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

ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Bononi, Council Members Capello-absent/arrived at 8:00 p.m., Csordas, DeRoche, Landry, Lorenzo

Mayor Clark read a memo from Member Capello, which asked that Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda and added under Matters for Council Action as Item #11, Appointment of a member to ZBA from a list of current ZBA alternates to replace Brian Fannon and to begin interviews to replace the advanced alternative. Also, add Item #12 to place on the July agenda a vote on the Gateway Ordinance.

Member Csordas added, under Mayor and Council Issues Item #3, Letter received by the Director of Human Resources from Michael W. Evans of the Fire Department.

Member Lorenzo added, under Mayor and Council Issues, Item #4 New home construction issues in Salows Walnut Hill Subdivision.

Member Bononi added, under Mayor and Council Issues, Item #5, a brief tandem two-part discussion between her and Member Landry of the most recent draft of the Gateway Ordinance

Member DeRoche suggested having the discussion and scheduling at the same time for Member Capello’s Item #12 regarding placing the Gateway vote on the July agenda.

John O’Brien thanked Council for their support and noted over 100 people entered the contest. Mr. O’Brien presented a $150.00 savings bond to third place winner Alan Thorwall. Second place winners, Allie Karaisz and Sarah Pylar were a team effort and each received a $150.00 savings bond. The first place winner was Sarah Porter and she received a $500.00 savings bond. The posters and essays are on display in the hallway leading to the Youth Assistance Office and would be there through May.

Mayor Clark noted this award was a Certificate of Achievement for excellence in financial reporting presented to the City of Novi for its comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. The award was from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada to government units and public employee retirement systems that achieved the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting. The award was presented to Marina Neumaier.

Mayor Clark said the next group to be honored was in relation to Arbor Day recently conducted in the City. This community is very fortunate to have the level of citizen volunteers that make this community work and are responsible for the quality of life in this community. The following people were recognized for their help planting over 350 trees in the Community Sports Park, which would be a living legacy to their dedication and commitment to their community.

________Volunteers__________

Girl Scout Troop #'s: 667 Novi Woods Elementary School

3847, 2236, 3091,2321, 739, Susan Beaton, Sue Flanagan,

2316, 658, 3078, 2308, 966, 2242, Barbara Greenberg,

249, 3075, 3073, 2307, 1921, 2242, 3857 Sarah Greenberg, Lynne Paul

Boy Scout Pack #'s: 746, 239, 240 Tim Printz, Jan Van Dusen

Master Gardeners Alan Wall

Novi Library’s Youth Program Staff

Mayor Clark also recognized members of the City staff who gave many hours of their time, energy and talent during the week and on the weekends to make this event a success. They are Randy Auler, Chuck Fritz, Jack Lewis, Lauren McGuire, Jim Paul, Steve Tilmann, Jerry Trombley, Cindy Uglow and Tim Zilka.

Mayor Clark thanked the business community for their outstanding participation that helped make Arbor Day a success.

Anglin Supplies National Tree Trust

Architectural Doors & Millwork National Arbor Day Foundation

Glenda's Garden Center Oakland Co. Conservation Dist.

Masters Green Oakland County Parks

McDonald's Pet Supplies Plus

McNish Sporting Goods Spring Valley Water

MDNR Whole Foods

There were no comments from the audience.

Mr. Klaver reported the following employees received positive comments on Customer Satisfaction Cards:

Parks, Recreation and Forestry - Julie Nickels, Liz McCloskey, and Robin Kummer

Assessing - Angela Johnson

Planning Department - Juanita Freeman

Plan Review Center – Ken Elphinstone, Barb McBeth, Nancy McClain

Fire Department - Lt. Schultz and Lt. Marvin

City Clerk’s Office – Sue Blumer

Forestry Department - Steve Printz

Police Department

Kathy Mutch was present to report on the Fuerst Farm Cleanup that began in the fall of 2000, continued in the spring and fall of 2001 and the recent spring cleanup of 2002. They were now looking toward to September 7^th when a lot of things would be going on in the community. She said volunteers don’t volunteer for just one thing; they volunteer in a lot of different areas. When things are happening simultaneously you don’t get the same numbers of people because they have to spread themselves out. Many volunteers who could not attend this past weekend offered to help some other time or other weekends throughout the summer. Ms. Mutch showed pictures of the cleanup event, which was organized by Preservation Novi but could not have happened without the support of Mr. Auler, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry, Jack Lewis and others at the Civic Center and around the City who gave of their time. Someone offered to enclose a very large berry patch in a way that would protect it from contract mowers and invite people in to help themselves. There are also pears available for picking. Next, Ms. Mutch announced that in celebration of Michigan Weeks History and Education Day the Novi Historical Commission would present Lee Murdock in concert at the Middle School Auditorium at Eleven Mile and Wixom Road at 7:30 PM on May 23^rd. This is a free community concert and there will be door prizes. The songs Mr. Murdock writes and performs are based on historical research. They were looking forward to sponsoring another concert this August.

David Ruyle, 40474 Mill Road Ct. E., said the Brightmoor Christian Church saluted the Armed Forces of the United States every Memorial Day weekend, which would be done again this Sunday at their morning services. He invited the Council, citizens of Novi, Farmington Hills, Farmington and Walled Lake to attend. Services will be at 9 AM and 10:45 AM. The church is located on the northwest corner of 13 Mile and M-5.

Ginger Barrons, 24777 Glenda, commented on the new construction at Salows Walnut Hills. It was her property and was on the agenda for discussion. If she was still present when this item came up she would be happy to answer any questions and asked Mayor Clark to reserve a couple of minutes for her comments. Mayor Clark said he would.

Member Capello removed Item B and Mayor Pro Tem Bononi removed Item D.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1.Regular Meeting of May 6, 2002

C Award bid for Kawasaki Mule to Industrial Vehicle Sales, the low bidder, in the amount of $6,495.

E. Award bid for Wide Format Copier extended by Gwyer Reprographics through Oakland County Purchasing Agreement, in the amount of $ 34,995.

F. Approval to submit 2002 Application for SMART Municipal Credit Fund.

G. Approval of Traffic Control Orders 02-10 and 02-11 for installation of traffic control signage in the Royal Crown Subdivision.

H. Approval of Conservation Easement for Weston Court Estates SP 01-28

I. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No.622

Scott Edwards, attorney representing the applicant, was present with Paul Glantz and Carl Slemer, the people behind the project. There were also a number of Novi residents who were investors in the project present. Mr. Edwards said this project was new and unique to the area. It would be an 18 screen movie theatre. The operators had done this successfully in Birch Run with Cinema Hollywood and had been licensed there since 1998. The Fox Theatre downtown and the Birch Run complex are similar. He knew Council’s concern about alcohol management at the location. Mr. Edwards said they have a system that when someone buys an alcoholic beverage, at a separate

counter, they are given a wristband that glows in the dark so the ushers can see it. The alcoholic beverages are served in a clear cup so it can be easily identified and identification would be needed to buy it. During the four years they had been operating they have not had a single liquor violation and the system had worked very well. People from Birch Run would do the training for this project. They would like to open in August.

Member Csordas said if traveling to the northwest, Oregon and Washington State, this is very common and very successful. The alcoholic containers are clear and the soft drink containers are plastic. They also have wristbands out there. Member Csordas said the Police and Fire Departments approved this and clearly this met the first three of four criteria for a license. Item D would not apply because they have not been in the community. There are a number of local partners involved in this and he knew one of them and if everyone else involved was like Chris King it would be a welcome addition to the community.

Member Lorenzo thought a movie theatre didn’t need to serve alcohol to be enjoyable and she would not support the motion. Liquor Licenses are limited and it was her opinion they should be saved for a more appropriate venture such as restaurants, etc. She felt the situation was not foolproof and that there was too much room for error in terms of alcohol being served to minors.

Member DeRoche asked if the motion was subject to the final building inspection and was told it was.

Member Landry commented he would support the motion. He was impressed with the letters of recommendation included in the packet. In particular, the letter from County Commissioner Cheryl Hadsall, Saginaw County, who stated the petitioner, had "diligently upheld the liquor law requirements in his establishment." This is a very extensive commitment and investment in the community, they are committed and had done this successfully in the past and are worthy of receiving an opportunity. He also knew one of the investors and knew him to be a fine gentleman.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi commented this is a 73,000 sq. ft. facility with a maximum of 3,809 persons. She asked Mr. Glanz to define the live entertainment. Mr. Glanz said they had been very successful in showing alternate content in their theatres. In addition to showing first run movies they have enjoyed great success showing sporting events. For example, tonight in Birch Run the Red Wings game would be shown on a 30 ft. screen. Mr. Slemer commented they had also featured local musicians and have tried comedy acts to add variety to what is available in the community. They wouldn’t

necessarily employ it but if the community thought they would enjoy it it could be made available.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi questioned the Sunday sales permit for hours between 8 AM and noon? Mr. Glanz said for a licensed premise they had to have a special permit to be open anytime before noon on Sunday. Alcohol could not be served but this would allow movies to be shown and pop and popcorn to be purchased. She asked what alcoholic drinks would be sold? Mr. Glanz said they would sell beer, wine and desert type drinks such as strawberry daiquiris. She asked if they would sell scotch, Irish whiskey and cordials and he said yes. She said anything? He answered yes. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked what the menu was? Mr. Glanz said in addition to the traditional movie fare they would have deep dish pizza, bratwurst and nachos with meat. They would start with a limited menu and as they grew into the business and realized success in operating it then they would grow the menu. She asked what the cost of a drink would be? Mr. Glanz said a small beer would be $4.00 and a hard alcohol drink would be $4.50. She asked him to describe their reference to selling art, music and videos on their premises? Mr. Slemer said it would be for movie related items such as CD’s and posters. She asked about pay-per-view events. He said a pay-per-view could be a boxing match or a monthly wrestling event.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she was very concerned about the lack of substantial food on the menu being offered considering the alcoholic beverages they are proposing to serve. She thought that was backwards and it should be more food and less alcohol to start out. Mr. Glanz reminded her it was a movie theatre and customers would not be sitting at barstools or tables drinking; they would buy their drink and go in to see the movie. It would be an hour and a half before they came back for another drink if they stick around for another drink. Mr. Glanz said 95% of their patrons purchase one drink and leave and they, in fact, have a two-drink maximum for a movie event. She understood but felt if it was a full service menu she would feel differently. She was concerned about serving alcohol on the premises with minors and the influence it would have on them. She felt it was a bad combination. She had been to Birch Run many times and appreciated all that area had to offer but this is Novi and a substantially different type of setting. She would not support the motion.

Member Capello was concerned that the ordinance was outdated and thought it was too vague allowing quota license to establishments they didn’t want to get a free license. He was concerned with subsection B. However, he believed that a quota license should be used to entice a new business they really wanted into the community. He thought their compliance with subsections A, B and C was high enough and well in

excess of what they were looking for as they were bringing in a unique business establishment. He had some of the same concerns as Mayor Pro Tem Bononi.

Originally, the theatre was supposed to have a private club on top and was going to be a large restaurant bar, which would have brought patrons in long before the show and would keep them there after. There would be a lot more drinking going on. However, this business would have no bar area and alcohol would be purchased at a concession stand the same way it’s done at the Fisher Theatre or Masonic Temple. He felt that would minimize the alcohol consumed on the premises. A good theatre was needed in Novi and he would support the motion. He asked Mr. Fisher if for any reason the

theatre didn’t make it was there a restriction Council could put on to require them to keep the license for five years without a transfer or it reverts to the City.

Mr. Fisher said there is another community in the area that has attempted to address that issue but he was not sure they had addressed it in a way that he could support but that issue is arising and it is conceivable. The typical concern of Council was a situation where someone tries to make a go of it and fails and another where someone intends to make a buck by securing a free license and then selling it. The latter had been addressed in some communities.

Member Capello said his concern was both but he would rather have the license come back to the benefit of the City. Mr. Fisher said he would look at it and Member Capello noted he would like to bring it back on an agenda to tighten it up a little.

Mayor Clark said he had concerns as well but would support the motion. He thought overall it would be a benefit to the community and he was impressed by their track record, the support shown for the facility they have in operation, the letters of support from community leaders and the fact that they are a good corporate citizen. Mayor Clark noted they also have annually supported a high school scholarship fund and that exclusive of land and site work the total project cost would be approximately $11,400,000, a substantial commitment to the community.

Mayor Pro tem Bononi asked the applicant to describe the arcade games by name. The applicant said there’s a juke box, three Golden Tee Golf games, kiddie rides for the

smaller children and a couple of sit down driving games. They would be family entertainment games and there would be no fighting games, darts or pool tables.

Member Lorenzo asked if there was any purposeful difference between a 24 and 30-inch curb? Ms. McClain commented the only difference was six more inches in the gutter pan. Member Lorenzo asked if it meant less water would be able to get inside to the storm drains? Ms. McClain said no it would still flow the same way. Usually the 30-inch curb was used for a concrete roadway and the 24-inch when using "bit".

Mr. Gershenson, owner of West Oaks, was present along with Mark Wibel, half owner of the Carrabbas Italian Grill Restaurants. Mr. Gershenson said over the last several years ownership at the shopping center has taken the opportunity to begin to change the face of the shopping center and the tenancies of it for the better. He had eaten at the applicant’s restaurant in Tennessee and was so impressed he thought they should come to Michigan.

Mr. Wibel said his company, Wibel Restaurant Group, had entered into a joint venture with Outback Steakhouse to develop Carrabbas Italian Grills in particular locations in Michigan. He developed the 18 Outback Steakhouses in Michigan over a period of nine years. In 1995 the owners of the company met Johnny and Damien Carrabbas in

Houston, bought their concept and expanded it throughout the country. There are 700 Outbacks and 100 Carrabbas Italian Grills throughout the country. Carrabbas comes

from a background of 100-year-old recipes from a family in the northern part of Italy. Mr. Wibel said they are very family oriented and open for dinner only. They would

require a liquor, beer and wine license, which they would request from Council at a later date. The menu price range would be from $8.00 for pizzas to $17.99 for fresh salmon with lemon caper butter sauce on top. They have lasagna and spaghetti but also specialize in the grilled specialties that people don’t realize are native to northern Italy. They received Planning Commission approval a month and a half a go and they have received some ZBA approvals for setback requirements. Mr. Gershenson explained that the landscape areas were increased by about 43% and there would be better circulation around and into the site. Also, Carrabbas would offer a predominately brick building with two covered patios with landscaping concept above the patios and on the roof. There would be stone incorporating the boxes in which the planters and

landscaping would be held. It is the best of all worlds with an upgraded aesthetic package both interior and exterior, additional landscaping and a unique restaurant whose first location in southeastern Michigan is in Novi.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Ms. McClain if the grease trap system was satisfactory to her and whether or not a regular maintenance plan would be submitted. Ms. McClain had looked at it in a preliminary manner as they had not received the final plans and at this time it met City requirements. It would also be looked at by the Building Department.

Member Lorenzo would support the motion subject to agreements made by the City and developer and subject to the conditions and recommendations of the staff and consultants.

Member Capello asked since this is the RCC District and it comes to Council for approval does the waiver of the rear parking setbacks come with the approval or is that a Planning Commission decision?

Mr. Evancoe said with the approval of the site plan Council would be granting the waiver. However, Council could flush that out and bring to the forefront the actual granting of the waiver. Member Capello said it is Council’s responsibility to grant or deny the waiver. Mr. Evancoe said yes, it was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Member Lorenzo, as maker of the motion, said she would include the waiver.

City of Novi residents – 2nd Reading & Adoption.

To approve Storm Water Management Ordinance - An ordinance to

and general welfare of the City of Novi residents – 2nd Reading &

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she was privileged to be a part of the composition of this ordinance and that it was a whole group of people who worked well together to bring the

ordinance forward. She thanked Mr. Fisher, the members of the Storm Water Management Stewardship Committee and in house staff. It was a pleasure to be able to say that once again Novi would be a leader in storm water management both from the standpoint of quantity and quality. Novi was the first municipality in Oakland County to adopt such an ordinance and it was her pleasure to support it.

Member Capello commented a lot of work was put into this ordinance and it was well overdue in Novi. He asked if the Drain Commission had looked at this? Mr. Fisher didn’t think so. Member Capello said there had been a question as to whether to continue with the existing Regional Storm Water Master Plan and whether or not to continue to construct regional basins or do away with them. He thought decisions regarding regional basins needed to be made first. They are looking at cleaning out some of the basins, the cost of maintenance and whether they were all going to be on the site. Also, where that burden of maintaining them would fall needed to be looked at carefully and what the costs would be. Some of the subdivisions are coming to Council now needing their basins cleaned out and he felt it was the subdivision/condominium associations responsibility to clean those basins. He thought the citizens were looking to the City to do it since they normally carry water from other subdivisions and developments through those condominium/subdivision and then on to other developments. To put that burden onto an individual association seemed unfair. If we are going to do away with the regional basins there would be a lot more basins to maintain than if we just utilized a regional basin. It might create three or four times as many basins as

there would have been under the regional basin. The problem he saw was that money has to come from somewhere. A maintenance fee is collected from the developer at the time of the development for regional basins and that money went into a maintenance fund for the future. If the ordinance was adopted and regional basins were done away with then there needed to be another way to implement and collect a maintenance fee from somebody. Member Capello wanted to postpone this issue so administration could report back with some cost factors.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated this regulation did not prohibit regional basins. Regional basins are being considered right now in Farmington Hills and Wayne County. However, whether or not Council proposed to continue with regional basins is a Council policy matter and it would be addressed when the update study was done for the Storm Water Master Plan. Regarding what regional basins do, they control flooding and resolve volume issues but they do absolutely nothing about water quality. We have traditionally charged folks fees to put water in the basin and we have a dedicated Storm Water Millage that helps pay for their maintenance. If talking about who pays for on site volume and water quality treatment the person who proposes the development is required to build an on site basin. By holding the water on site it would be purified before it left the site. Maintaining on site basins didn’t have to be a costly nor burdensome condition. Maintaining a regional basin can be extremely costly. It cost over a million dollars to do a dredging of Meadowbrook Lake for probably a couple of reasons. Sometimes circumstances with regard to development proposals and unregulated soil erosion and sedimentation problems can cause a regional basin to become plugged and particularly one built so many years ago where there is no clean out. It does become a real and expensive problem. However, it doesn’t mean that it is not equally or prohibitively expensive because in the case of Meadowbrook Lake we can’t afford to do it and it needs to be done. There are also other regional

basins coming on line with regard to the 15 to 20 year minimum where they have to be cleaned out. We don’t have enough money in our dedicated fund to pay for those dredgings so to look at a combination, when needed, of on site detention and when absolutely required regional basins is absolutely included in the language of this ordinance. The City is not responsible for the maintenance of on site basins. If there are on site basins in the development people are made aware that they are their responsibility at property closings.

There is a program within the administration now that Ms. Uglow is looking at from the standpoint of informing citizens of their responsibilities, duties and yearly inspections. When sedimentation has to be removed from an on site pond it is not a major operation because we now have clean outs that could be used to do that more efficiently. She understood the concerns but didn’t think they were valid with regard to what this ordinance would do.

Member DeRoche asked Ms. McClain what the water quality was in Novi? Ms. McClain said it was good but could be better and this was a way to move towards better water. She had been at a conference this past weekend of engineers and told them that Novi was doing this and they were very pleased about it. Member DeRoche said what was good for engineers and what they liked to hear in the trade might be different than from a consumer level and the impact this would have. His concern was there wasn’t a study of what the storm water quality was and no goal of where Council wanted it to be. This

would be a major policy change for the better but he wanted clear direction because a lot of money could be spent and a lot of work on the staff and still not get anywhere if there was no clear direction. He asked if more staff would be needed to do yearly inspections? Mr. Helwig said it was not an issue with this ordinance. He asked when the policy changed to go toward a regional basin? Dave Maurice thought it occurred in 1983. Member DeRoche asked how far along until regional detention basins are in place as far as the percentage of the build out of the City? Mr. Maurice responded he would have to look at it a little closer to give a number. The DEQ’s trend is away from regional detention.

Member DeRoche said his concern was how far along they were from a policy implemented in 1983 and how much of that was reversible. He also wanted to know how much had been invested in the philosophy of 1983 to present and how much of that was redundant or would not be used. Mr. Maurice thought they would end up with a combination of regional detention and on site detention for certain projects. Member DeRoche thought this was a significant philosophical change and storm water systems were not free so he was interested in the financial ramifications of this ordinance and/or policy shift. Mr. Maurice thought this was a good opportunity to look at prior philosophy, what the DEQ wants now, the trend of the way things are going and where we are going in the future.

Member Csordas asked if 100-year retention sites would be required on new projects and what the State required? Mr. Fisher said they would be required. The State doesn’t review these plans but Oakland County currently has a 10-year storm and are contemplating the adoption of a 100-year storm. Member Csordas said it was his recollection that a 100-year site was not ten times larger than a 10-year site. Mr. Fisher said correct; it is approximately twice the size. Member Csordas asked if he saw any potential litigation from a developer regarding this requirement. Mr. Fisher could not say it would not happen but there were many communities around Oakland County that have had a 100-year storm for years. He asked if the property values in those communities continued to rise. Mr. Fisher said they did.

Member Csordas said all of that goes off the tax rolls, correct? Mr. Fisher said in some circumstances that might happen but in reality what happened was each unit in the development would have its own property value and that value would essentially and

indirectly pay the value of the retention basin. Member Csordas asked if that would be disclosed on a sales agreement. Mr. Fisher said it would be disclosed in the sense that each unit would be allocated a certain percentage of the total value of the project and they would be taxed accordingly. Mr. Fisher didn’t think there would be any reduction in any realistic or material sense at all. He noted there is a trend with regard to permit requirements that the City would have to conform to and this ordinance would be a step in providing the standards and regulatory framework that would ultimately be mandatory in the future.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said there was a question about how we know how we are doing regarding water quality she wanted to answer. Being covered under a certificate of coverage for the storm water permit she believed that a SEMCOG evaluation of communities some time ago reflected just where we all are regarding water quality. It is a common rule of thumb that when impervious surfaces, anything where water cannot

be absorbed, in any community exceeded 10% water degradation was absolutely on the rise and ours is way beyond that. There is no question there has to be concern about water quality. She gave examples of how this regulation was working in other communities. She said Canton is under such a regulation and everyone in Wayne and Washtenaw Counties are under such a regulation and this is all operating smoothly. There are no greater problems with this regulation than there are with other regulations. Since we are going into phase two of our Storm Water Permit and are also a regulated community under the phase two map released by SEMCOG last week this would go a along way toward meeting our water quality requirements for that as well.

Member Landry believed this was the type of ordinance that needed to be passed in Novi. This is the direction municipalities are going in and the time to do this is now while the properties are being developed. He thought it was an excellent ordinance and he would support it.

Mayor Clark stated he would support it. He appreciated the concerns expressed but the ordinance would not preclude addressing those in the future. He agreed it should be adopted now as it would get us back on track and make us a leader once again in storm water management.

Member Capello pointed out page 19, subsection C-2, which required the maintenance agreement to be binding on subsequent owners of land. His concern was still passing the burden of maintenance onto citizens in the future. He suggested wording that rather than just a maintenance agreement to be recorded that it be required to be part of the deed restrictions or master deed and by-laws so that it was clear. Also, if in fact, the City went back to try to enforce this we would not enforce it against individual property owners but enforce it against the associations who have the ability to special access their members to raise the money. Otherwise, he thought they would have to go after each individual property owner who is subject to these restrictions. If we are going to try to pass this onto citizens, looking at the budget, he thought they were kind of hard pressed to ask them to pay more money for something they thought should be a City service to begin with. He didn’t see the need for regional basins if it was going to be required of every individual site to withhold for a 100 year storm; then the money going into the Regional Basin Maintenance Fund would no longer be there. We would have to reimburse the money that’s currently in that fund for every development that was

created where we are not going to have a regional basin. He suggested putting language in that would require the developer or builder to retain from closing the monies we would have gotten anyway and have that money go from the new homeowner to the new maintenance fund.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said that was usually handled in the language in the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions that set up the homeowners association referring to the fact that the homeowners association was responsible for maintaining common property. The homeowners residing in those subdivision have an undivided percentage responsibility to do just that. She didn’t see where that would be a problem.

Mr. Fisher pointed out that in addition to the ordinance there is an appendix, page 36, that referred to putting provisions in the deed restriction or condominium documents as is appropriate.

Landry

George Krieger, Novi resident, referred Council to library needs, short-term goal #10 adopted by City Council Resolution December 18, 2002. He was aware of two initiatives taken by Council in this regard. First, a ballot proposal for additional millage in November 2001 and secondly a proposal to cablecast Library Board meetings, January 2002. The people rejected both and those appointed to represent the people. He wanted to offer Council a third initiative. He said Council should request that the City attorney convene legal experts to review all applicable laws, rules and conventions governing the conduct of business at Library Board meetings, committees and the public service sector. Also identify violations and irregularities and publish findings and determine remedial actions including possible transfer of governing body. It was his opinion that the Novi Library needed a democratic governing body, which is inclusive and open to all citizens. The Board President, Vice President and Library Director are not open and inclusive, they suppress debate and correspondence and their motives lack integrity. The bottom line is community deception and more taxes. Mr. Krieger said he attached nine pages to the record and promised new evidence to support his claim at the next Council meeting.

Jorg Linke, 25896 Clark Street, President of Novi Heights Subdivision, was present to ask Council to look ahead to when the CSX Bridge came down and the possibility of a temporary traffic light at Eleven and Taft Roads to allow subdivision traffic to come out by the time there is a detour at Grand River. Also, ask for signage to make it much clearer that there would be no through traffic to Novi Road except for Taft Road. He asked for Council and administration support in looking into this.

Scott Hallaron, 30361 Balfour, said in 1999 he purchased a lot from S.R. Jacobson the developer of the property and was told by Sales Manager, Ray Fox, there would be a 350 foot buffer between their house and the buildings being proposed behind their house. They have removed 30 to 40 foot of trees and more are to be removed. Wetlands and specimen trees have been removed as well. He understood there would be a berm put behind his house,

which would remove the final 50-foot of trees. He asked Council to reconsider and look again at the woodlands behind his house and what this was doing to the City and his subdivision. Mayor Clark asked Mr. Helwig to look into this and report back at the next meeting.

Paul Sherbeck, Simmons Orchards Subdivision, said there was very little information regarding the budget on the City website other than vague references. He said nothing was available and thought the public hearing was a sham. September 11th worsened an already declining economy and the lows at the State level have been front-page news and he wanted

to know what the Council’s plan was to deal with the declining dollars that would come in now and in the future. He asked what Council’s political will was to determine the legitimate function of government and how they would lessen the burden on the taxpayers?

7. Approval to solicit formal sealed bids from qualified service providers to

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was glad to see that the money would get into the hands of the residents who really need it. Regarding the administrator that is chosen would there be any type of performance bond or guarantee of their performance?

Mr. Klaver said an RFP would be prepared and he would talk with Mr. Fisher to see if it could be added. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi commented she would really be looking at that from the standpoint of efficient use of the money and as an encouragement to anyone who would be interested in achieving this position that Council was very serious about measuring performance.

Member Landry thought this was an excellent idea and the applications had gone from 5 to 42, which spoke volumes about how the City had gotten the word out in the community. This is a great idea and the money should be spend on residents of low and moderate income to assist them in their construction projects. Mr. Klaver said Marina Neumaier, City Controller, is very involved with this program and provided a lot of support and was the first to bring it to their attention.

Member Capello had the same concerns as Mayor Pro Tem Bononi. He said to go a step further, in his experience the contractors that would come to us to do these small projects are going to be contractors that might not be big enough to be able to afford payment of performance bonds. On these small jobs, given the tight economy, he had seen the smaller guys struggling and when they struggle the money gets tight and when the money gets tight it gets diverted elsewhere other than to the project where it should go. Mr. Klaver responded that one of the advantages of bringing a service provider in was that many of these companies are doing similar services for other communities and tend to develop a pool of contractors they had worked with before, that have a proven track record and are focused on smaller projects.

Mr. Capello said the Southeastern Michigan Builders Association does have an actual remodelers council and that might be a pool to draw from.

Member Lorenzo said, for clarification, this is a complete pass through from what had been increased through the Detroit Water and Sewer. She asked if they were charging any more in order to facilitate any improvements to the system? Ms. Smith-Roy said the increase in the rates range from 10% to the 14.6% that was passed through to us. No rates are higher than that. The reason for the slight difference was that a portion of the flat bill went for fixed costs and the remainder went towards the calculation of the 1,000 gallons that are used.

Member Capello asked what the mark up was on the water and sewer charges from Detroit and what we charge? Ms. Smith-Roy said the first $10.00 of every flat charge goes for fixed costs and debt service. So the percentage is different based on the user because the rates vary depending on the size of the pipe that goes to their home or business. As an example she said a resident who uses $350 worth of water today their rate would go up to approximately $390. She would have to get back to Council on how much money Novi was making on reselling the water from Detroit to the residents. He asked if fixed costs and debt service should be paid with tap fees? Ms. Smith-Roy said the tap fees were used to pay a portion of the debt service but didn’t cover it all. It did cover a portion of the construction that is going on that they didn’t go into debt service for.

Member Csordas knew this was a strict pass through and the City didn’t mark up what the price increase was. Nobody liked to pay more for goods or services but it’s just a fact of life and the aging water system, which is supplied from Detroit, is going to require significant upgrades. He assumed that a residential meter size is 5/8^th of an inch and Ms. Smith-Roy said it was one inch. He said you get the first 15,000 gallons for $47.00, which is less than one cent per gallon. It is an increase, it is a pass through and it is a considerable value.

Member Csordas referred to Special Revenue Funds. He didn’t understand where the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Fund was and asked if it meant they were no longer requesting two woodland persons? Mr. Helwig said what they had done was where five members of Council had provided direction on a topic or where a motion was made and fewer than five voted to go in that direction they had followed that. On the woodlands matter there was a motion to add one staff person which garnered three yes votes, which was short of five. Then there was a motion to add two staff persons and that garnered four votes so that was short of the five so based on those motions they moved that money into the consultant line item where they are setting up for the way its been done for a number of years to continue with consultants.

Member Capello asked if there was enough money in the consulting line item to hire an employee? Mr. Helwig said the performa in the appendix showed $30,000 for consultant line item and that had been moved back into the budget to support

consultants. The consultant rather than the City would get the $92,000 of fees that if we added staff would come to the City but with a consultant would go to the consultant. It is the $92,000 and the $30,000 that enables a consultant to get the job done.

Member Capello said a consultant would cost $122,000? Mr. Helwig said yes. He asked how much it would cost for employees? Mr. Helwig said just short of that and this had been debated and was in Council’s hands. He said they saw an economy of scale with the interaction of these disciplines with the other disciplines here and Council had spoken so that was how the revised document was set up.

Member Capello pointed out Item #4, Reduction and allocation for patrol officers and asked if that money was still in the Contingency Fund in the event they didn’t get the grant? Ms. Smith-Roy said no, they had put in the Contingency the amount for the grant and would have to go to the Fund Balance to provide the full amount. A budget amendment would be done from Fund Balance to hire the three officers.

Member Capello said if we are going to spend the same amount of money for a woodlands landscape person he preferred to have the person in house as it would enhance accountability.

Mr. Helwig said the budget resolution had been established to embody everything in Ms. Smith-Roy’s memo so that memo would not need to be referred to. If Council moved to adopt a budget resolution all these actions would be reflected in the budget resolution.

Member Lorenzo objected to changing the budget now. Council spent three meetings deciding these issues and if re-deciding on this issue why not re-decide on every other issue. She thought everyone should respect the process; it was a long and arduous process and had a lot of integrity. Everyone had an issue they were not pleased with but she thought they should accept the outcome of the votes. It lacks integrity of the process to change it at the eleventh hour; those decisions were made during the budget meetings and were made consciously and thoughtfully. If the motion stood she would not support the budget. She was disturbed and disappointed with the budget as it was presented. When reading the fine print zero dollars would have been saved and everything would have been spent and there are a lot of issues in this budget that Council doesn’t know how much money would be needed. For example, $630,000 was budgeted for insurance and the actual cost of insurance would not be known until June or July and there might be higher deductibles so when a case is settled it won’t be just the money sought but a deductible as well. For two years $650,000 had been spent on legal services and this budget allows only $400,000. Obviously, Sandstone is still out there and other legal matters that come every day. When looking at the Judgment Trust Fund which was budgeted to add almost $1 million but the fine print said almost all of those dollars had already been spent on Sandstone or other pending litigation that

could exceed the budgeted amount. Fortunately, Council did come up with almost $400,000 in budget reductions; however, another $300,000 or more might still be needed to get through this fiscal year. She would have supported the original budget motion. The Fund Balance is at 10% now and if it went lower the companies that looked at Novi in terms of our bond rating start looking in terms of bond rating reductions and the Budget Director has a tough time, especially the first quarter, balancing and obtaining cash flow.

Member Lorenzo addressed the Library budget. In January she requested that the Library Board consider cable casting their meetings. At their last meeting they decided not to cablecast and she was very disappointed and troubled with that decision. What it showed her was that the board didn’t have the inclination or courage to serve the public in a more open, inclusive and accessible manner. This is important because the Library Board has a lot of responsibility and authority. They control and balance their own budget and they also have a desire to have a progressive state of the art library. If the taxpayers agree to that it would be the Library Board that would oversee, implement and operate the construction. For these reasons they should serve in a more open, inclusive and accessible manner because they are doing the peoples business. She felt that whenever the Library Board came before Council to place a future library millage on the ballot, for the aforementioned reasons, she would not be able to support them.

Mayor Clark said Council was mandated by State Law to adopt a budget tonight. Member Lorenzo is correct there are a number of contingencies that are unknowns but Council does have the ability to make budget amendments. Mayor Clark urged the maker of the motion to reconsider his motion to take out that additional provision and address it in June or July when the unknowns are known.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi noted she gave Mr. Helwig a lot of credit for this particular change. However, she thought it was wise to set the money aside to be used in an interim professional advice position. She was never convinced that the situation with

regard to the two technically oriented positions were what they needed to move forward. She thought this was a gracious and consensus oriented thing to do from the standpoint of stepping back and looking at this to see how it would work. If proved in the long run that this is what was needed it would not prove as a detriment to what they are planning to do because they would purchase the advice they needed. She believed that needed to be on the professional side rather than the technical side but she didn’t know what would be gained by doing otherwise at this time. She often found herself in agreement with Member Lorenzo’s point of view but did not agree with her comments regarding the Library Board. They are a dedicated group of volunteers trying to do what they are charged with and she didn’t believe putting a board or commission meeting on TV was some sort of litmus test with regard to their devotion to what they do. To infer that only if they are on TV are they proposing to be open about what they do just didn’t hold true with her.

Member Csordas asked if the cost was the same to bring two people in or put it in as a consulting line item? Mr. Helwig said yes, the woodland landscape architect and the woodland technician could be funded for the same amount of money and that was still their recommendation. It would be more difficult and probably more costly if they went

for a combination of one person and a consultant. If given the choice they would rather not fall in that middle ground they would prefer to have the two positions and show that they could do the type of job Council expected. In lieu of that they would rather continue with what they have had because the combination would add cost and coordination issues and they have their hands full with that now. Member Csordas remembered his vote during the budget process was in support because Mr. Helwig said it would be the same cost to the taxpayers to have two people in house. He would support the motion.

Member DeRoche said he agreed with Mayor Clark’s idea to continue the line item at $122,000 and the consultants as presented tonight and potentially address this as an

individual issue over the next couple of months. He asked that the motion be amended to propose the adoption of the budget as is but within the next month or two at most see what funds were actually available and address the item at that time with a budget amendment. If a friendly amendment was not accepted he would make a motion to amend.

Member Capello asked if there was a place to put the money without designating it in-house or consultant?

Member DeRoche said in pursuing this it would not upset the operations of the City or commit to the long-term responsibilities such as health care, pensions, etc. and allowed Council more time for consideration without having any money looming over their heads. He wanted to evaluate it as an individual issue since the dollars are more or less the same. This issue has not been resolved.

Member Capello thought this would take a lot of effort and administration’s time to go out there and get a consultant on board and then in six months disrupt that system to begin a hiring process to replace the consultants. Waiting six weeks or six months makes less sense than making that decision now. Member DeRoche said there would be an orderly transition. He was asking for time for Council to make an adequate decision on this.

Member Landry asked if that item could be allocated towards woodlands and wetlands without designating whether it was an employee or consultant? Ms. Smith-Roy said since the funds are equivalent it would be fairly easy to do a first quarter budget amendment. However, an important issue is there currently is no consultant in place and this is our busiest season. He said there was not a line item where this could be put without doing a budget amendment in the future to change it from a consultant to an employee? Ms. Smith-Roy said no because revenue would come into the General Fund and there would be expenses relating to personal services in some departments so there isn’t a way to do that logistically. The consultant line item comes out of a different section of the budget. Member Landry said everything has been brought in house except for the wetlands and he thought it was time to bring it all in house and spend the money wisely.

Member DeRoche said if in the busy season now it was even more reason. If a consultant could be called they could be here tomorrow but to hire employees it would

take advertising, accepting resumes, interviewing, second interviews and notice to their current employers and it would take weeks.

Member Landry thought the budget was presented in an organized fashion, it was debated, discussed and voted on and of all the issues this one generated the most

discord. He was not offended that this issue was raised again tonight after giving it some additional thought, he was in favor of bringing this in house and he supported

the idea. He suggested removing that caveat and just deal with the budget as proposed and within 30 days he would raise this question again himself. He was not in favor of waiting six months.

Member Csordas amended his motion to approve the 2002-2003 budget as amended.

Easements – Totals $29,040 Acquisitions – Totals $40,900

CEW Novi-Tipke, LLC Mansfield

Harry and Mary Watson Novi Ace LLC

L. V. Pheil Barnes

P. O. P. Associates

Russell G and Carol J. Gardner

Guardian Equipment Co.

LVP Ltd.

Garrett-Burgess, Inc.

Lacerne Dixon, Inc.

Lacerne Dixon Revocable Living Trust

Albert J. Dompierre

Bell Realty Co.

Woodland Parkside Properties

46153 Grand River Investors, LLC

Novi Intermediary, LLC

Mary Catherine Johnson

Mr. Fisher said there were a number of sub-items and essentially there were three good faith offer approvals for these three items, acquisitions in connection with the Grand River Project, the Mansfield, Novi Ace and Barnes. There are 16 out of a total of 60 grading permits that would be needed that are before Council tonight and the grading permits total $29,040 and the acquisitions total $40,900. Two appraisers were involved in each acquisition per MDOT standards. On the Mansfield situation he said they did have an option agreement they would now be able to enter into and he would present it at another meeting. It was slightly higher than this and he sought approval to move forward on these items.

Member Lorenzo questioned a statement at the bottom of the page stating, "The City of Novi was participating by paying the balance of $4.250 million from the 2000 Road Bond" and asked if this $40,900 came out of that or was it on top of that. She was informed it was included. It included engineering, land acquisitions and construction. Member Lorenzo objected to the county not paying for it since it is their road.

Mayor Clark noted this had been discussed and interviews would be held on June 10^th. In the interim Sarah Gray would act in a permanent capacity.

Mayor Clark suggested placing this on the agenda for the second meeting in July. Mr. Helwig said they were thinking of bringing this back June 17^th. Council has had a draft for a few weeks, staff met last week, Mr. Fisher has made alterations and that information would go to Council this Thursday. Member Capello commented he would not be present June 17^th. Mr. Fisher said there was another step that Mr. Evancoe was going through with Mr. Arroyo to review it further. Mr. Helwig said it would be ready by July.

Member Lorenzo thought June should be left open and the Planning Commission should be asked if they have a date in mind. Council was, tentatively, supposed to meet with them in

May. She suggested they be contacted for a date good for them in June. Mayor Clark suggested scheduling this item for the second week in July. Member Capello asked if it would be possible to meet with the Planning Commission during one of their regularly scheduled meetings? Mr. Evancoe said the agenda was quite heavy and they were projecting very heavy agendas through July at least. They did indicate they would like to meet with Council but decided to wait until the budget was done and then set up a special meeting with Council in June. Mayor Clark said no vote was needed but he wanted to be sure it got on the agenda.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi commented she had thought a lot not only about this ordinance but what seemed to be going on but wasn’t going on in regard to the Grand River corridor from Main Street up to and including the area that she understood would be included in this ordinance. Her concern was that circumstances were changing and she believed they had to look into how circumstances were changing and how the ordinance was reflecting or not reflecting that change. Example, a key store in Main Street is vacant and she was concerned about what that would mean in the long run. Looking at the area that would comprise the Gateway area she was wondering whether the Gateway Ordinance was going to determine their last chance of having a real Main Street here. Most think of Grand River as the main drag

but from the standpoint of what is likely to culminate as a result of what does or doesn’t occur at the existing Main Street and then what would happen as a result of the Gateway Ordinance. She and Member Landry had shared concerns about how they saw this ordinance doing what they wanted it to do. If we want to do special districts then we ought to be getting something back for the special allowances that the development community would be given in order to bring in quality developments. She didn’t see in this ordinance how quality was defined and didn’t see a standard that was higher or a built in measurement to measure quality. Also, she didn’t understand how this ordinance was providing transition and transition to what? What’s there now? Designating the most valuable piece of consumer real estate that we have left to Multi Family housing units? Just look at the whole picture and see if it makes sense.

Member Landry said there was a lot of concern in the community about the Gateway Ordinance and why it wasn’t coming forth quicker and what was the big deal with it. It is a big deal and it might be the last chance to enhance Main Street and to see it completed in connection with Grand River to truly have a gateway to the City. If our intent is to encourage development he thought realistically it would only be the south side of Grand River and he thought the intersection of Meadowbrook Road and Grand River should be included. The north side was almost all built out. When last discussing this a PUD Option was brought up and apparently now this was a reworked version of the same old ordinance which he would not be pleased about. This is an important task and everyone is anxious to have it passed and it was not their intent to delay it but we have heard people say they didn’t want the same thing to happen that happened to Main Street whether it was too much restriction on the building so that the developer was not able to market the area and maybe we need to be concerned about that. Maybe we need to give the developer the tools to develop the property but let’s not give lip service to quality. If that’s what we want let’s make sure it is quality we get. He thought this item would take more than one session to really get a quality ordinance.

Mr. Fisher reported that this ordinance did have a major PUD component to it and provided for a significant flexibility and creativity.

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

Member Capello said he understood the Executive Session was to discuss Sandstone. The last time Council discussed Sandstone on the record they presented an offer to Sandstone, which he believed was the final offer. The offer wasn’t made to negotiate again and again and apparently that was what they are attempting to do. The offer’s on the table and they have to either accept it or reject it. He didn’t want to discuss it any further. Mayor Clark said that was not the purpose of it, and it would be a short meeting. Member Capello said if they are discussing Sandstone he didn’t want to have any meeting. If there is other litigation to discuss that’s fine. Mayor Clark said they needed to have a short meeting following this meeting.

Member Lorenzo said she had planned to raise other issues regarding matters that Mr. Fisher asked for a meeting on. She didn’t foresee a long meeting. The issue was put

on the table to "discuss pending litigation" in a broad sense so Council would not be limited to just one item.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if there was an ordinance that forbids graffiti? Mr. Fisher said it was probably covered under a general ordinance that related to defaming or defacing property. She said she resented spending $10,990 of taxpayer money to remove such a destructive piece of graffiti considering all of the obligations Council already has. Think what could be done to one of our baseball or soccer fields with that money? If we don’t have an ordinance we better get one. She suggested when this is cleaned up signage should be put in place making it clear that the City would prosecute.

Member Landry asked if a local ordinance could the City keep the money from the fines paid? Mr. Fisher said the City would get a percentage. If it is a State law and the ticket was written under State law the City wouldn’t get any of it. Member Landry asked if a local ordinance could address restitution and the cost of cleaning; could it be posted and the City could get the larger percentage of that? Mr. Fisher said yes.

Member Lorenzo commented she would reluctantly support this. The concern she had was that because it was in such an inaccessible area and we don’t have 24-hour patrol

to catch someone we are going to clean this up for $11,000 and chances are they would do it again.

Mr. Pearson was sure there was an ordinance and he would get it for Council. A year ago the graffiti wasn’t there so it wasn’t a repeat over a number of years. He said they were looking at some preventative measures to keep it from happening again. Mr. Helwig said once they know what spots are vulnerable and it’s removed, a "sheen" of material could be put on it and if spotted quickly next time it would be much easier to power wash off without going to this expense.

Member Csordas asked who could actually see this? Mr. Pearson said it could be seen from the Beck West Corporate Park where Owens Corning was located and from Magellan Drive. Mayor Clark said it was how blight in communities started. Mr. Helwig said that was his point the whole broken window syndrome and the graffiti. It started on top of the bridge last summer and was removed quickly. No one saw it this time for quite a while and if permitted to continue it would spread to another place and before long it would be in a more offensive area.

Member Capello agreed with Member Lorenzo’s comments. If there is no program in place to stop this it will be back. Before spending this $10,990 he wanted to figure out what could be done to prevent it rather than using the police to drive by. He mentioned cameras and Guardian Alarm was advertising for construction sites that they have temporary on site alarm and guard systems that included live monitoring that could be picked up on the computer.

Mayor Clark said this didn’t solve the underlying problem. To put out announcements saying we are going to get tough is wonderful but we already have one example of it and we appear to be sitting on our hands doing nothing. He had a problem with what has been proposed but felt they needed to take care of this problem.

Member Csordas asked that the motion include the application of the slick surface mention by Mr. Helwig. Mr. McCusker said it was included in the amount.

Member DeRoche asked that the motion direct the administration to come up with a plan to actively seek prevention and enforcement in the future. The friendly amendment was accepted.

Member Lorenzo asked the motion maker and seconder if they could approve this in terms of approving the low bid but hold off on having it done until after administration had the opportunity to review how it could be prevented? She didn’t want to spend the money to clean it up and then have someone deface it again.

Member Landry asked Mr. Helwig if approved tonight when would the work be done? Mr. Helwig said very soon. Mr. McCusker said they would try to complete it as quick as possible so it wouldn’t be expanded further costing more. He appreciated her concern

but thought it should be cleaned up now and get moving on procedures to prevent it in the future. He would not accept the friendly amendment.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said we are concerned about sending a message. Who are we sending this message to? Graffiti artists who are hidden? She could understand

getting the message in a timely manner if talking about easily accessed areas. She didn’t want to do this twice. Mayor Clark was concerned because once it started it didn’t stop and it was an open invitation and a message had to be sent that it would not be tolerated. We could pursue other measures including looking at security measures that might not be visible to the perpetrators and deal with them accordingly but the message had to be sent that they were not turning our community into areas that other communities had allowed to develop in that fashion. It is progressive and goes from one area to the next.

Member Capello asked if the contract could be issued with a start date, maybe 30 days, so the administration could come up with a way to deal with this. Mayor Clark said assuming the administration comes up with a plan in 30 days, and it’s cleaned there would still be no guarantee that somebody wouldn’t do it again anyway.

Mr. Helwig said there is an overriding concern that if the money is spent the investment has to be protected. Our inspectors are there everyday because of all the building going on. Let’s ask them to check on it so if it does reappear it could be cleaned off quickly with little or no expense. Then come up with a more far-reaching review of the matter for prosecution, prevention and education.

Member Landry said assuming we don’t have an ordinance it would have to go through first and second reading. We are going to be between 90 and 120 days from passing any ordinance anyway.

Member Capello asked if this could be done in house? Mr. Helwig said Mr. McCusker is getting the message that Council didn’t want to spend any more money on this.

Landry, Lorenzo

Member Csordas reminded Council that some of what they did on January 28^th needed clarity. One was whether the proposed road improvements for these two SAD’s was authorized since some of the portions of the current roadways had not been formally platted or dedicated to the City. Second, was whether the City would be increasing its potential liability or creating liability where none currently existed given that the roadways as proposed would not meet City standards. Mr. Schultz’s memo stated "some portions of the roadways are actually platted as public roadways". Then he talked about "even the unplatted areas that are currently used for roadways can be considered highway by user and thus impliedly dedicated to the City." So, in other words, if it had been used like that for ten years it is a City road anyway. He also said "in

other words if ten years pass without continuous assertion of a property owner that the road is not public the law presumes that the property owner intended to dedicate the entire four rod width of road." Mr. Shultz "believes it is a reasonable conclusion that whatever liability the City had with respect to public roadways it already has them." At the bottom of page 3, he asked for clarity on "24 feet of pavement with curb and gutter; for many areas the paved area is contemplated to be only 18 feet wide and a couple of sections one way circulation is proposed with 14 foot roadways." Member Csordas thought he was talking about these roads in the same context as above where these roads are already being used and they could be implied to be public roads anyway. Does the City maintain these? Mr. Fisher said it does and even though if we had a presumptive easement that was a little wider the problem was if we actually improved them in a wider fashion what damage it would do to private residences. The memo also said "assuming the roadways are public roadways the City’s obligation regardless of whether they currently meet City standards is to keep them in a manner that is reasonably safe and fit for public travel" and we are committed to that too.

Member Csordas said in summary his opinion is the City has the authority to undertake the proposed improvements because we have the liability there anyway. The City has exercised jurisdiction over a great majority of the roadways and arguably would not be increasing the likelihood of liability. He suggested holding a public hearing on this.

Mr. Helwig said if this met Council’s request of January 28^th what was on the agenda on February 25^th was held in abeyance pending this information. He suggested that Resolution #4 be brought back at the next meeting to set the public hearing, which would be the first meeting in July. Member Csordas would appreciate that.

Mr. Fisher said they are recommending as part of this process to get an opinion from the traffic engineer clarifying that by paving this section of the road we are either leaving it in an equal situation in terms of safety or improving it, which he thought the conclusion would be.

However, in the event the City was sued in the future for faulty design, etc. it would be nice to

have that opinion now.

Member Lorenzo said West Lake Drive comes to an extreme narrow portion, which is not passable by the Fire Department if a vehicle is in the driveway and otherwise could only be driven if they drove on the newly installed portion of the driveway. Trash haulers could not traverse this portion of the road either. She said this is a health, safety and welfare situation. People that live beyond this narrow point could no longer get their trash removed unless our DPW Department picked it up and that was unacceptable. She asked Mr. Fisher, with regard to the Consent Judgment and the information from Mr. McCusker, whether the City had authorization or jurisdiction in this matter? Mr. Fisher commented he looked into this and it is a quagmire and the worst situation he had seen in a long time. The road in question was not a platted subdivision road. It was created as a 20-foot wide private road with the homes on each side owning it to the center of the road with an easement. In 1990 a Consent Judgment was

entered, the City and homeowners on both sides were parties but the subject matter of the Consent Judgment was only ten feet on one side of the road. All the parties didn’t sign the Consent Judgment and it was never recorded. On the other half of the 20-foot easement there is a fence and a hedgerow installed and it was contemplated in the Consent Judgment. The road was never dedicated to the City but the Consent Judgment specifies, "the City would

continue to service the roadway as it does similar public roads under its jurisdiction." Then the judgment says "this shall not preclude the City of Novi from vacating the roadway at some

future date" but you can’t vacate something that you don’t own. The City doesn’t collect Act 51 money for this segment of road either so it is a very difficult situation to be figured out. It was his understanding that the people out there are not on a friendly basis with one another so it was unlikely there would be a cooperative effort to get it squared away.

Member Lorenzo asked if he was saying that the Consent Judgment was invalid? Mr. Fisher said it was not invalid; it was filed with the court and served on everybody. He didn’t know what it was and it got to be more of a quagmire the more he looked at it. If a friendly arrangement could not be worked out it would take another judicial rule.

She asked if he believed the Consent Judgment or the Highway by User gave them the jurisdiction to call it a public road? Mr. Fisher said if they could demonstrate that they had spent public money on this for ten years and it had been publicly used then yes. The question would be what part of it is public road and it would only be the part that we have spent the money on which would probably be only the ten feet. She asked if the homeowners have any rights? Mr. Fisher said they have easement rights, 20 feet wide to get in there and would have a private cause of action because this judgment had the subject matter of only the ten feet. He didn’t know what it meant. She asked if condemnation was a possibility? Mr. Fisher said yes, but it would cost money.

Member Landry asked if the City could purchase the easement from those property owners who had the 20-foot easement for $1.00, to gain access to their property and pave it. Mr. Fisher said yes but the real key to this would be the property owner who had the hedge and the fence because it is the access and the ingress and egress to the rest of it. Member Landry suggested acquiring from the homeowners the 20-foot easements and tell them for $1.00 the City would pave it. Mr. Fisher said the shortcoming would be if the property owner with the

hedge and the fence has had vegetation there for more than 15 years in which case he would probably claim adverse possession. Member Landry said if we are interested in developing this as a road it might be the best thing to approach those property owners who

have easement rights have them convey them to us, and he assumed that a judge would look at the number of property owners who would be benefited by this and interpret the Consent Judgment in their favor allowing the City to pave it. Mr. Fisher said that would be one alternative but he wanted to find out what if any rights this one person claims in that area.

Mayor Clark said he had also received a lot of calls on this. We know that people are getting their trash picked up and no one had been denied access for emergency vehicles or anything of that nature. Member Lorenzo thought the City could do what they could to further research the situation to see what the options were. Mayor Clark agreed.

Member Capello said this appeared to him to be a civil matter. It would help if Council had the language of the easement. It was probably impertinent so it would only run with the properties that are there. He thought it should go to Circuit Court. If Council took any action they would

be acting as a judge and it would be an equity case. He thought they needed to go to court and let the judge resolve it. Otherwise the City would find themselves spending tens of thousands of dollars to resolve a private easement issue.

Mayor Clark said all the motion is suggesting is that Mr. Fisher come back with more information.

Member Csordas asked that Chief Lenaghan come before Council with a department report. It refers to the testing of part time firefighters, which is being recommended by Mike Evans, Fire Marshall and President of the union. Member Csordas wanted to know the Chief’s opinion on that and what surrounding communities do regarding paid on call firefighters. Member Csordas’ perception was that most full time firefighters come through the paid on call process, they get their training, go to academy, etc. and prepare themselves to become full time firefighters. This is what some of our paid on call firefighters are doing at this point. He thought what was being requested by Mr. Evans was excessively restrictive as far as the hiring process. It appeared to him that every time we take a step forward in recruiting someone tries to take a step back in recruiting the efforts of paid on call firefighters. He wanted to be sure the City continued to support paid on call firefighters as they provide a tremendous service to the community, live here and are trying to do the right thing and he didn’t want any road blocks put in the way for those people. He requested a report from the Chief at the next meeting on this issue. Chief Lenaghan said he would have a report ready.

Member Lorenzo referred to the Novi Code, Chapter 12, section 12-42 Grading Plan Required Review, B. "The City engineer shall review the plan for conformance with the requirements of this article and Chapter 11 Design and Construction Standards. In C it states, "In the case that the grading plan does not conform to the above requirements the applicant shall revise the plan in accordance with the City’s engineering comments and resubmit the plan for further review and subsequent approval." In D "the building department shall issue a land improvement permit after the City’s engineer approval is granted and the required number of

plan copies is submitted." She said according to Mr. McCusker’s memo the lot was flat and could not meet the City’s 1% drainage swales. She asked why the engineer approved issuance of a building permit if the lot was flat and could not meet the requirements? If it did not meet the Design Construction Standards wouldn’t they need waiver from Council in order to continue with the building?

Section 12.46, C, "no footings or foundations for any building or structure shall be poured without prior approval of the elevation relative to the approved grade. At such time as the footing or foundations forms are inspected by the building inspector for compliance with the

States construction code the City engineer shall conduct an inspection of the elevations of the footing or foundation forms." Mr. McCusker indicated that when the basement was poured it was decided then that the elevation of this building site had to be raised to facilitate positive drainage with the least amount of impact to surrounding properties." She asked why wasn’t this caught prior to the basement being poured?

Member Lorenzo said a concrete driveway was installed higher than the approved plan. Mr. McCusker’s memo indicated that it was installed higher because if it had not been raised the drainage would have impacted the row of cedar trees along the adjacent property. She asked why this wasn’t known at the time this plan was approved?

There are notes on the site plan that require drain tiles to be installed. It said "the only installation of the drain tile reviewed was a section installed from the north side of the house to the road ditch. Additional edge drain may be necessary to meet the homeowners drain expectations to achieve a dryer lot." Member Lorenzo said according to the ordinance it is not the homeowners expectations but the intent of Article 12. "The purpose of this Article is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City and to prevent damage and flooding to property as a result of obstructive drainage caused by improper draining and site alterations." She thought it was not the case of the homeowner seeking a drier lot and thought that was what the homeowner should expect in purchasing a lot if they receive a building permit. Why wasn’t that addressed when the site plan and grading plan was approved.

Member Lorenzo said there were notes on the site plan to provide edge drain as needed on the lot line and there were notes at the bottom of revised drainage being indicated. There was one set of stamps of approval on 11-30-01 and another on 12-03-01 and she wanted to know the exact date these grading issues were approved. She said according to the engineers were all of the edge drains as needed on lot lines to comply with Chapter 12 installed by the builder prior to the grading plan and the final being approved. She didn’t think the homeowners in the situation knew what they were expected to do in order to get their landscaping in. She asked for answers to these questions by the next meeting.

Mayor Clark allowed Ms. Barrons to speak as requested during audience participation.

Ms. Barrons said with a lot of help from Mr. Klaver she thought they had an agreement and if she didn’t Council would hear from her again. She agreed with Member Lorenzo that this process was really bad. They had four different JCK engineers on their project. It is unacceptable. Each engineer that came out changed the plans. The land was purchased with

septic and well permits and some grading elevations already in place. On April 16^th they noticed there was a problem when they woke up and there were eight City workers on her property and the landscaper was coming the next day. She talked with them and found there were complaints by both neighbors about drainage. They were operating on complaints made February 21, 2001 that had been addressed by the building department and they were on her property on April 15^, 2002. She was really concerned about that and when she started questioning she was told she had never received final grading approval. She brought the final grading approval certificate to the City. There was a lot of miscommunication and the bottom

line is she really didn’t care she just wanted everyone to be happy and thought they had reached an agreement that would do that. Everybody that had been out there said they were not impacting their neighbors in any way shape or form but no one had gone back to her neighbors and advised them that this had been thoroughly investigated and the Barrons lot was not doing anything to theirs. She was concerned about the process and wanted to see the City hire in house consultants for these kinds of things. There are too many hands in the pot and too much confusion.

Mr. Krieger said he left a copy of his concerns with the City Clerk so Mr. Fisher could advise Council as to whether his concerns were legitimate or not. He thought if his concerns stood he and many others who wanted to be involved in the Library would just disappear and not participate anymore because they didn’t need that kind of abuse. He stated he had been abused at the Library Board and committee meetings when he tried to get cable casting. It would throw all questions into light and allow the people to get involved.

E-mail from Frank Brennan Re: ZBA members.

Letter from David Ingmire Re: New complaints to City Personnel, response to Novi

Newsletter.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 AM.

_________________________________ _______________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Nancy Reutter, Deputy Clerk

Transcribed by:___________________________

Charlene McLean

Date approved: June 3, 2002