best of his recollection it had not been contemplated on a regular basis that he could recall. He did not recall talking about anything other then an easement for water or sewer and it was just in a related discussion. It was not pertaining to this potential park.

He thought there were three things Council should do:

1. Direct administration to stop any talks and direct them to notify any local, county or state authority that they are dealing with that they have been directed not to talk until this issue is resolved locally.

2. That Council be provided with a detailed history of all meetings and correspondence so Council knew exactly what the issue is they are working on.

3. That the Council direct the administration to acknowledge the stakeholders who spoke tonight and their neighbors and acknowledge them as stakeholders in this project. Also, that Council would fully expect that anything brought back to them they would be notified when it would be on an agenda, that they are invited to attend the public hearings and everything else that is normally given to the public when they are acknowledged as stakeholders. They are owed that from the City.

Member Bononi said she had been in government a long time and this is a pretty outrageous set of circumstances. She said the reason that she says outrageous is she was not on the previous Council and was not privy to any executive actions that they took and is not bound by them. On the other side of the coin when you read through this document as though you were an alien come to earth and ask yourself the all important case question what is going on here you find that people are acting like de facto Council Members and City Managers. That is what she sees here and having said that she would say cut it out. From the standpoint of how Council went about accomplishing things it does make a difference. The ends do not justify the means, this Council is not informed and citizens who were promised to be involved who are left out in the cold. This just does not cut it and is not the way the City should be doing business. She felt the three points that were brought up by Member DeRoche to find out where they were and to call a halt to all of this is what should be done until Council could come forward with a conclusion and a plan.

Member Crawford concurred with most of what was said and particularly the communication aspect. He thought if Council had had better communication with the residents in the last couple of years it would not be discussed tonight. He thought that was 90% of the problem. He questioned the request for a directive to stop any further talks with MDOT or other agencies because that had been part of the problem over the last few years trying to get through to some of these people. He said there has been direction to proceed along those lines and he did not think that administration was pursuing this without direction by Council. He asked what needed to be stopped right now and what benefit that would be? There are some things that still need to be pursued. He asked Mr. Nowicki if there was anything he felt was important to pursue?

Mr. Nowicki said regarding the importance and what to pursue he thought it was a Council decision on what they felt the long term interest of the community is in that particular area with respect to that property. Council will ultimately have the ability to either accept MDOT’s offer as it is, ask them to make changes or reject it in which case MDOT is free to do whatever they want to do with that property. He did not think anyone wanted that to occur and that the City wanted to retain local ownership and control of that particular parcel of land. That had always been his understanding from listening to Council discussions.

Mr. Nowicki said to Member Crawford, as he is fully aware, there had not been hardly any information or anything happening since they had the meeting with the MDOT. The Garfield Road residents were fully aware of that meeting because it was brought up when they hosted a meeting earlier. Since that time there has been E-mail generated by his office asking people what the status was, where are they going and when are they going to get information? He said they had gone no where and done basically nothing because it had been held up in MDOT and MDEQ.

Mr. Nowicki thought the next step was to continue with the process and then return, as was the plan, the conservation easements and the agreements to the City Council to let them look at it, make changes and see what they want to do. If they would like to meet with the residents that is fine. It had always been our intent to meet with the residents and that was a commitment made to the residents prior to recommending any form of action to the City Council. Unfortunately, there has been nothing to report to anybody since our meeting with MDOT quite some time ago.

Member Crawford said there was a memo stating that Mr. Nowicki was waiting to hear something from the Attorney General and he asked what he was looking for from the Attorney General?

Mr. Nowicki said they were not looking for anything from the Attorney General. He thought MDOT and MDEQ were looking for something from them that was a part of their internal process but he was not fully aware of how they function. He said the City of Novi did not generate this.

Member Crawford asked Council to explain to him what needed to be stopped and why?

He thought they might be close on getting responses back from some of these agencies. If they are not going to proceed without Council approval and further hearings with the public he would not want to stop that communication with MDOT and whoever else if they are about ready to finalize some of that communication.

Mayor Clark said they would get to that when they finish the discussion.

Member Csordas asked if the mitigation site was at its capacity?

Mr. Nowicki said it has been constructed in accordance with its plans and what is going to be on that site. MDOT will not allow any additional work there and it will be a part of any conservation preservation easement that what is there would remain with no modifications to it. They would not even allow any type of disposal of storm water there. So any storm water would have to be directed to another site.

Member Csordas asked if there was any land there to be used?

Mr. Nowicki said there are trees and some upland areas that if MDOT were to sell it could be potentially developed in the future if that is MDOT’s desire. Early on it was Council’s direction to him to make sure that there would be no further development on that 106-acre parcel.

Member Csordas asked if the property was west of Garfield and south of the development there?

Mr. Nowicki said it was south of Nine Mile on the east side of Garfield Rd. There is a split rail fence across the frontage of the property for a couple hundred feet and it goes back quite a way and there is a huge mitigation area. He offered to take Member Csordas out to see the site and show him a copy of the plans.

Member Crawford commented it sounded like if MDOT retained ownership of the property they did not have to abide by the conservation easement but if Novi bought it they had to abide by it.

Mr. Nowicki said that was the interesting thing everybody seemed to think there was a conservation easement on the property and there is not.

Member Crawford asked what the document of January 1999 is?

Mr. Nowicki said it was a canned easement that MDOT would transmit to Novi.

Member Crawford said what he saw in an attachment to a letter from Mr. Pakala looked like a boilerplate canned easement and there was no date on it at all. Ms. Gronachan indicated there is a document in January 1999 with a date on it, which might have been more specific. He said he had not seen it.

Mr. Nowicki said they had a title search done and there is no conservation easement on the property.

Member Crawford said he would not debate that because he did not have the document in front of him although there is a difference of opinion there. He asked if MDOT obtained ownership did they have to abide by whatever Novi might have to abide by if Novi had ownership? He asked why a conservation easement is a conservation easement and it ought to be applicable to that piece of property no matter who owned it.

Mr. Nowicki said it depended on the area the conservation easement had been placed on. When they had their discussion with MDOT they told them that they would accept and have that conservation easement on the full 106 acres and that is the way it was proposed and the direction he had received. He said it did not have to be on the whole 106 acres because he believed it was only an 80 plus acre wetland mitigation site.

Member Crawford thought they were always discussing the 106 acres which included upland areas.

Mr. Nowicki said we were and that is what they had advised MDOT from the Council that the whole site should have a conservation preservation easement put on it. They had never discussed just 80 acres it was the whole site. The reason for that was because Council had always wanted that whole site to remain an area for passive recreation.

Mayor Clark said he would not want to cut off communication with MDOT at this time. If they are the grantors in the sense that they are willing to give us this property for a dollar after their memories were refreshed. Since they are granting it they can put whatever conditions on the grant they want and from that flowed the conservation easement. He said he did not have a problem with that and had no problem with keeping the lines of communication open. What has happened here is unfortunate and is a prime example of if somebody is left out of the loop then the problems arise that Council is facing tonight. He thought it was of paramount importance that Council be kept in the loop and equally as important that the residents be keep in the loop and are updated on everything.

Mayor Clark said certainly if we have a conservation easement on this property and they want a conservation easement on it he did not think they would object to it. He would like to see it contain specific language in plain english that simply said in this conservation easement that consisted of 106 acres there will never be any residential construction ever. He said this would solve a lot of problems.

Mayor Clark did not want to cut off communication with MDOT. They are the owners and they could sell it to whoever they want with the same conditions on it and they could put 30 or 40 buildable sites in the upland acreage and it would be their prerogative to do that. The only way to guarantee that this is not occurring is if that kind of restriction is in the conservation easement. He has no problem with continuing the discussions and nothing would be finalized without Mr. Nowicki coming back to Council for direction. He thought that in conjunction with that making sure that every step of the way the residents and Council are copied on everything.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo disagreed with Mr. Nowicki’s statement that nothing has been done since then. She had before her two different conservation deed restrictions. One is from a letter dated January 25, 1999 from Mr. Bugbee with attachment and under number 3 "the grantee shall not change or alter the area covered by the conservation restrictions from its natural state this includes both upland and wetland area. Activities such as selective harvesting of mature chim are allowed but shall not interfere with the overall long term vegetative evolution of the site."

In the current document received from Mr. Nowicki and Mr. Pakala that language has been changed to include "activities or those which support ecological education are allowed with prior approval of MDEQ or its successors. So obviously there has been a change.

Mr. Nowicki said if put in the context of timing sequence they had met with residents and Council Member Crawford in August or September 1999 so actually the statements Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo is making are true. Those discussions did occur and they predate the meeting that they had with the residents. He said they had covered a lot of topics with the residents in August and September of 1999.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if the residents were ever given a copy of this deed restriction?

Mr. Nowicki said they had a substantial number of documents and he was not sure if they had or not. He said he met with them in August or September 1999 and his comments were specifically related to there had been little or no activity since that time period when they had met with the residents except for a meeting at MDOT and they were fully appraised of that.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said and except for since then MDOT decided to change some of the wording of the conservation deed restriction to go along the lines that he had previously requested.

Mr. Nowicki said it was a little more restrictive then the initial conservation easement; yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said actually it is less restrictive. In the original one they were only going to allow for harvesting of mature timber and in the revised they are also allowing for ecological education with prior MDEQ approval.

Mr. Nowicki said it prohibits harvesting of timber.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said it allowed harvesting of mature timber with prior approval of MDEQ.

Mr. Nowicki said there are some errors in that as Mr. Pakala pointed out. He said they were looking to have it substantially more restrictive conservation preservation easement because of what was intended out there.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said that is not the way it reads. She said this Council and the previous Council from her knowledge did not ever have any discussions about what the Council thought should be included in the deed restriction or what activities should be allowed, what were appropriate activities or use of that property. She thought that was the starting point. This Council as a majority has to agree what Council should be asking MDOT for it to say and what it should be used for.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said perhaps more restrictive language should be in here to restrict it from any other types of development.

Mr. Nowicki said the administrative staff agreed with her on that point.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said that is what she is looking for as a Council discussion of what we want the response to MDOT to be with regard to this language. Not what Mr. Nowicki wants, JCK wants but what this Council, in a motion at a regular meeting, wants to do with this property. Council should have the opportunity to go through this documentation, read the deed restrictions come back at a meeting as an actual item for Council to make that determination and then direct the appropriate parties to negotiate on our behalf.

Mayor Clark asked for a motion to add it to a future agenda.

Member Crawford said he concurred but instead of having the residents at our meeting to find out what we are talking about he would like to have their input before that meeting in writing or orally so that Council could take that into consideration during their discussion.

Member Kramer concurred with Member Crawford but suggested scheduling a public hearing on that evening as well to get verbal input.

Mayor Clark directed the Clerk to keep the agenda light that night. The meeting date would be April 17^th.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said included with the letter from the MDEQ dated December 1^st was a letter dated December 20^th from Mr. Nowicki with some initial responses that she wanted to go over.

1. Policies and Procedures

She said Mr. Nowicki had indicated that he had developed within his department interim Policies and Procedures and she asked where the documentation of the Policies and Procedures was?

Mr. Nowicki said that was transmitted to Mr. Wisely and a copy to Council through the City Manager’s Office and included in the packet of information that he has. The finalized Policies and Procedures we are waiting now for our operational environmental audit and once that is done and he received the recommendations from the consultant it will all be merged together to generate a final Policies and Procedures Manual.

She requested a copy of the outline of the Policies and Procedures.

Mr. Nowicki said there was a complete packet of information provided and he would be sure she received the information.

2. Removal and restoration of the north side to pre-dumping topography. The work was to commence the first week of January with completion in one week. She asked what the status of this was?

Mr. Nowicki said it was complete. The only thing they are short on is stabilizing the material. He said they had an uncooperative winter season and the matting has been purchased and should go down very soon.

3. Secured the services of J.C.K. to prepare the plans. She asked where the plans were?

Mr. Nowicki said they are being finalized. He said that facility had to be expanded because they encountered some difficulties with disposal of street sweepings. He said even catch basin cleaning water when they send the vector out to clean a storm drain even though it is storm sewer water it can not be disposed of back into the storm sewer system. It has to be disposed of either through the sanitary system or in a drying bed. So the acceptance facility is being designed and we are working with Detroit to get the discharge permits.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked when he anticipated having those forms before Council?

Mr. Nowicki did not have a specific date. They are talked about at the meetings and they are being refined. It is moving.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said she hoped it would be a priority. Mr. Nowicki said definitely.

4. Removing debris from south side of the creek.

Mr. Nowicki said most of the debris has been removed but there was difficulty getting back into the area to remove piles of dirt. There is a contractor back in there putting a water main in and he is shut down for awhile; it is tore up and we can not get our equipment in with his equipment and the ground that way it is. The contractor did offer to move the material off site for us but we had no way of tracking the disposal so his offer was declined.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked what he is doing to make sure this is in compliance?

Mr. Nowicki said when these things are finalized then we will respond to Mr. Wisely.

5. Arsenic in the soil

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said if there is arsenic in the soil Council might want to consider removing it.

Mr. Nowicki said arsenic in the soil is a naturally occurring element all around this part of the State of Michigan.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said to the degree that it is there?

Mr. Nowicki said it could be.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said could be or do we know?

Mr. Nowicki said Mr. Farnum has the levels but the MDEQ did not feel that it was out of the ordinary or something to be alarmed about.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said hopefully this would be addressed in the operational audit.

Mr. Nowicki said he did not think the arsenic would be because it is in the soil and around the City it is naturally occurring and in many areas it is found in water.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if we had a level? Mr. Nowicki said he did not know what the level is. Mr. Farnum has the level but he did not know it off the top of his head.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if it would be contained in the reports that we had?

Mr. Nowicki said it was in the reports provided for Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said it had been three months since the last report and she just wanted to know where they were with this item.

Mr. Nowicki said significant progress had been made and it is included in the monthly reports. He said he would expand the monthly report to give her a little more detail. He said their comments were taken seriously and they have moved ahead with that.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said this had been held over from a previous budget year. Mr. Smith was supposed to be responsible for this item and it has never come forward. She asked what the status of this is for this budget year?

Mr. Nowicki said the statements he made were predicated on the fact of getting a vactor truck

for the storm sewer crew. The Water and Sewer Department recently took delivery of their vactor truck and it is ready for service. However, he has put a hold on using the vactor truck for storm sewer cleaning as he just indicated because the liquid material can not be disposed of the way it had been historically disposed of in other communities. A hold has been put on using that piece of equipment until they get the disposal method nailed down.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if he was waiting for the operational audit in order to get that nailed down?

Mr. Nowicki they have to put their disposal site, self-containment site, combination disposal of liquid brine, sanitary liquid waste or storm sewer liquid goes into that same collection system and into the sanitary sewer system into Detroit. They would not be vactoring any liquid until the disposal site is set up.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if there would be any information coming forward with the budget in terms of a more comprehensive plan?

Mr. Nowicki said the storm sewer crew routinely inspects all of the basins after rains, before rains if there is a prediction they would be out there inspecting all the inlets and outlets. They do it routinely. They had not received one complaint on flooding in the City in regard to the thaws or the rains.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if he was saying there is a comprehensive inspection program on a yearly basis?

Mr. Nowicki said the basins are inspected sometimes on a weekly or monthly basis depending on the weather and what they are seeing. Catch Basins are constructed so that they have a large sump and can go a number of years in an area that is fully developed without anything occurring in them. Typically it is either a two or four foot sump that collects the sedimentation and debris. That is made so the crews can go around and routinely do it but this year it was his recollection before they put a hold on using the vactor they cleaned all of the catch basins and storm sewers in Section 21.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked for additional information with regard to whether or not catch basins needed to be maintained on a more regular basis then that.

Mayor Clark said there were several positive reports and letters commending the police and fire members of this community for the work that they do and some of the work they do that they never get recognition for. He just wanted to commend them so that they know that this community appreciates them.

Member Crawford said the only reason for putting this on the agenda was after talking with a couple of residents they suggested that this whole campus area quarter section might need to be looked at in one entity. Mr. Brunett spoke tonight and refreshed his memory and let everyone else realize the extensive planning they have gone through. He just wanted to make sure that everything was taken into consideration. Perhaps, the right place for a new library building is on the Ten Mile Road High School parking lot and the parking lot moved someplace else. He did not know if that kind of discussion took place with all these entities. He was not sure that the residents have had sufficient input and he wanted to make sure that occurred. If there is consensus on Council to form another group of these bodies to be sure all bases are covered hopefully it can be done in a few weeks. He asked Ms. Reutter when the ballot language had to be approved for an August 8^th Primary.

Ms. Reutter said May 16^th.

Member Crawford said if anything is done along these lines it needed to be done quick and soon and with citizen input.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo stated there are obviously some significant issues that Council has to come to some conclusion with before proceeding. This Council has not had the opportunity to discuss as an item on the agenda the proposal. The sale of the existing building and the reuse of that building and she was not sure that we had those kind of resources to buy that building today or whether we need to use that building. Those are significant issues that we have not begun to discuss yet. There also is the issue of the entranceway and she would not put a doomed project on the ballot. She said if it is going to be an entranceway off of Taft Road she would not support placing it on the ballot.

She said the financial issues are outstanding.

Member Crawford called for point of order. He said his intent was not to have a major discussion on this item. It was just to talk about the merits or non-merits of a task force for the whole complex not to discuss the merits of the library or putting it on the ballot.

Mayor Clark joined in the comments that Member Crawford made that Council is not trying to delay anything. There has been concern expressed regarding the site, parking lot, etc. A lot of the concern dealt with could the campus atmosphere be kept. Mr. Brunett addressed a lot of those issues. However, there is a lot of concern as to whether the City, Library Board and the School can come up with some sort of a vehicle for ingress and egress off of Ten Mile Road with some sort of internal traffic flow.

Member Kramer said an inner agency cooperative group might be needed to plan that because whatever internal road inter-connection both that pedestrian and cars would involve all three areas. He thought the intent would be to move forward with final implementation details of how the whole site would interact.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said this item was approved on the last agenda but in terms of an outline for the company she thought that one of the other contenders of the proposal did a good job of outlining the tasks. She suggested Mr. Nowicki use it in addition to anything else that his department felt would be necessary.

Member Kramer said Council received a letter from George Kuhn, Oakland County Drain Commissioner, soliciting support for Senate Bill 781 and a suggested sample resolution.

The Senate Bill would seek to create a regional Water and Sewer Authority around the southeastern Michigan Water and Sewer operations. He asked that this be added to the next agenda as an action item.

Member Crawford commented that what Member Kramer did was what should be done under Mayor and Council Issues.

Member Kramer said Ms. Norman was looking for guidance on where Council was on the Mayor exchange day with Wyandotte.

Mayor Clark thought it had been finalized to exchange with Wyandotte this year. He would advise Ms. Norman.

Mayor Clark said Council receives the Hanging Fires and the Council Tracking Form and a lot of these items are outdated. He asked Mr. Klaver to advise the appropriate departments that Council was going to take a hard look at these and they might want to update where they are on each of these.

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Nancy Reutter, Deputy City Clerk

Transcribed by: _______________________

Charlene Mc Lean

Date approved: March 20, 2000