Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 9:10 AM

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

Mr. Helwig introduced the new Assistant City Manager for Developmental Services Clay Pierson and his wife Jennifer who would be relocating to Novi from Illinois.

Peter Hoadley, 31084 Arlington Cr., stated he had helped head up a citizens committee to promote the bond issue and did not think it should be used for maintenance because they were intended for capital improvements. His concern was intersections such as 14 Mile and Welch Road, which had been removed from the road bond and a passing lane from the entranceway of the Maples to Welch Road allowing additional stacking was needed. Also needed was a left hand turn arrow on the traffic light for eastbound and westbound traffic on 14 Mile to go north on Welch Road or south on Novi Road. He asked that the intersections on the previous bond issue be re-adopted and thought the number one issue was fund the Beck Road Interchange. In addition, Grand River should be five lanes to Novi Road and preferably to Haggerty and Beck Road needed to be funded down to Ten Mile with five lanes and from Beck and Ten Mile to Novi Rd.

Mr. Hoadley noted five lanes were needed on Novi Road to Ten Mile and the City would receive a $9 million match for a $900,000 fix. He was concerned about the 12 Mile corridor and the bottleneck that would be created from east of 12 Mile to just west of Meadowbrook and stated it had to be done at the same time. He felt Meadowbrook should be on the agenda and be three lanes from Ten Mile to 12 Mile.

He suggested Council have two bond issues for maintenance. One funded by City funds and the other by the voters. If the first 10 or 14 cents on the dollar were captured and new companies used as a basis of capturing, a stream of revenue would be created to fund a bond for maintenance. Future bonds for capital improvements could be funded the same way.

Steve Reed, 27168 Meadowbrook, could support the majority of the road bond issue. He felt Meadowbrook Road should be left alone. He asked Council to get developers to police themselves because they drop dirt and sand while driving and damage the roads.

Dan Tarrant, Nottingham Dr., felt Council had overlooked the unpaved roads in the north and west sides of Novi and that all roads had to be treated fairly. There should be a resolution by Council with a time scale that the unpaved roads would be addressed such as Delmont and Dinser.

Brian Kozian 1523 W. Lake Dr., had spoken to Council about putting the street paving portion of the Special Assessment on the road bond issue. Today, he asked that these improvements be placed on the road bond issue because the heavy rains have eroded and washed them away. He found that improvements to E. Lake Drive were being done at no cost to the residents and residents who did not want to tap in to water did not have out of pocket expense. The Walled Lake area is far behind the rest of the City and it was time to bring it up to the same standards the rest of the City is measured by.

Berry Kaltz, 25040 Delmont and Jean Jax, 48806 Thornberry said paving the dirt roads was a safety issue not a property enhancement issue; they are substandard and must be paved or blacktopped. Cars are cutting through Birchwoods Subdivision to avoid the dirt road and children are getting splashed by puddles going to the bus stop because there are no sidewalks and the children walk in the street.

Mr. Helwig appreciated the input of residents and assured them there was an interest in the importance of this issue and finding common ground that would bring this to a successful conclusion this fall. This summer the Oakland County Road Commission would resurface all of Ten Mile from Haggerty to the western City limits. At the last road bond policy work session regarding 12 Mile, it was clear that the expectation was that the portion east of Novi Road to just west of Meadowbrook should be done by the private sector. The Taubman Company was approached to cover the $650,000 local share of the $6.5 million project and they agreed. This would build on the $18.4 million by a private developer to upgrade 12 Mile from Dixon Road east of Novi Road and improving Novi Road and parts of the I-96 Interchange. That corridor would be accomplished privately and developers would pay over $19 million to improve the infrastructure in our community. What Council was now deliberating for this fall was dramatically different from what the voters said no to last fall.

He noted everyone would like to get the unpaved roads done. The focus groups said the $28.5 million had to be toned down to be digestible. There is a wide spread recognition that progress had to be made and they are determined to find a way to deal with unpaved roads in Council goal setting sessions in November. There are other options. There are 1.1 miles of unpaved roads with water and sanitary sewer and would cost a million thirty five thousand dollars if a portion or all of the paving would be paid for by residents. That would not deal with Delmont and Dinser, which do not have water and sanitary sewer. He encouraged Council to determine what other communities were doing, scour what other means there might be to

deal with unpaved roads in the whole context of S.A.D. for water and sewer, which would enable the $17.7 million dollar scale of this issue to be kept.

Mr. Helwig said where there are existing traffic signals and interest in upgrading he recommended they not capitalize that in a bond sale but continue to do that in the annual operating allocations. They added costs for other major intersections and Council could deliberate whether to add other intersections as well.

Mr. Helwig found that the City was the seventh lowest City property tax rate in Oakland County. The only way to get more than $470,000 a year for maintenance would be to have it in a funding source like property tax.

Mayor Clark said Council was committed to eliminating the unpaved roads in the community but it would take time and he appreciated the residents patience and their problems. They would vigorously pursue all alternatives and do whatever it took to come up with funding.

Mr. Helwig said a policy resolution had been provided for Council consideration if they still wanted to make a decision August 14^th to place an item on the ballot for November 7^th . Under the new State law the first year estimate had to be stated, which would be 3/10ths of a mil as well as what the average life was over the life of the issue. In this instance the number where the deliberations were would be .5 mils. The policy resolution included ballot language and a pledge that if this was a successful road bond issue the City government would not be back before the voters for a General Obligation Road Bond Issue for a minimum of five years. Mr. Neiman felt the policy resolution would be the best way to carry the pledge to the community. Also, they would be advanced funding from the proceeds from the road bond in terms of the cash flow and the $5,850,000 would be reimbursed from the State and the County.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo congratulated Mr. Helwig for obtaining a commitment from the Taubman Company to fund the 12 Mile Road gap. She was concerned about Grand River to Beck Road to the bridge over CSX with a City portion of $4,250,000 while there is a $5 million commitment from the State and zero commitment from the County. She asked what the county portion of that would be? Mr. Nowicki said typically they would pick up 10% of the project cost. When grants are allocated it was 80% and 20% to the local communities. If the County applied for the grant they took the 20% and normally split it between the local community and the road commission for Oakland County. He had not seen the paper work on the $5 million so there might still be a 10 or 20% local share attached. If the County applied and pursued a grant they would split the local share with the community 50/50. However, if the community applied the county did not assume any part of the local share.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if $4,250,000 was a conservative figure and Mr. Nowicki thought it was pretty close based on the estimates. She asked if the County were to participate what would their share of funding for this be? Mr. Nowicki estimated about a half million dollars.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo was concerned and disappointed that the County was not doing their fair share because the taxpayers then had to be responsible. Included in the intersection improvements she wanted to see some if not all the previous intersection improvements. This included 14 Mile and Novi with the projected costs of $205,000; likewise, Beck and Eight Mile.

Council had been told that upgrading to SCATS and left turn phasing would be $93,000 for the full project costs versus $264,000 in the memo of July 20^th from Mr. Nowicki.

Mr. Nowicki said they looked at the addition of turn lanes this year instead of just plain signalization.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo wanted to include at a minimum, an upgrade to SCATS and left turn phasing in this road bond cycle, to approach the multi agencies for their cooperation and also include turn lane improvements and a new signal at the Ten Mile and Cranbrooke intersection for $245,000. She felt unpaved roads was also a priority and all sorts of funding should be looked at including capturing dollars from the new growth and revenue in the community. She would support this road bond with the stipulation Council approaches it from a menu type venue so the citizens could chose which improvements were important to them.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Nowicki how old the CSX bridge was? Mr. Nowicki thought it was built in the 1910’s or 20’s. Mayor Clark asked Mr. Neiman for comments regarding a menu approach. Mr. Neiman thought if Council agreed to separate the projects they would be looking at three separate ballots which would be Proposal A, B and C and separate bond issues if each passed. This was rarely done.

Member Kramer agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo regarding turn lanes and upgrades. Out of this road bond the citizens would receive the ability to move through the City better. He asked Mr. Nowicki to comment on 14 Mile and any other intersection that was not on the write out. He said Beck and Eight Mile, Ten and Cranbrooke and Ten and Meadowbrook were not included and supported adding these three. Mr. Hoadley brought up 14 Mile and Welch and asked if Mr. Nowicki supported it?

Mr. Nowicki said 14 Mile Road was a County road and Welch Road was a Commerce Township road and any funding for improvement should be split between the communities. Member Kramer suggested this be done for 14 Mile and Welch Road. He asked if there were any other problem intersections that needed to be addressed in this bond issue? Mr. Nowicki said there was Eight Mile and Haggerty which are Oakland County Road Commission roads and should be addressed by them. Member Kramer asked if he supported following up on 14 Mile and Welch? Mr. Nowicki thought it should be looked at but problems on 14 Mile Road should be reduced significantly when M-5 was extended from 14 Mile Road north. They anticipate starting construction in July.

Member Kramer asked if there were any other intersection issues on the perimeters that should be considered. Mr. Nowicki thought Council should focus on the internal intersections.

Member Kramer proposed that Beck and Eight Mile, Ten Mile and Cranbrooke, Ten Mile and Meadowbrook and 14 Mile and Welch be added to the program with the understanding that our best assessment is there are no other problem intersections that needed addressing.

Mr. Helwig said Ten Mile and Meadowbrook was already on the roster.

Member Kramer asked what the status of the 14 Mile Road and Novi Road intersection was?

Mr. Nowicki said it was operating but definitely needed to be looked at as the traffic had increased. However, it should diminish when the M-5 is completed to the north and the northwestern connector is completed.

Member Kramer asked if this project belonged back on the table? Mr. Nowicki said the intersection had to be addressed. Member Kramer felt these projects would affect more Novi residents continuously because no matter where they live they are going to use all these intersections. He felt these were of prime importance and he was open for discussion regarding segregating the issues for bonding and hoped the citizens would support them.

He agreed road maintenance should come out of maintenance funds and should be addressed by taking a look at the one mil devoted to maintenance. We are evolving and anticipating more non-residential growth, which would provide more income and this should be a part of our on going study on how the City funds itself and takes care of its needs.

He thought a five year moratorium was not an appropriate time frame. He was hesitant because Beck Road is very busy and connected with the intersection at M-14 and would soon have a fully functional intersection at I-96. He noted this would need to be addressed sooner than five years. Secondly, they agreed Meadowbrook would not be included but it is deteriorating and needs attention. There was a lot of development in that area and the hope was the road would be improved through development. He thought the bond proposal was excellent and he would support it.

Member Crawford asked if there would be a problem coordinating the improvement of the suggested four intersections since some of them were multi jurisdictional? Mr. Nowicki said there would have to be cooperation from all the jurisdictions before they could be improved. Member Crawford asked if it would be prudent to put these on the road bond without known cooperation and funding from another source. Mr. Nowicki replied it would definitely create a timing problem in starting the program because some of the agencies might not have the ability to fund any of these improvements. In the past he had tried to utilize Oakland County’s Tri-Party Program where there are multi jurisdictions. The Tri-Party program provides 1/3 from Oakland County, 1/3 from the local community and 1/3 from the Oakland County Road Commission. In the past they had tried to bring two communities together and pool the resources along with Oakland County and the Road Commission to come up with a way to improve the roadways.

Member Crawford thought this option should be considered before including them on the ballot. It might be a commitment that could be made aside from a ballot issue. He said there was about 13 miles of unpaved roads in Novi and a large portion of that was residential and should be looked at first. He discussed some of the roads such as Garfield, which is paved, Flint St. and Sixth Gate that would be taken care of because it is in the Town Center area. His point being that the total mileage was about a ¼ less than indicated. He asked if there was a figure to do all 13 miles? Mr. Nowicki said there were different variables in determining the exact dollar amount to improve each unimproved road. A close estimate would be about a million dollars a mile. Member Crawford noted another $10 million could be added to the bond issue if 3 miles were eliminated. He felt this should be considered and it was possible there were unpaved roads that the residents wanted to remain unpaved.

Member Csordas thought the road bond proposal was an excellent one especially with more funds going to neighborhood resurfacing. The only project he would agree to add would be Ten Mile and Cranbrooke for the $250,000 intersection upgrade because it was entirely within the City. He agreed with Mr. Nowicki regarding the timing and that the intersections needed to be improved and addressed on a per case basis with full cooperation from all of the jurisdictions. He said this was a bare bone type of bond issue and did not think a multi bond request would be the thing to do. All of these are important and one of the bonds might not pass and then we are locked into a five year wait and it would have a disastrous impact on the City. This is a very scaled down, prudent, logical and heavily leveraged road bond.

There are S.A.D.’s for funding mechanisms to pave roads in the City. All the other residential paved roads in the City have been paid for by the taxpayers.

Member DeRoche complimented administration on the focus groups and the list for the road bond. He agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo's idea and the logic of Member Kramer that Council should do what they can in this road bond especially considering it as a five year project. Ten Mile and Cranbrooke would be number one on his list and number two would be 14 Mile and Novi and Decker. He felt a very significant portion of the problem at 14 Mile and Welch was created from other communities coming down to get on the Haggerty connector. He noted it was reasonable to budget for our proportionate share for Beck and Eight Mile Road. He was not opposed to dividing this into a menu and liked the idea of the intent of what the budget was for. If budgeting X amount for intersection improvements that would be what the citizens wanted. If X amount was budgeted for neighborhood and subdivision improvements the priorities might change, money could be found and lost but the money budgeted would be spent in that area.

Member DeRoche believed the City should acknowledge the benefits gained by all the taxpayers of having the roads paved. The neighborhood subdivision improvement portion of the proposed road bond was maintenance not capital improvement and the residents on unpaved roads were being asked to pay for the maintenance of residents with paved roads. He felt the residents on unpaved roads would like similar consideration. He agreed with the Mayor that the focus should be on the greater good of Novi. He asked if the process of allocating money to neighborhood street improvements was yet to be prioritized?

Mr. Helwig said they would like to implement, as authorized in this budget year, the pavement management system so they would have much better information as to what schedule those road improvements should be for next year.

Member DeRoche said hopefully the administration would bring it to Council and they would give it a political priority and use the funds as conservatively and wisely as possible. There are people who don’t see the logic in paving unpaved roads when they had to pay for the paving themselves but the City does pay ongoing maintenance costs and does have a significant liability which is in the best interest of all residents. By paving these roads it becomes less expensive in the long run. He proposed that for this section of this bond the neighborhood subdivision street improvements might say five years of neighborhood pavement surfacing and maintenance instead of expanded neighborhood pavement resurfacing. The Mayor, Council Members and administration said they would find a way to make this a commitment and a priority in the future so why take this pot of money off the table? How do we know that we couldn’t make good use of this money in some of those areas? He felt every neighborhood

and subdivision street should be left on the table and be a separate political priority that Council would set this fall and doing it in advance of the road bond puts it in peril. If residents felt they were being pushed back 5, 6, 7 or 8 years before being a priority they would lose interest in that portion of the road bond.

Mayor Clark said they had proposed allocating a million eighty thousand dollars a year for each of the next five years of expanded neighborhood pavement resurfacing. He suggested Council might want to have it read expanded neighborhood pavement and resurfacing which left it open for a broader interpretation in terms of the use of those funds.

Member Bononi was concerned about the fair share. She was not only talking about fair share of financial responsibility but in regard to benefit, improvement of life, tax paid and benefit for it, whether or not the County or State fair share was received and whether we are getting our fair share from our neighbors. In regard to the property tax levy information that was presented if looking at the low tax paid it begged the question of the quality and quantity of service received for that tax dollar and she was not satisfied with that. She firmly believed that one person could make a difference and Council had seen examples of that since Mr. Helwig came on board.

She agreed with all of the traffic improvement items. However, she felt Council should be actively pursuing partnerships with our neighbors in all directions. She considered Nine Mile and Haggerty and Eight Mile and Taft to be hazardous to anybody’s driving health. The fact that there was no formalized plan with our neighbors to benefit all of us was a big concern and a missed opportunity.

Secondly, she believed that Council needed to request a formal status of chronology of when these intersection improvements would be done. Putting these improvements as a secondary priority was not acceptable to her and should not be acceptable to the residents.

Regarding the 12 Mile Road improvements she understood that the costs of right of way acquisition would be Novi’s and asked what the estimated cost would be? Mr. Helwig said it was in the total project estimate of $6.5 million and the City’s portion would be picked up by the Taubman Company. He asked Mr. Nowicki what portion of the $6.5 million was right of way acquisition?

Mr. Nowicki said about a million dollars but the letter from the Taubman Company indicated they had placed in some of their purchase agreements of the outlots provisions that the new owners would dedicate that road right of way at the time additional property was needed. They have committed to help secure that road right of way through their outlot area which should reduce the cost of right of way acquisition.

Mr. Helwig said the City’s portion would be zero because the Taubman Company would be funding the local communities portion.

Member Bononi asked what portion of the million dollars would be used for this segment of 12 Mile? Mr. Nowicki said the entire million dollars. Mr. Helwig said the section of 12 Mile from McDonalds to just west of Meadowbrook costs $6.5 million for everything. Out of that $6.5 million he was estimating $1 million would go for the right away acquisition and easement activity. She asked what percentage of that segment improvement would be under Taubman’s

control? Mr. Nowicki said from McDonald’s to the end of their property at the Woodland Medical Clinic, which would be a quarter to a third.

Member Bononi was not satisfied with the way unpaved streets had been looked at and the financial responsibility to get them into some sort of usable use. It seemed to her there was no problem increasing the value of properties in such projects as the Grand River improvements and what benefits would be incurred to property owners present and future and undeveloped parcels. The argument could be made that property owners had paid their taxes and that is true and residential property owners paid their taxes and that is true. However, we have all paid taxes to our State and Federal governments and she had yet to see an argument that said the persons receiving the benefits on a road bond project would not benefit more then a person who had not received that same incremental percentage of benefit with regard to improvements in their neighborhood.

To say this was fair to our residents and street improvements would not be considered in anything but S.A.D.’s was really missing the boat with regard to fundamental fairness and servicing the needs of our City. She believed there were things that could be done outside of the bond issue and that a formalized plan was needed on who wanted improvements and who did not.

Member Bononi would support the 5 year moratorium on the bond issue.because she hoped Council would exert leadership in that 5 year period and get away from the whole bonding issue in general. If Council can not come up with a millage and capital improvements budget and institute a pay as you go system to improve our streets then we have missed the boat.

Mayor Clark thought Council had to present to the community a united front on this proposal. No one would get everything they wanted but Council had to look at the long range good of the community as a whole. He would not support a menu of these items. A lot of time and effort had been spent since November on a goal to bring this community together to function as one and a menu of these items would cause that goal to be lost. He felt it would turn north against south and east against west and he could not think of a worst thing to do. We have common

problems and need common solutions that we pull together and work towards as a united community. Mayor Clark was in favor of the five year moratorium and felt it was an act of trust and faith between the City government and its citizens. He considered it a concrete pledge on how serious Council was and how serious they took the public trust and the expenditures of their tax dollars. He felt Beck Road was a multi jurisdictional problem and would have to be solved with all the various communities, the State and the Federal government. He would work to achieve a common goal with neighboring communities whenever possible.

Mayor Clark noted Council would be as diligent as possible and was very serious about coming up with a means to fund unpaved streets. They would be paved and would not be put off forever. He would support the road bond proposal. It made sense, was fair to every portion of the community, it was balanced, well thought out and achieved a number of goals that needed to be dealt with now. He said if this was to be on the November ballot they had to have final language by the meeting of the 14^th.

Mr. Helwig said they had to have a final certified issue by August 29^th. He said an extent of consensus this morning and final deliberations on the 14^th would be very beneficial.

Member Crawford asked if neighborhood pavement would mean new pavement and resurfacing meant maintaining old pavement? Member DeRoche said that was correct.

Mr. Neiman cautioned Council to avoid the phrase maintenance because you cannot capital finance for maintenance recognizing that resurfacing could be viewed in a variety of ways. He asked if it was pavement and pavement resurfacing? Mayor Clark said it was pavement "and" resurfacing.

Member Kramer would not support this because he thought this section had to be very clearly worded and focused as the whole of the issue was. This was 1/3 of the total and Council had supported taking the total and if this one was made muddy it would muddy the total. The intention was to extend the ability to provide neighborhood street improvements with projects such as Village Oaks. The issue regarding unpaved roads should be taken off of the table and studied because collector roads might need a different approach than residential roads. Keep it clear and address it in a more studied fashion. He was in support of the goal but would not support the motion.

Nays: Csordas, Kramer, Clark

Member Bononi did not agree this bond proposal was fair to the community regarding residential roads. Also, the leverage funding that was available might not be available at another time and the most important thing was to get this before the voters so they could decide.

Nays: None

Andrew Mutch stated his primary concern about this road bond proposal was he thought they had left questions unanswered. The biggest challenge to Council was the local neighborhood roads that needed to be addressed. The realities are funding for those improvements are primarily through local millage and there isn’t enough money to meet the needs that are out there. This puts off facing the challenge for another five years and then what. The need would not go away once the road bond was completed or after this money was spent. This is the most expensive way to pay for these improvements because the road bond was not only the cost of the construction, engineering and design but then the interest payments as well. The reality is five years from now while the tax base will have improved through growth we will have an incredibility larger road network that would still be underfinanced because the financial means to do it are not there. This Council really needed to sit down and find out what the cost was to finance this local road maintenance and how would it be paid for.

Mr. Mutch thought it was inappropriate to finance local road maintenance through a bond proposal. It needed to be financed through a millage and those ongoing funding sources that are consistent and reliable. It would not fix the situation; at the end when the money was spent it had to be paid for twice and the need was still there. He wanted to see a bond proposal for the capital improvements and a millage proposal for the local road needs; it would have been the most financially responsible measure.

He thought there were two classes of unpaved roads; neighborhood roads in the lakes area and roads like Nine Mile, Dixon, Napier and 12 ½ Mile. Several million dollars were spent to pave Meadowbrook Road between 12 and 13 Mile and it was a lot smoother ride but it destroyed a very scenic road to make it a little easier to drive down. It scared him to hear talk about seeking all other alternatives; that told him development. They would bring developers in to help fund these roads because the dollars were not available locally and he thought that was exactly what they did not want to do. Don’t destroy these roads to solve a problem that does not exist. Identify the neighborhood

roads that need to be addressed but the other roads are a whole other category. It was not a bad thing to have a couple of miles of unpaved roads.

Regarding the Beck Road interchange, several years ago the attorney from Providence said they needed a rezoning for this interchange because one of the benefits was the value of the land that would be donated would go up and it would be used to offset the local share. He had not heard any discussion about that property donation since or how much the local share would account for. To go to the voters to pay for local share of the Beck Road Interchange when they had been told the development community would cover a portion of it left some questions that needed to be answered.

He asked if they don’t come to the voters for five years for any improvements what happens to Beck Road, Grand River between Haggerty and Novi and what happens to Ten Mile Road and all those roads that need to be addressed. Beck Road is a regional road and we need to talk with our neighboring communities but the fact is Beck Road is reverting to a gravel road as we speak. It can’t stand another five years of the amount of traffic

that it is taking now. We see the development going along Beck Road not only in Novi but in Wixom, Northville Twp., Plymouth and Canton Twp. There are a lot of businesses along Grand River who need improvements along Grand River. That is where the businesses are and where the traffic is. We can not leave others waiting because they do not have a political connection or a big project that would bring money forward.

Peter Hoadley did not agree with everything done but in whole would support it and would lend whatever support he could personally to the proposed road bond. He thought a citizens committee was needed and offered to serve on it and suggested appointing people from all areas of the City along with the Mayor and a Council Member. He felt Mr. Helwig and Mr. Nowicki should also serve on it. He agreed with most of what Mr. Mutch said. Beck Road is an absolute must and needed to be done now. He felt it was short sighted to have a five year moratorium.

Richard Faulkner thought Council had worked hard to put this together and it was a program that he could support and would work with Council to support it. He felt a capital improvement program should be developed and there would be five years to develop such a program and to put funds together to avoid going to the public in five years. There are a lot of retirees in Novi and they could not constantly reach in their pockets and expect them to pay for all of these improvements. They would have to put some money together some way to pay for these neighborhood subdivision and street improvements.

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Mary Ann Cabadas, Executive Secretary

Transcribed: ___________________________

Charlene Mc Lean

Date approved: August 28, 2000