REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI 
 MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2002 AT 7:30 PM
NOVI CIVIC CENTER – COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi called the meeting to order at 7:36 PM.

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

Member Landry added a letter from Enclave Condominiums as Item #3 under Mayor and Council Issues.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi informed Council that as a result of the last Storm Water Management and Watershed Stewardship Committee meeting, the Committee was particularly interested in the discussion and resolution passed at the Council table. Regarding the Resolution and stated language, there were some reservations with regard to the implementation of the Storm Water Ordinance and the exceptions that might be granted. The Committee wanted to restate their total support for increasing not only flow and correction issues in the City but also water quality.

Brent Canup Planning Commission

Lodia Richards Planning Commission

LuAnne Kozma Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission

Mary Richards Storm Water Management & Watershed Stewardship Committee

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi presented an award to last term and previous term Planning Commission Member Lodia Richards. Mr. Richards also accepted an award for his wife Mary Richards who served on the Storm Water Watershed Stewardship Protection Committee. These awards were given in recognition of outstanding service. Mr. Richards thanked Planning, Council and citizens for allowing him and Mary to serve their community.

Mr. Canup and Lu Anne Kozma could not attend.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi read the proclamation proclaiming September 2002 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

It was noted that responses were received from Mr. Paul Weindorf who objected to SAD #159 and Mr. J. Hoare who approved of it.

Ray Smith, 140 North Haven, asked if Council received the petitions circulated by him and they had. Mr. Smith wanted to address both SAD 159 and 160 but Mr. Fisher said, per Michigan law, they had to be considered separately. Mr. Smith said the water cost would be $466 a year to start and the storm water and paving would be $1,375 to start, which was an average of $114.00 a year per household and a total outlay of $21,000. On August 4^th his community held a meeting, a petition was circulated and it was clear they were in opposition. Since then they had gathered additional signatures in opposition. On August 7^th he attended a meeting at the Civic Center and voiced concerns with regard to Lot 9, which is their lake access lot that is proposed to be used in this plan. Although, some progress was made to drain the street without putting a drainpipe on Lot 9, it was stated that the City would still seek to obtain an easement so they could justify allowing water to run onto Lot 9. He felt their concern over the issue of private property was met with indifference. The group questioned the subdivision’s legitimate ownership of Lot 9 and said that the City would file for whatever easement was needed to utilize the property. Mr. Smith asked why owners of an access lot would be any different then owners of a piece of property with a house on it? Cost figures were also discussed and justified by Mr. Pakkala who said the design was cost conscious but included the idea that high-end design items were included. At the meeting they also discussed a recent project in Farmington Hills for the paving of a dirt road and installation of a storm drain and although the project is smaller, the per household cost was significantly less. Although, the frontage for each home is 150 feet, their cost for paving and storm drainage is $3,100 per household and their City secured 15% of the funds as Community Block Grant Development funds. He and others had requested that Council find out what types of funds would be available to subsidize this project but had not heard anything yet. He was told to have the City of Novi contribute discretionary funds or a grant of any sort would be unprecedented. Mr. Smith thought the cost of the project was clearly what was unprecedented. It practically doubled his tax burden and that of his neighbors for the next 15 to 20 years. If you own $170,000 house the improvements cost 10% of your property value and if you own a $600,000 house it is 3%. Perhaps the cost could be allocated based on SAD but he knew no one wanted to do that, however the initial vote was weighed based on SEV and they felt that was very unfair and that SEV could not be used as a basis for voting. He said given the current level of disapproval, he moved that the Council could not continue to approve this project and suggested that the City start over with a great deal more consideration placed on a cost model that residents could afford as well as being vastly more sensitive to the rights of property owners. If this can’t be accomplished, then they are at an impasse with this project.

Brian Kocian, 1523 W. Lake Dr., strongly supported SAD 159. He felt there was no good time to spend this kind of money but if they waited the cost would go up. He noted they were asking for a need not a want. When he contacted the City this afternoon 63% of the SEV had voted in favor of this project. He reminded Council that Chapter 30 of the Novi Code mandated Council to base their decision on the SEV vote. He had asked Council for monetary assistance regarding this project but assumed from the lack of response they have denied helping them in any way. The costs are not going down and all 100 residents will never agree. The SEV vote speaks for itself and this must move forward.

Emanuel Malles,135 North Haven, objected to SAD 159 and 163.

Marie Watkins was present with her grandson who said she had 11 buildable lots on her property and the City wanted to charge her 11 times, $79,000, on her single dwelling home but she was only entitled to one vote. He felt if she was to be charged 11 times it was only fair that she have 11 votes. Mr. Fisher noted this was not an unusual concern and was a very customary situation. The units of benefit are generally based on building sites but under the Charter the number of votes was based on SEV so if you own that number of building sites the SEV would be higher and she would have effectively more votes. The Charter prescribes and dictates that the voting was based upon State Equalized Value, SEV, of the property. The number of votes one has is directly related to the value of the property. If the value is higher your weighed vote is higher. Mr. Fisher said they would have to look at the actual assessment and often the Assessor might not charge full value for each building site. He didn’t know if that was the case here; it depended on the circumstances. Mr. Fisher said if you have one home and additional building sites, you have the potential of splitting and the value would be higher. Marie Watkins objected to SAD 159 and 160. She felt there was a discrepancy because some people owned 4 lots and some owned 3 lots and they were paying the same as those who owned one lot. She asked why? Mr. Fisher stated it’s based on a single building site. If three lots represent a single building site and can’t be split into three home sites that would be one unit of benefit. He advised there was an appeal process and an appeal would have to be filed within 30 days with the Michigan Tax Tribunal.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked regarding the number of persons who have approved, would this particular property holder change or affect that percentage? Mr. Fisher said they can make the case to Council and the test of whether or not sufficient weighted vote is present is made at the time the petition is submitted. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said between now and when this item comes on the regular agenda for action by City Council, they could contact the administration and get a clearer understanding of how their vote is affected. If they are not in favor or the decision that comes down, there is an avenue for appeal. Ms. Watkins said $79,000 was a lot of money for her to pay and she would have to sell her property. The grandson asked how many people would vote on it. Mr. Helwig said it is 101 units of benefit but not that many people. Ms. Watkins grandson felt that this is important to Council’s decision because Ms. Watkins owned 11% of the votes if it is done fairly.

William Curtis, 1320 W. Lake Drive, asked if there were enough Council members present to vote on this tonight? Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said no, the item would not be on the agenda this evening. Mr. Curtis said he would vote no on the water issue.

Ned Aloe,1529 W. Lake Drive, favored water because he was tired of paying to rent a water system and felt eventually he would be ahead and the water quality would be better.

Arthur Moy, 1327 W. Lake Drive, changed his vote to no and others wanted to change their votes and asked how Council would keep track of these changes? Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said the administration would keep track.

Paul McCormack 1508 Lebenta, asked about how the voting process worked. Mayor Pro Bononi advised there were 2 parts to the process. Mr. Fisher said the first vote is the filing of petitions. A petition must contain 51% of the assessed value of the property within the district as determined by the Assessor. That enabled the project to be brought before Council for consideration and to conduct the public hearings. Council has expressed an interest in remaining support for the projects and that is something determined by a survey and public hearings such as this. Mr. McCormack asked what the vote was based on? Mr. Fisher said once the determination was made that the petitions were valid it gave Council jurisdiction to proceed. They also have the power to go forward regardless of whether people change their votes at a later time. However, Council is here to serve the public and want to know what’s on their minds.

Laura McClain 1307 W. Lake Dr, supported the SAD but originally was assessed at 2 units of benefit but based on review she was now assessed at 1 unit of benefit. Assuming that could be revised she would strongly support the project. Mr. Helwig stated Council had that report from the Assessor tonight.

John Wright, Lakewall Sub, said he has 2 units of benefit; one has no road frontage and the Building Department said it was not buildable but Mr. McCusker said it was buildable. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi replied the Assessor would make the final determination about the lot. Also, Mr. Wright said Lot 9 was his easement and his attorney said it could not be changed in any way. Mr. Fisher said the issue wasn’t clear and it would require sitting down with all the documents, etc. Mr. Pearson spoke about Lot 9 and said they had tried to explain that the City wouldn’t and couldn’t build anything without the legal right to do that. There is an easement but there is no clear title to it and documentation would help. If the City decided to build, they would need to know who had title to it; the City would not build on it unless permission was given. Mr. Pearson took exception to the comment that was made about indifference to residents concern and felt the meeting was quite the opposite. They talked about options including not building a drain structure because it was a very big concern. During discussion an overland drain came up as to whether that would be an option. There was give and take and a comment was made by some residents that they would just push the water over like it was doing now and let it drain. Mr. Pearson said they couldn’t and wouldn’t do that without the legal right to do so; that’s why they would want to go to court if that was done. Mr. Pearson said there are options for completely omitting the need for Lot 9. There would be additional costs so if they go forward with this that would be another option. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said how this would affect their share would have to be clarified. Mr. Pearson would provide feedback for Lot 9 and feedback for other concerns. Mr. Wright provided Mr. Pearson with documentation.

John Harvey, 1321 W. Lake Drive, representing 45 homeowners, gave Council a packet of information and a list of residents that are in favor of the SAD’s and who are willing to part with

$14,000 of their money to purchase these improvements for their community. He asked that Council not infer that the other 57 residents were against this. He was only able to speak to 85 of the 102 residents. There are a large number of people who oppose this. Others are in favor but not ready to proceed because of other concerns with the City, how the process takes place, costs, bids, Lot 9, etc. He said the residents would like Council to approve the SAD’s with the following changes. 1) Lot 9 cannot be used for a storm water drain whether they have the right or not, 2) that the City contribute $200,000 toward this project, 3) reduction of contaminated storm water into Walled Lake, 4) paved roads accessing City owned property and 5) improve fire protection and fire safety as there are no fire hydrants on any of these roads.

The cost to the City associated with not supporting and contributing to this project are: 1) Walled Lake Drive muddy roads are fixed by dumping gravel and now the road is so high it is above most of the residents driveways, 2) ditches need to be dug out and drains cleared, 3) the road base needs to be dug out and 8 inches of gravel put down to support the vehicles and meet County standards, 4) road easements should be obtained or roads needed to be moved back and 5) if the project doesn’t go forward the easement issues still needed to be dealt with. Engineering fees would be paid to JCK for services rendered and from the estimates that were given to him there was approximately $70 or $80 thousand worth of engineering fees that would be paid for the plans if this project does not move forward.

In the interests of the residents of the City and an overall cost reduction to the City to contribute $200,000 toward this project would save over $350,000 worth of maintenance that needed to be done because of the neglect of these roads and the storm water sewers over the last 15 to 20 years.

John Harvey Sr. 1195 W. Lake Drive, challenged Council and residents because a lot of money would go out, to get a focus group together to answer questions and diffuse negative comments, as they don’t have the privilege of a neighborhood organization.

Tom Harvey 1603 W. Lake Drive, said he was in favor and wanted water.

John Harvey Jr., said he calculated feet per house and the lowest was North Haven, which had an average of 43.88 feet per house and the second was W. Lake Dr. at 45.02 feet per house, Rexton-56, Faywood-51, Ludlow-280 and the street with no name 400. Currently, the residents of North Haven and West Lake Drive are subsidizing the other streets. He said the SAD was broken down by units of use not by length but we all know that everyone gets a tap. Currently, by doing this all together, this subdivision gets its maximum benefit and the people on W. Lake Drive are actually helping to pay for the other streets. The majority of the tax base is in favor of the project but he asked that Council consider each residents comments. The people with the biggest hardship are in favor of this project. Rexton, Amos, Faywood, Lebenta and Ludlow dumped into W. Lake Drive. All the water runs downhill to W. Lake Drive and all those streets have ditches and W. Lake Drive does not and when it rained hard, the street was under water. They have the biggest hardship for storm sewer but they are most in favor of it because they need it the most. Their roads are in the worst condition. W. Lake Drive is the narrowest and has the most lots in close proximity; therefore they have the largest fire hazard and are very much in favor of getting fire hydrants as they’re concerned that fire trucks couldn’t

get down the road. He displayed a map that showed most people on W. Lake Drive were in favor of the project. He said some were subsidizing those roads and his opinion was if they wanted out let them out. Pave Ludlow, North Haven and West Lake Dr. and most of those people would be happy. Anyone else that wanted to join in, if they have more than half of the residents support on their street, let them join in.

Darlene Noble, 149 North Haven, opposed the paving and asked that Council work on this. She said access Lot 9, their beach, has been there all her life. She said Lot 9 was on their deeds, the people in that block own it and they pay taxes on it. If drainage is put on that lot, they couldn’t swim or put a boat there so the lot would be useless and she wouldn’t want to be taxed for lake access because she would no longer have it. Ms. Noble said there are 3 drainage tubes there now that aren’t working and suggested they enlarge those and use them to drain. She felt the estimates were too high and suggested they try to find lower estimates.

Mayor Clark arrived at 8:43 p.m.

Ray Smith, 140 North Haven, said if North Haven Woods drained down into their storm drain system there should be some contribution. Also, there seemed to be an issue about how the voting was laid out based upon SEV and was really drawing divisions between residents on the lake and those in the subdivision. Mr. Smith said they are a community and didn’t want to be divided into the proverbial haves vs. have-nots and was not happy about that. He had a full petition of 54 residents. He commented he realized the Charter dictated how this was done and knew it was tough for Council but they felt it was a poor way to do things. He did not favor SAD 160 under the current terms.

Viscardo Conti, 1506 Lebenta, said the City was going to take half his yard because the pavement would be five feet from his front door and he would still have to pay as much as everyone else. Mr. Conti asked if there was a law against having pavement five feet from your front door? His neighbor would have the same problem.

William Curtis, 101 Penhill, noted he built a new home on Penhill and West Lake Drive and there is a storm drain that runs down there that the City owns. He asked the City to look at what happened in the last 20 years to that storm drain. If the City took another beachfront and turned it into what is on the other side, there would be nothing but sediment, cattails, lilly pads, etc. 100 feet on either side of the drain now. All the neighbors on that side have to put up with all the runoff. Nobody’s done anything with it and that would happen with the new one. The City would put it through a nice beach for no reason. Mr. Curtis said he worked for an engineering company and there was a way of redesigning it. He asked the City to have the DEQ clean it up.

Laura McClain,1307 W. Lake Dr., supported the road paving with additional work because after listening tonight, there are issues. Clearly, something had to be done with the roads, either change the way they are maintained or put in asphalt. The way they are maintained now is adding to the drainage problems and polluting the lake with road drainage and she felt long term water quality was the bigger issue.

Marie Watkins stated there is drainage on Ludlow that goes down W. Lake Dr., but it’s always been a big swamp and now the new subdivision would drain down that road. She asked why it couldn’t be put out for bids. She displayed an old survey of all her lots and asked about who would help pay for taps on each of her lots totaling $79,000 as she could not afford it. Ms. Watkins said she has lived there for over 52 years, paid taxes all that time and for years and years they never did anything.

Dean Coy, 130 North Haven, objected to any system that limited their usage to Lot 9.

Lisa Krieger, spoke about using Lot 9 for their children to swim and when they finished swimming their hair smelled like calcium chloride. She said calcium chloride was dumping into the lake and 2/3rds of Walled Lake is on Novi’s property and she thought something needed to be done to stop the pollution.

Resident noted there were four homes near Pontiac Trail that got their road paved for free because of their location.

Paul Weindorf, 621 W. Lake Drive, disputed Mr. Harvey’s list as he wasn’t in favor of it and never had been. He didn’t think all the properties were correctly noted and asked Council to review the list carefully. When he first moved into the area, the weeds in the lake weren’t bad but had noticed every year the weeds got bigger. He thought it was due to people putting fertilizer on their lawns and then it drains into the lake. He submitted that the runoff from peoples lawns in the new development off of West Park would go down the culverts, wherever they are, because it sounded like the person doing the development was not being required to retain the water on his property. It would also pollute the lake and the situation would be aggravated. Mr. Weindorf asked if the City would bear the responsibility of cleaning up the lake?

Tom Marquardt, 121 North Haven, said Mr. Harvey’s wording in the petition should say they would be in favor if specific changes were made. He opposed SAD160 until the issues mentioned could be resolved to the satisfaction of the neighborhood.

Mr. Helwig reported that Governor Engler vetoed State Revenue Sharing Funds and displayed how it would affect the City of Novi. Local jurisdictions throughout the State are rallying tomorrow morning on the capitol grounds to support those legislators who are going to vote to override that veto. If the veto stood the City would lose an estimated total revenue for our General Fund of just over $22 million. The portion of funds afforded to our community that are at risk under the Governor’s veto total just over $1.2 million, which is some 5.5% of our estimated General Fund Revenues in this current fiscal year. That is a significant amount of money. Out of our General Fund well over half of those revenues are applied to our Police and Fire Department support. Most communities are drawing significant crisis attention to the fact that if the veto is not overturned there could

be significant upheaval in local community budgets and particularly the support of police and fire public safety. Mayor Clark stated that it looked like the votes would be there to override the veto.

Mr. Helwig thanked the voters who supported a plan put forth by Council in November 2000 to make major roadway safety improvements and upgrading. Ten Mile and Meadowbrook now have left turn lanes in each direction and longer queue lanes for those left turns, a dedicated right turn lane northbound on Meadowbrook coming to the intersection at Ten Mile and also the traffic signal to support those phased movements.

Also, the newly aligned intersection of Ten Mile Road, Bashian and Cranbrooke Roads has been opened with left turn lanes and a new traffic signal that would flash this week and would be put on its appropriate phasing next week.

Mr. Helwig said an article appeared in the Detroit Free Press last week that said "Novi Plant Adding to Water Pollution Report Says". He said Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was able to access information that Mr. McCusker was not able to access and they were able to document that on January 11, 2001 this effluent, non-compliant discharge did occur relating to mercury metals and was appropriately reported. This plant is owned by the City of Novi and serves a portion of Walled Lake, Novi and is operated by Oakland County. The appropriate officials were notified and there was a discharge violation found. The County said they were going to initiate a mercury minimization program. Mr. McCusker validated the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s response. He said the City of Novi is permitted through the State and the operators of the Walled Lake/Novi facility are also the operators of the sewer treatment plant for the center portion of the City. We are required to establish a permit every five years through the MDEQ or the EPA. It is an EPA permit and is regulated by them and sent down through the MDEQ. Our permits allow us to put discharges into affluent streams or streams in our area. A number of different discharge limits on metals, biodegradable within the system are allowed and the limits are regulated by the Federal Government and passed down through the permitting process. Our permit process allows us to discharge X amount of mercury into the system and it is governed. Mr. McCusker said in a system like this where there is little or no industry on the system, the mercury usually comes from dentists offices and is part of the mercury amalgamate in your mouth, which is the filling that binds your teeth. Fortunately, they have been trying to regulate this better over the last years and have been looking for a new bonding agent. The American Dental Association hasn’t supported this because they don’t like the new epoxy type bonds but it is still in the process of being amended in the future. Our limits are 0.20, which is two parts per billion. The plant by virtue of reporting to the State and to the Government, monthly or quarterly, samples are taken from the streams at the sewer treatment plant and it gives a level. The levels are usually a concentration taken out of a number of samples and at that point it gives an equalized value over a period of 30 days. The article dealt with a quarter in 2000/2001 and the City reported to the State that it was a possible violation, it exceeded the limit minimally. The article lumped Novi in with significant violators. Novi has not had a violation for exceeding the limit

since the 1980’s and there had not been another since this last one in 2002. There is a program that monitors mercury in the system and he wanted to assure everyone that it was not a regular occurrence. Mr. McCusker displayed and explained discharge flow maps so the community could understand how the treated affluent returned to our community in terms of the Rouge Tributary.

Member Capello asked if there was continued monitoring of the discharges? Mr. McCusker said under our permit and the mercury minimization program they are required on a regular basis to send out surveys for anybody in the program and potential future users in the program. One fifth of the City is monitored every year to make sure nothing new is in. Business licenses, etc. are pulled on a regular basis and surveys are sent to understand who is in the system, who is new and who potentially might be in the system. The discharge is monitored daily. Mr. McCusker knew about this at the time it occurred, it was being corrected when it was brought to the attention of the newspaper.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi thanked Mr. Helwig for taking a proactive step and bringing this to the attention of the people of Novi. She took issue with the fact that the information did not come to Council and regretted that citizens of Novi had to read about it in the paper. Not that anything horrendous occurred but in her opinion communications could be improved. From the standpoint of any notification of significant discharge, which this was, should have come to Council so it can be shared with anyone who would like to receive it. She thought it was a very large over simplification to cast aspersions on the dental profession by suggesting that any or all of this contamination necessarily comes from the dental profession. There are many different sources of mercury and she would not want to suggest that. The most interesting thing about this is that this information came to all of us, including the Detroit Free Press, by way of a Freedom of Information Request. Her opinion was that the information contained in this significant discharge should have been made available to everyone when it occurred. Not to mention the fact that that area is headwaters to the Rouge River and there is a very large commitment in this building to improve water quality standards in the Rouge River to the point that we are a voluntary permit holder and we also have a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative in place. She would appreciate seeing the quarterly reports that come from the Oakland County Drain Commissioner’s Office who operate that system.

Member Landry said if the allowable discharge was two parts per billion what was the discharge that put us in violation? Mr. McCusker said it was .25 over two parts per billion and was an average of two samples.

Mr. Helwig said we are approaching crunch time on the paving of the intersection of Twelve Mile and Novi Roads. Today they were informed that in order to try and beat the holidays, we need to inform the road commission we have coupled the intersection work with the stub to the east that is being funded by SAD 155 with the GAP construction from McDonald’s to just west of Meadowbrook Road. The goal has been to get the intersection paved this year before the holidays including burial of the utility lines, which should be completed by early September. In order not to have that intersection in a state of upheaval next year when Grand River Avenue would be in upheaval to the south of

I-96, it behooves everyone to get this intersection done this year before the holiday. There are two choices. The first would take five to six weeks and would maintain a single lane of through traffic in each direction on Novi Road. There would be no through traffic on Twelve Mile. The second alternative, which they were endorsing, was to shut the intersection down totally for three to four weeks to complete the paving.

Mr. Helwig said they didn’t think a single northbound/southbound lane on Novi Road with no lanes going through on Twelve Mile and having the intersection affected for five to six weeks would be of much benefit. The second and endorsed alternative would be more advantageous, with the appropriate detours, and the Police Chief working with the businesses. This would begin in mid September and be completely done by mid October.

Peter Hoadly, 31084 Arlington Circle, spoke about signage he had requested during Mr. Kriewall’s administration. He talked with Mr. Helwig and he and his staff had taken care of it and he wanted to thank them. We now have signage that brings traffic from I-96, M-5, Twelve Mile Road, Meadowbrook Road and it really works. Mr. Hoadly said being a member of the EDC they sent Council a report about a year and a half ago advocating some ideas of how the EDC could be of help to the City. They never received a response and he thought that was discourteous on the part of the Council and that they at least deserved an answer to the proposal made. He would like to see the EDC disbanded or activated because to leave them in limbo without any meetings was not right. He said they have $25,000 and one of the things they advocated was that it be used for Gateway signage. He asked Council to look at the signage at 14 Mile and Novi Road. Mr. Hoadly, after observing the Planning Commission meeting, thought there were developers that didn’t understand no. Singh Development is a very fine developer and he loved their work; however, they have been turned down twice on land on Twelve Mile Road that they want to change from OST to High Density Housing. We don’t have a lot of OST and it took some time to get land along M-5 and Twelve Mile Road to be master planned and zoned OST. We need OST because it is a very high use for the City particularly for taxes and it brings in new business. The idea that you can’t have OST because it is on a lake is ridiculous. He thought there should be some kind of ordinance that when you’ve been turned down twice, there ought to be a moratorium on new development or at least wait until the master plan changed. He urged Council to turn it down if it was to be addressed today. Also, it seemed that everyone who came before the Planning Commission wanted a waiver on their facades. Either the façade ordinance is out of sync with what the current thinking is on building materials and should be changed or we should stick to the ordinance we have and not grant so many waivers. The same thing happens with the Sign Ordinance and he thought maybe the sign ordinance should be updated. If these ordinances are not working they should be revised.

Mary Drafta, 24599 Bashian Drive, thanked Council for the traffic signal at the intersection of Ten Mile, Bashian Drive and Cranbrooke and asked them to keep up the good work.

John Kiley, President of the Chase Farms Homeowners Association, was also present to thank Council. He said Lt. McNamara of the Police Department came to their homeowners meeting last August and talked to them about some of the problems the police were up against. Mr. Kiley said their speeding problem was no different than anyone else but with his help and Council’s help there are more police patrols. He thanked Council and Member Landry for getting the stop signs put in because they are making a difference.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi removed Item C.

To approve Items A, B, and D through R.

A. Approval of Minutes of July 15, 2002, Regular City Council meeting.

B. Approval of motion to schedule Executive Session to immediately follow the Regular  Meeting to discuss purchase of interest in real property.

D. Approval of appointment of Brenda Borders (Employee Delegate) and Mary Cutting (Officer Delegate) as the 2002 Michigan Employees Retirement Systems  Representatives to the Annual MERS meeting to be held on September 18 –20, 2002.

E. Approval to award bid for 4 Wheel Drive Pick-Up Truck for Department of Public Works,  to Signature Ford, the low bidder, in the amount of $24,996.

F. Approval to purchase Fire Fighter Protective Clothing from Apollo Fire Equipment, the low bidder, in the amount of $56,940 through the Tri-County Purchasing Cooperative.

G. Approval to purchase 12 emergency pagers for the Fire Department from Advanced  Wireless, the low quotation, in the amount of $4,999.

H. Approval to award bid for Towing Contract to Keford Collision, the low bidder, based on unit pricing.

I. Approval to award bid for Community Newsletter/Annual Report Calendar/Staff Newsletter to Dearborn Lithograph, the low qualified bidder, in the amount of $36,812.50.

J. Approval to accept the water main constructed to service the JH Bennett Building in the  Hickory Corporate Park, Lot 11, located at 22975 Venture Drive as a public utility and all  documents conveying such to the City of Novi along with all permanent easements  mandatory for City acceptance.

K. Approval to accept the water main extension servicing the Laird’s Auto Glass & Trim  property as a public utility and all documents conveying such to the City of Novi along  with all permanent easements, waivers, and legal documentation mandatory for  acceptance, as reviewed and approved by the City Attorney for parcel #50-22-24-100-012.

L. Approval of Temporary Construction Easements from Ronald R. and Connie L. Gutowski  and TECMA Realty ($1.00 consideration) and Drainage Easement from Joseph C. and  Diane M. Pace ($200.00 consideration) in connection with the 2002 Roadway  Improvement Project for Meadowbrook Manor No. 1 Subdivision, and authorization of  payment of listed consideration therefore.

M. Approval of request from Costella-Novi Corporation for acceptance of a  wetland/woodland conservation easement for Trans-X Building, a light industrial  project, located on Trans-X Road southeast of Grand River and Novi Road.

N. Approval to accept the water main servicing the Brateman Medical Building as a public  utility and all documents conveying such to the City of Novi, along with all permanent  easements mandatory for acceptance, as reviewed and approved by the City Attorney,  and approval of the dedicated bike path easement being conveyed over this parcel #50-22-24-451-009, as required.

O. Approval of Road Commission for Oakland County Traffic Signal Maintenance  Agreement Control Order #02-20 for the Wixom Road @ Novi Promenade intersection.

P. Approval of request from Sharon Ostalecki, H.O.P.E., Inc. for adoption of  Resolution for Charitable Gaming License. (one day event)

Q. Approval to purchase three Microstation software packages and the related maintenance

agreements through Bentley Systems, Inc., the low quotation through the State bid, in the amount of $11,887.50

R. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 628 and Warrant 629.

Mr. Helwig stated that with assistance from Kathy Smith-Roy, Dennis Neiman and Bobby Bendzinski, received bids on this important redemption of the outstanding indebtedness associated with the land that was acquired for public purpose. The funding with the taxable bonds seen this evening had received three bids. The low bid was from Griffin, Kubik, Stephens & Thompson, Inc. at a true interest cost of 4.648114%. This only helps the cause in implementing this portion of the Sandstone settlement and he recommended its acceptance.

Member DeRoche said this was a lower rate than they thought they would get and, he thought, a lower interest rate than they were paying on the underlying bonds. Mr. Neiman said this was a much lower rate than the bonds that are being defeased. Member DeRoche said that worked out as a net advantage to this community and lower payments going forward throughout the duration of the bond. Mr. Neiman said absolutely, the issue is structured so that if the issue sold at 6% you would actually be paying less debt service and that would be

about a $150,000 difference in terms of interest costs this issue over the issue that is being defeased.

Mr. Fisher said items #3 and #4 present to the Council a policy question in terms of timing and how they would like to proceed. We have been struggling to get this project back into the right posture following the default of the contractor. They had been working with Liberty, the bonding company, on this matter and believed they were now in a good position to move forward. There are a number of minor details, things that need to be buttoned down, that are not subjective, debatable type questions but more technical kinds of things like architectural fees and legal fees that are not being contested by Liberty but they needed to calculate them and have them approve those numbers. Mr. Fisher said these are things that Liberty is willing to pay as a matter of policy but it was a matter of buttoning down the amounts that get fit into the agreement. There are some additional costs that we could fight about, for example administrative expenses. We could fight about them and he wasn’t saying they couldn’t be resolved by the next meeting but he couldn’t confirm they could either. These are the kinds of things that could slow this down and that are sometimes litigated. What we have is a fire station that needs to be completed and he thought they had the makings of an arrangement that if the Council wanted to move forward on it they could get progress moving. This language could be approved this evening as a policy matter and then he would go forward and plug in some other minor and more objective than subjective information. Regarding Item #4, which is the contract, the only thing they needed to do was to make sure that the plans that are going to be included in the contract with the new contractor are the same plans that were approved to move forward. This issue arises because it was the bonding company that put out the bids for the new contractors and we can’t get the architects in a position to certify that what they put out for bid was exactly what we want them to bid with, various change orders and all that. He thought it would take one meeting and they would plug in some of the things. Our architect had begun to assemble some language for the documentation that would put this to bed and thought this was a matter of an architectural determination rather than a debatable issue.

Mr. Helwig said the architect representative from Nordstrom, Samson and Associates, Peter Albertson was present to answer any questions. Mr. Helwig said they spent considerable time

with the bonding company and with the recommended firm Project Control Systems, Inc. who was the second low bidder under the process outlined by Mr. Fisher and conducted by Liberty Mutual. This is the firm that constructed our addition and modifications recently completed to the police headquarters building and we were very please with their performance. They in turn have done their due diligence with the sub-contractors under the agreements that had been fashioned by the bonding company. They would like to mobilize Monday, August 20^th. The bid is for 210 days. Mobilization August 20^th would complete the facility no later than March 18^th, which would be occupancy soon to follow. We need to get the shell and the training facility buttoned up before winter. That’s the reason we have brought this before Council not 100% complete; although, we are trying to get signatures from Council this evening. We are just about there and Mr. Fisher highlighted the documents where we need to finish those matters. A couple of weeks can mean a great deal to us in this process and that why it is being presented this evening.

Member Capello asked if Project Control Systems were being required to post payment and performance bonds. Mr. Helwig said they would post their own new payment and performance bonds. Member Capello asked if this was lump sum contract? Mr. Helwig said not to exceed.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked how they decided that the additional administrative fees were not worth fighting over and are we talking about a ballpark amount? Mr. Fisher said they discussed it with the administration and the question was how quickly could we get the information to present to the bonding company and how quickly could they respond and it was a function of those two points that led to the conclusion. He didn’t know what the potential amount would be. Mr. Helwig said they had tried to list, under the tender agreement just below the "Whereas" on the first page, each of the items that are in question. Additional architectural fees have an issue ranging from a minimum of $5,000 to potentially $17,000. The $14,400 damage to the roadwork is still being reviewed by the bonding company. She asked why the roadway was damaged. Mr. Pearson said the road extension off Wixom south of Ten Mile was a separate contract by Waterland Construction. They had prepared the road base and had left it in that fashion with the sub-base there. Greystone in the course of their work had driven over it and broken up what Waterland had previously done. He believed the bonding company had signed off on that item, so we are confident of getting that back. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if there were other fees not contained in these documents? Mr. Fisher said the other fees would be in house staff time.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said in Item 3 on page 3, for the record, you have bolded under 2.5 "That Surety does not waive, prejudice, or in any way adversely affect any claim that Greystone has, or might have against Obligee in connection with the Project". She asked for an explanation. Mr. Fisher said this is language that the Surety is not waiving or in any way adversely affecting a claim of Greystone against the City. It essentially says they don’t have the right to do that and they are clarifying that they are not getting between the City and Greystone. It is a separate matter beyond their bonding. She asked if he saw any separation there. Mr. Fisher said they were not aware of any. She asked if he would estimate the additional legal fees generated as a result of this contractor defaulting to the City of Novi? Mr. Fisher didn’t have that amount of money but the bonding company has recognized and acknowledged their obligation to pay it.

Member Capello wanted to approve the First Reading so there would be time to study it more and work on the language.

Member Landry thought a mixed use with residential would be compatible with the intense use of the mall next door. It appears that the proposed mix use would result in increased tax revenue. It is 4.3 times as much as the strip center, although he had not seen any other alternatives analyzed but would like to see additional analysis than just

the strip center. Personally, he was not concerned that adding mixed use to PD 2 would compete with Gateway. He thought they were totally unique locations separated

by the freeway. He liked the proposed language of Section 2406.6B sub D, which left a lot of qualitative control with the City. He was not in favor of rezoning the OST next to Crescent Lake and he hoped that if Council approved this language they would not at a later time get the urging or argument from the developer to rezone to OST. He would not be receptive to that.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi had a lot of reservations about what is contained in this proposed zoning ordinance text amendment. One of the greatest reservations is the fact that an OST would be of greater benefit to this City. On the other side of the coin that particular site might lend itself to a mixed use. She was not in favor of the designation of the uses and would not be in agreement to B-1, B-2 as proposed here from the standpoint of retail use. She also would not be in agreement with the multi family density that was proposed and the entire property that has the potential to be developed under OST would have to be presented conceptually. She would not be interested in looking at any proposed development piecemeal. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi’s last reservation was that the Planning Commission had determined that this was an area that rates special study and since they are getting into their master plan of development update or amendment, this was a good time to look at this site. She would not support any actual action to approve looking at this language because she didn’t think it was in any kind of shape that she would be willing to work on the language to make it say what Council wanted it to say because this was not this Council’s proposal.

Mayor Clark said this might be a project that is workable and appropriate for that area. He would not want to see more multiple family around Crescent Lake and would not support it either. This location for this particular proposed project might be the right idea but there are still unanswered questions and if the Planning Commission is looking at the master plan again that might be the place to start. He didn’t have a problem with the First Reading but strongly suggested that before this came to Council again the Planning Commission have the opportunity to look at it specifically with reference to the fact that they are looking at the master plan as a whole right now. He didn’t want to set a bad precedent to get what might be a good project and we are not talking about whether or not Singh would put up a quality project. They have a longstanding history in this community and they do what they say and when they put up a development it is a quality development. We want to make sure this works for this site and not extrapolated to somewhere else in the City. Maybe with a little more work from the Planning Commission with reference to what their doing with the Master Plan might enhance that and provide safeguards so that it doesn’t carry over to somewhere else. For the purpose of moving this along he would support a First Reading but would suggest it go back to the Planning Commission.

Member Capello thought everyone was in agreement to pass the First Reading but had a problem with sending it back to the Planning Commission. It had been through the Planning Commission and they have sent it to Council. We sent something back to the Planning Commission in February having to do with setbacks, backyards of residential developments to try to correct what we see along Ten Mile Road and Beck Road with

backyards being right up to the highway. Also, setbacks along intersections and he thought they finally scheduled it for a future meeting in August. If this goes back to the

Planning Commission it would sit there for another 8, 9 or 10 months and he didn’t think the developer deserved that kind of delay. It is here for us, let’s keep it here and get the job done and either move it forward or not.

Mayor Clark suggested it go back to the Planning Commission for review of the impact of this proposed project and what is going on in terms of their review of the Master Plan and come back to Council within 60 days.

Member Capello said we gave them 90 days with the last one and they didn’t even look at it for 120 days. Mayor Clark said if they don’t, then Council would proceed either up or down at that time. Member Capello said that was fair.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said putting something on a fast track because we think someone deserves an answer was not something she was interested in doing from the standpoint of asking the Planning Commission to specifically look at this area. That is her concern, not only this particular parcel, but the remainder, the residue of this and how it could be used with regard to an overall concept. She didn’t think it was an unreasonable thing to ask and that is what they are doing right now. To suggest that the Planning Commission wouldn’t address that if they were specifically asked to do that is unfair to them. In order to look at this overall as opposed to looking at it under a microscope, she had many concerns that might be addressed. The least of not which is all of the vacant retail store fronts in Novi right now. The land use question, the revenue question and the overall concept of planning that area are her concerns and she believed that was the purview of the Planning Commission. Whether or not you have faith in the process, it is our process, it stands and she supports it.

Member DeRoche thought this arrived at Council because it received a negative recommendation from the Planning Commission on all levels. He respected them and the input they have to make positive or negative recommendations. He thought Council ignored both kinds of recommendations occasionally. He thought there would not be a single supporter on the Planning Commission that had not given a negative recommendation on this plan and that Council was the place to keep working on it. He respected the Planning Commission, their opinion and their process but he also had an expectation that what they said was what they meant. He respected the decision they made and wanted to pursue it further. Input or not he wanted to see this back in 60 days. Mayor Clark wanted to know if they had additional input in light of the comments at the Council table tonight and also in light of the fact that they are reviewing the entire Master Plan. The maker and seconder of the motion agreed to send it back to the Planning Commission for additional input to return to Council in 60 days.

Michael Shatzberger, Vice President of Development for Main Street and Main, owners of the Bamboo Club was present. Mr. Shatzberger said the Bamboo Club is a seven-year-old Pacific Rim cuisine concept featuring dishes from various countries such as Japan, China, Korea, etc. There are six Bamboo Clubs, four in Arizona and two in Florida and they are running a very aggressive expansion, which has brought them to Novi. Each restaurant was done a little differently; each featured unique hand painted murals, exposition kitchen, and dramatic bar with a wine display of fine wines and exotic drinks. The restaurants are open from 11 AM until 11 PM or midnight depending on the area.

Member DeRoche asked if the 62 outdoor seats was a concern to the Police Department? Chief Shaeffer said it was not a concern.

Member Capello said he thought this was a very high quality restaurant especially for Fountain Walk and it would fit in with the ambience the developer was trying to create there. He did have a problem giving away Quota licenses because the ordinance specifically stated what requirements must be met in order to get a Quota license and he didn’t believe the Bamboo Club met those requirements. He had tried to get Council to review and amend the ordinance to make it more specific because he really wanted to use the Quota licenses out in the community, even outside of the Detroit area, to entice businesses that were not inclined to come to Novi anyway, very unique type restaurants/businesses or very upscale restaurants. He felt Novi was seriously lacking upscale restaurants. Therefore, he would not support the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if there were four licenses left? Ms. Cornelius said there were currently three left. She asked if there were any in abeyance? Mr. Helwig said he wasn’t aware of any. Ms. Cornelius advised that her office handled liquor license processing and there were some that were closed down but they own the liquor license and could transfer it somewhere else.

Mayor Clark said Quota Licenses were granted to a community based on the population and on the census. The census is taken every decade but there would probably be a mid decade census in 2005 which might increase the licenses. The only other way to get additional licenses in a community would be if a prospective business, such as the Bamboo Club, where through the Liquor Control Commission became aware of a license that was in escrow they could purchase it and move to this community. Mr. Fisher said that was correct.

Sheldon Kellman, Attorney, was present representing Mr. Leon. Mr. Kellman noted Mr. Leon had been in business in this community for 19 years and was a good corporate citizen. He had helped out on civic and City functions whenever asked and was now asking for a Quota C License to be granted to him for his existing facility. They understood they didn’t strictly meet the criteria for the grant of a new license, which is a hotel type operation or convention center type operation or a separate club sitting a minimum of 250. However, he believed there was enough flexibility in the ordinance to allow their request to be considered and granted. They have received all the approvals necessary and the endorsements of any number of the City Departments that have been required to inspect the facility. Mr. Leon is an experienced restaurant operator and has another facility in Wixom that has had a liquor license for 4 ½ years without incident. Leon’s has been a participating member of this community and that wouldn’t change regardless of the Council decision this evening. He asked Council to recognize that given that this is a family style restaurant, given the competition in the area that do have these kinds of facilities available and attract the Friday and Saturday evening crowd that Mr. Leon can’t attract because he doesn’t have the availability the other facilities have of being able to sell liquor by the glass or beer and wine. This has had somewhat of a negative impact on his business. He appreciated the Council taking these things seriously as it represents the citizens and wants to provide a safe community for everyone but he didn’t think given Mr. Leon’s record of service and operation in this community that that kind of a value would be jeopardized by granting this license.

Member DeRoche noted he has a bias toward granting these licenses because he thought Council should not be stringent on these businesses because it was hard to pick a winner between one and the other. Once all the licenses are in place in the City the market would determine who succeeds and fails and who owns them. Member DeRoche trusted their running of a business being here 19 years but from the criteria of granting a license based on uniqueness he thought that the length of time in the community favors somebody who has flown up from Arizona, as the previous applicant, saying they are unique and want to come in and need the license to do it. Member DeRoche was struggling with this and wanted to hear what the rest of Council thought.

Member Landry understood the comments of the previous speakers and certainly Member Capello. It was laudable to want to attract businesses to the City, invest money and be good corporate citizens. However, he felt it was equally laudable and an equally excellent goal to take care of our own. It was easy when any corporation was growing, municipal or private, to want to grow and attract new employees and businesses and in doing that it was very easy to forget the people who have been with you from day one. Leon’s has been with us from day one and has participated in the City and he would be in favor or granting the liquor license and allowing them to grow with the City, to diversify and become an even better citizen.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was very disturbed to see the discussion generate into a personal one. We have a regulation, we are supposed to be looking at the criteria by which these licenses are granted, they are specific in language, easily understood and with regard to fairness to everyone who would bring forth such a request then let’s just throw it out. If it becomes personal in every issue and if being a resident of the City of Novi as a business is a criteria we want to entertain because it has merit then get it in the regulation. If we are going to make it up as we go along our credibility is highly in doubt. We are not talking about a service that can’t be received anywhere else; we are not talking about uniqueness or about any qualifications being supported by Council that are contained in that regulation. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi would not support the motion.

Member Capello agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Bononi, as Mr. Leon did not meet any of the qualifications of the ordinance. He said his vote should be no. The problem that he was having was an emotional problem more than anything else. We are letting a new business that has several franchises throughout the United States, ample money to go out and spend $40,000 to buy a liquor license just walk out with a license to compete against Mr. Leon’s for a Friday and Saturday night dinner crowd. Yet, Council was going to send Mr. Leon out and tell him to buy a $40,000 license even though he has been in Novi for years. He was not sure how he would vote but letting their competition walk out with a free license and denying a license to Mr. Leon really bothered him.

Mayor Clark agreed with Members Landry and Capello. He thought maybe they should look at the language of Section 3.14 of the City Code and perhaps adjustments needed to be made. He was also concerned with fundamental fairness in the sense that we have a new "business" proposing to come to our community and they might be successful in other locations but it is not a guarantee of success in a new community. If we are down to one license other businesses could come to the community and contact the Liquor Control Commission to find out where the licenses are that are available for them to purchase, appear before Council and request to transfer a license to Novi. He was not overly concerned about only having one license left and thought Novi would receive more licenses in the mid decade census. Mr. Leon is a member of the community who has a proven track record, he has been here for almost 20 years, and he has made a commitment to this community and has a longer track record than most food and restaurant establishments in this community. Mayor Clark could not think of a business more deserving of the license and it would seem only fair and equable in this particular circumstance to provide a license to Leon’s of Novi. Mayor Clark seconded the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Mr. Fisher if there was a rule requiring only one extension? Mr. Fisher replied that Mr. Evancoe indicated to him that while this individual did request an extension last year, and it was approved, it wasn’t necessary because the initial Final Preliminary Plat approval of September 2000 was good for two years so this is really their first extension. Mr. Evancoe agreed.

Member Landry asked if the administration informed the developer that he had to seek an extension last year? Mr. Evancoe said no, when the applicant came forward and requested an extension the staff didn’t realize the initial approval was good for two years. Member Landry noted the staff should have informed the developer that he didn’t need an extension.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked what the citation in the ordinance was for the regulation that grants a two-year extension. Mr. Evancoe said it was not an extension, it was the length that the initial approval was good for and is in Section 3.02 of the Subdivision Ordinance.

Member Capello thought they passed an ordinance so the applicant couldn’t continually come in and get one-year extensions and that there was a cutoff point? Mr. Evancoe thought that referenced the Zoning Ordinance as it pertained to site plans and was not in the Subdivision Ordinance. Member Capello asked that he look for it for the next meeting so Council would be informed.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she would be interested to know if this was covered by the State enabling legislation for subdivisions law. Mr. Evancoe said he would look at that too.

Member Capello asked if this would be recorded as a first extension now? Mr. Fisher said it would.

Member Capello had worked with multi billing on this project with the City and thought he should recuse himself.

Member DeRoche asked Mr. Fisher what the RUD amendment would accomplish? Mr. Fisher said it built on an earlier discussion of Council that when this was initially approved, the concept was the developer was going to instruct the permanent sewer extension and it would be financed with a special assessment district. Now, the developer would still construct the system but the City would advance the money and then be paid back from benefit fees. The developer has approximately 25% of the total number of units that would tap into this. When the developer’s project came on line they would pay all of their fees as a lump sum, which would be 25%. Then as future development took place in the area serviced by this extension the City would recoup the rest of the money.

Member DeRoche asked if this was consistent with how sewer systems are normally advanced. Mr. Fisher said no, the difference is this is a developer doing an extension and we are advancing the money. Member DeRoche asked if there were other parties involved with this? Mr. Fisher said there would be other parties that would ultimately benefit. 75% of the area benefiting would be parties other then Maybury. Member DeRoche asked if this provided a legal advantage? Mr. Fisher didn’t think it was a legal advantage; from a financing standpoint Ms. Smith-Roy had concluded this would be an advantage to the City, from a processing and administrative standpoint, in terms of trying to follow up on the developer and the payback aspect. The City manages the project and the developer constructs it with an entity of the developer, which is the next item on the agenda. Member DeRoche didn’t see a problem with the changes in this agreement.

Residential Unit Development Agreement subject to an approval of the ratification at later a date.

Member Landry said the documentation Council received indicated that on February 25, 2002 Council was presented with information advancing the concept of allowing the developer to finance the construction. He asked if the City was financing this? Mr. Fisher said yes. This is a change from the way it had been previously prepared. Member Landry said then the developer proposed that they would finance the construction of this sanitary sewer extension and that was the original RUD that was approved. Mr. Fisher said correct. Member Landry said now the developer wants the City to finance it? Mr. Fisher said he didn’t know whether it was the developer’s idea or the City’s idea. Member Landry asked if anyone knew whose idea it was?

Mr. Pearson said the original RUD spoken of was the SAD. The second idea they presented and asked approval to pursue was for the developer to get out of the SAD and just have a payback to the developer and avoid the administrative costs of an SAD financing mechanism. The developer proposed and staff entertained and presented tonight this idea of the developer building the sewer and the City reimbursing them lump sum. As Mr. Fisher noted, Maybury Estates is about 25% of the tap units and there is also Tuscany Reserve, which would be serviced by this and is in the process of a site plan approval. It was just a question of whether the City, for a relatively small $525,000 sanitary sewer, wished to reimburse the developer and then be the beneficiary of the tap units. The real issue was whether the City wanted to stay in the business of being the developer’s pass-through agent on the reimbursements as they come in down the road. Member Landry asked where the money would come from to finance this? Mr. Pearson said there was money in the Water and Sewer Fund for capital projects that was more than adequate to service this. The amount the City would finance would not cause any harm to our position in terms of reserves or cash flows or anything else like that.

Member Landry asked if the administration was recommending this action? Mr. Pearson said they were. Member Landry asked if when the initial RUD was approved wasn’t the sewer extension a big part of this? He recalled the sanitary issue as being a big issue and he was concerned that somehow it had changed and he asked for someone to give him some historical background.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she looked very carefully at this proposal the first time around and had a lot of very serious reservations about it. Frankly, this went beyond anything that was intended in the RUD Ordinance. The RUD Ordinance was particularly from the philosophy that those people who would want to come in with applications for RUD’s were really looking to give something back to the community from the standpoint of the quality of their projects and the manner in which they would bring their projects on line.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said this outraged her. To think that the City that had just gone through what we went through could entertain using taxpayer’s money to float a project that would first and foremost benefit a developer was way out of line. Secondly, this Council sat here in January and reviewed their goals from the previous year and one of the most far-reaching and important goals that we had was to promote smart growth thinking. Now we are promoting sprawl. Spending taxpayer dollars to finance a private development up front went beyond anything she would ever consider. Are we going to help projects go forward because other people look to us to use taxpayer money on the float? She couldn’t believe this was here; talk about a departure from the original agreement that she thought had a lot of thoughtful hammered out-processing in it with regard to how this would happen considering the lack of

infrastructure in the area and the lack of water resources. There was a lot of give and take on that and as far as she was concerned if the developer was not interested, they were not going to look to her to finance the way. If the project was going to go it was going to go because there was commitment to this community to do the project. We should not be counting taps down the road that might never come or which might come too quickly and we are not prepared for. If this was the administration’s idea, she couldn’t tell them how disappointed she was as this was not what they were there for and it also said to her that they had not learned very much in the past year. From the standpoint of looking at different perspectives in order to bring the project forward, this is not our project, she didn’t want to make it their project and she hoped it didn’t become their project. As a planner she understood what they were talking about from the standpoint of recovery but it was the upfront part of it that bothered and outraged her.

Mr. Pearson said as far as the RUD itself and what this project began and understanding the trade offs and the pluses that are given to the City for densities or whatever, those are all still in place. This doesn’t affect that, as far as a substantive development approved, this is simply an important detail on a utility and how that is to progress. None of the other advantages of the RUD that was approved are affected. One point of clarification as far as taxpayers and who is financing this the City has ample funds in Water and Sewer Funds, which is a ratepayer, funded and supported in a separate enterprise fund, which is self-sustaining. An argument could be made that that fund was made for capital improvement projects, utility extensions such as this. In terms of smart growth or not he would offer for a point of consideration that one of the smart growth principles was that growth follows utility development and getting away from septic systems, wells, etc. That doesn’t affect how this would proceed because this is all along public utilities; that is part of the RUD and that is still in place and this doesn’t change any of that. There is an argument to be made that this had the advantages of using the developers, economies of scale and private oversight in getting the project in less expensively to all the ratepayers and the people who connect. Also, with the City oversight, the City still has all the control about what’s being done to our specifications and our oversight of inspections; so we have those advantages. It is simply a mechanism, for a relatively small project, for Council consideration on whether they want staff to advance that money from these ratepayers from the enterprise fund for extending the utilities and having the City receive the benefit of the interest earnings and the tap fees rather than having them go to the developer.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said there is no capital improvement plan for this funding. This Council never approved that funding with regard to any kind of capital improvement plan. It hasn’t been planned and it hasn’t been funded. To suggest that smart growth is being respected because you are following utilities, you are promoting sprawl by extending utilities without discrimination. If you wish to presume that development will follow, and she was sure it would, then you are promoting sprawl not smart growth. Smart growth suggests that there is an element of planning that goes into how these particular developments will ensue. This suggests that administration is the way that we would go with regard to saving a few bucks when in fact we are fronting $500,000. This Council did not plan this, it does not promote smart growth and she respectfully disagreed with Mr. Pearson

Member DeRoche said this was consistent with how we normally extend our sanitary sewer projects. The City pays for the infrastructure and that money is reimbursed by the users as

they tap in. Mr. Pearson said the users as they tap always reimburse and the difference here is that traditionally those tap fees have gone back to some original developer and what we are

proposing now is that those tap fees come to the City for reimbursement because we are going to front the money.

Member DeRoche said the City has done sewer extension on their own initiative, paid the money out of the funds and collected the money back to reimburse themselves. He said you walk a fine line when talking about sprawl and the difference between people living where they want to live and buying what they want to buy and us holding a hammer over their head and saying we are not going to give you the health, safety and welfare of a sanitary sewer and water because we don’t want you to live where you want to live. He said if we could do something that has been a business practice of this City for a long time, do it in a way that does not hurt taxpayers and in fact ends up with more money in the fund at the end of the year as the process goes through then there is no reason to punish these people who want this infrastructure. He thought infrastructure was one of the core services provided by this community. Roads, water, sewer, fire and police are the base of what people expect out of the City. The additional stuff is the perks. He didn’t think that this was just a benefit to the developer but strongly believed this was a benefit to the users. Doing business this way pays for itself in full plus some. Member DeRoche also believed that allowing the developer involvement in development of some of the infrastructure actually limited the City’s exposure if something goes wrong. He would vote for this because of the benefits to the City and in the end what it would give the users.

Mr. Fisher pointed out that this vote, if passed, would essentially contemplate the allocation of money for this project. It seemed to him that this project would not have a sufficient number of votes to make an allocation of money so he recommended strongly that the motion be subject to an approval of the ratification later. Member DeRoche agreed.

Motion failed for lack of support.

Mayor Clark said this did not preclude the developer from paying to put this in himself. Mr. Fisher said it would go back to an SAD arrangement. Mr. Fisher said there was no reason to consider Item 13.

Grading Permits, Drainage Easements/Right-of-Entry - Total $28,806

Corrigan Moving Systems-Oakland, Inc. 22-15-301-007 Drainage Easement - $800.00

Dynamic Land, LLC 22-16-300-052 – Sanitary Esmt, Temp Construction Esmt, and Grading

permit - $10,000

Cynthia Hoffman Trust 22-16-451-040 – Driveway Easement - $1.00 (Donantion)

TBON, LLC 22-16-251-002 - Public Easment - $3,725, Nonmotorized Pathway Easement -

$3,725, Grading Permit - $1.00

TBON, LLC 22-16-251-019 - Public Utility Easement - $2,925, Nonmotorized Pathway

Easement - $2,925, Grading Permit - $1.00

TBON, LLC 22-16-251-012 - Public Utility Easement - $1,850, Nonmotorized Pathway

Easement - $1,850, Grading Permit -$1.00

TBON, LLC 22-16-251-016 - Public Utility Easement - $250, Nonmotorized Pathway

Easement - $250, Grading Permit - $1.00

BOCO Enterprises 22-16-251-016 - Public Utility Easement - $250, Nonmotorized Pathway Easement - $250, Grading Permit - $1.00

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi thanked the Cynthia Hoffman Trust for the donation of their easement

for which they accepted a payment of $1.00.

Member Landry asked if this sign was on City property? Mr. Pearson said it was proposed to be on City property. He asked if that was the reason for the license? Mr. Pearson said it was.

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

C. Approval of 2nd Reading and Adoption of the following Island Lake payback

Ordinances:

Ordinance No. 02-37.25, an Ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, as amended, Chapter 34, "Utilities" to add a subdivision regarding the Island Lake of Novi Water Main Booster Pump System and for the reimbursement of construction charges.

Ordinance No. 02-28.42, an ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, as amended, Chapter 34, "Utilities" to add a subdivision regarding the Island Lake of Novi Middle Arm Sanitary Sewer Extension and for the reimbursement of construction charges.

Ordinance No. 02-28.43, an Ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, as amended, Chapter 34, "Utilities", to add a subdivision regarding the Island Lake of Novi Northern Arm Sanitary Sewer Extension and for the reimbursement of construction charges.

Ordinance No. 02-28.44, an Ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, as amended, Chapter 34, "Utilities", to add a subdivision regarding the Island Lake of Novi Southern Arm Sanitary Sewer Extension and for the reimbursement of construction charges.

Ordinance No. 02-28.45, an Ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, as amended, Chapter 34, "Utilities", to add a subdivision regarding the Island Lake of Novi Western Arm Sanitary Sewer Extension and for the reimbursement of construction charges.

Ordinance No. 02-37.26, an Ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, as amended, Chapter 34, "Utilities", to add a subdivision regarding the

Island Lake of Novi Wixom Road Water Main Extension and for the reimbursement

of construction charges.

This item was removed by Mayor Pro Tem Bononi.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated she pulled this item from the agenda not specifically to single out the Island Lake folks with regard to the paybacks, but she did want to have stated, for the record, the entire amount of money that was being paid back to Island Lakes. She asked someone to provide that number. Mr. McCusker said he was told it could be totaled by individual items. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi continued with her comments regarding discussion at the Ordinance Review Committee meeting when this item was referred to them. This item has been described as an ordinance, which it isn’t, and as a policy, which maybe it was but nobody could find any record of how it came about. There was a lot of concern on the Ordinance Review Committee that this

payback allowance had been used in a rather indiscriminate way. There was discussion at the Ordinance Review Committee that if we wished to extend utilities it had to be done in a thoughtful, planned manner. Also, extending utilities that are included in the Master Plan for Development and the Capital Improvements Project Budget we need to

understand that these utilities needed to be oversized in order to provide planning for areas that would come on line immediately or in the future. The fact that we would indiscriminately offer to payback in exchange for providing a size pipe that is required begged the legal question. Mr. Schultz was present at that meeting and there was a rather lengthy discussion of about five different items. The most interesting to her was must we do this? Is there any obligation for us to do this? The answer was no. So, if they decided to do this, then the question the committee had was if we want to do this there should be some method to this madness. An example they came up with was if they wished to encourage OST development, for example, then they could absolutely establish a payback ordinance for that. But, in fact, they have no legal obligation to do so. So, if the Master Plan said any development in a certain area would require piping to be of a certain size, then that’s the cost of developing that site. To presume that because a developer would put in that pipe to serve future needs that have not been documented by Council nor approved in the Master Plan nor specifically made into a policy or ordinance presumed that anybody that wanted to do this could. This has been a practice that has been primarily driven in the past by administration. What you have here is administration and developers determining whether this happened or not.

The last thing she recalled that the committee asked for when discussing this issue, she had the minutes of June 20^th, was they wanted a history of how this was done and they wanted to know how much money was paid out over the years since this "so called" policy was adopted. We have not received that information so she pulled this item from the agenda in order to bring the questions and concerns of the Ordinance Review Committee. She felt very strongly about this issue from the standpoint of saying if there’s area that we want to promote for use, let’s do this. If we are arbitrarily or indiscriminately doing this why are we doing it? Who benefits? Unbridled growth, perhaps. We also have the possibility, as she understood happened in some instances, where we provided oversized piping and then it died there. So, the question was planning, targeting growth that we wish to occur, targeting growth that boosts revenue for this City and what this Council wished to emphasize with regard to our future. That was the reason she pulled this, she didn’t see any of those things happening and Council did not receive any of the financial information that was requested. So, if there is interest on this Council to bring the matter forward at the Council level where she thought, whether it’s a policy or ordinance, the discussion belonged so that policy could be put into action when future requests were made that’s what she was looking for.

Mr. Fisher recommended that the issue of the payback arrangement and over sizing of utilities by the developers should be broken into two parts. 1) Policy to be applied in the future and 2) Addressing this particular project. There is a lengthy record in this matter in which the developer moved forward and expended huge amounts of money to make these extensions and over size the facilities on the representation that there would be this payback. If we don’t honor the representations that have been made in the past he could tell Council without any question that they would be litigating this issue in the courts. He strongly recommended separating this particular project from the policy,

which he fully understood and felt it was a very worthwhile study as a policy, and using this concept as a basis for planning and promoting the planning that you would like. He would not recommend studying that issue and using this project as part of the study.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said as she mentioned at the Ordinance Review Committee meeting that she had no interest in holding the Island Lake people hostage. She thought the point needed to be made loud and clear that the policy that is driving this was not emanating from the table nor was there a formalized policy approved by Council. She looked at other communities with regard to the way they do this and found that it was very discriminating. They process and suggest that over sizing should be used in areas they are really willing or wish to see develop to the benefit of the community. She was concerned about this wholesale attitude.

Mr. Jerome said the total amount of the payback was $776,812.20. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if it was a bargain? She didn’t know. She wanted to bring this forward and the minutes of the Ordinance Review Committee and the discussion that the committee had on this would be brought forward at a future Council meeting as a regular agenda item. To be fair to those Island Lake folks she would make a motion.

To approve Item C of the Consent Agenda, the approval of the

Member Capello said he had pled with Council to bring from Ordinance Review Committee this exact issue. Let’s establish a policy on where payback agreements would be allowed and the reasons for that. He requested this be on the next agenda if Ordinance Review was ready to do that. He thought there were several others that administration was sitting on waiting for Council to establish a policy.

Member DeRoche asked where the reimbursement money, $776,000, came from?

Mr. Fisher said it would come from individuals tapping into and using the facilities over time. Member DeRoche asked where the money would go? Mr. Fisher said it would go back to Island Lake because already advanced the money. Member DeRoche asked if they expended more or less than $776,000? Mr. Fisher said it was considerably more. Member DeRoche said the users are paying for this and the money would go back to the people who did the work? Mr. Fisher said that was correct. It scared him when he heard about a government agency, whether Council or anyone else, saying they should be discriminating against people who want to do something with their own money. He thought the last place in America that they wanted decisions being made about where people lived or what they bought was at the Council level. None of us own property in Island Lake, none of us wrote a check to front for this development and none of us live in there that voluntarily paid for the tap in fee that is now going back to the developer that did it. Member DeRoche agreed a policy was needed but he did not want a policy that allowed this or any future Council to decide which projects warrant reimbursements and which ones don’t. It should be objective and clear without the influence of politics but based on a business model that Council has set up.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi requested that Council revisit the goals they stated when they got together, see which ones they had accomplished, look to see if anything has changed and if there were any emerging issues that would require amending their goals. Mayor Clark asked Mr. Helwig if that could be done the first or second meeting in September? Mr. Helwig agreed.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said it was always a pleasure to recognize people who have done proactive work. She noticed in the Novi News an article about concerns in one of the neighborhoods about storm water pond nutrification (odors, algae, weeds, etc.) in their pond. She had a document that would be available very soon and wanted to congratulate Cynthia Uglow of City administration and David Maurice, Environmental Director, for creating the handbook, City of Novi Homeowner’s Guide to Water Quality Protection. One of the topics was pond maintenance and how what we do everyday affects water quality.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was also interested in looking at the maintenance of our regional storm water basins. There are two in particular; Village Oaks Lake and Meadowbrook Lake, that the members of the Storm Water Committee who were also prime supporters and contributors to this handbook are really looking forward to guidance from Council. Funds are already being reserved in order to do something about the maintenance that has been so long neglected. Mr. McCusker has been working on that as well. Look for this handbook soon, it will be available to anyone who wants it and it is a job very well done.

Member Capello also read the article and felt there would be more problems than regional basins. He thought there was an unwritten rule, regarding subdivisions, that the maintenance and clean up of those basins was the responsibility of the homeowner associations. He thought when it came time with the new subdivisions and they have to clean those up there would be a lot of people before Council asking why. Particularly with those basin within the subdivisions that might carry water through their subdivisions from other subdivisions so the water and sediment coming into their subdivisions might not be theirs. He thought policies needed to be set within the next six months and determine whether the City would be responsible for that clean up or if it is the homeowner associations then they should be put on notice so they could begin to put monies aside. If the City was going to be responsible then we should set money aside. Perhaps by taking some type of fee as we do with the regional basin where we take the maintenance fee which is supposed to be a perpetual fee for continued maintenance.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said the document addresses Member Capello’s concerns and even sets up inspections and budgets so homeowners have an idea of what they need to do in order to consider the activities that need to be done. There is also assistance from the Drain Commissioner’s Office in most counties. So between the City, the homeowners and guidance from this document she thought they would be on their way to do what he was suggesting.

Member Capello said the guide is put together but it has to be a decision from this Council table as to who is responsible for the maintenance. Someone can’t just prepare a guide and say this is the directive from the City. The Council as a whole has to make that directive. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said this isn’t an ordinance it is an informational packet. Member Capello said he understood but the informational packet may be wrong or inconsistent with what this Council as a whole wanted to do or how they wanted to handle future retention basin maintenance and clean up.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi advised this was only for private property so the Council was really not involved in private property maintenance. Member Capello said this brought his comments to mind and that was why he thought those issues needed addressing.

Member Landry said he read the letter from Harriman and Associates dated August 1^st apparently claiming that the Novi Fire Department damaged their gate. He asked Chief Lenaghan to explain the situation. Mr. Klaver and Chief Lenaghan had discussed this and determined they wanted to check that the gate had been properly installed. If so and it was a matter of us trying to improperly force it then it was his recommendation to Chief Lenaghan that it was a bill that the City should cover. Chief Lenaghan said the Fire Marshal checked the gate today and said it was operating. Member Landry asked if the City would pay for it and Mr. Klaver said yes.

Letter from Thomas A. Rosin, Re: Briar Pointe Plaza Consent Judgment

Letter from James Korte, Re: Lakeview Market

Letter from James Korte, Re: Mr. Korte’s Property Projects

Letter from Bill Rice, Re: Nine Mile Bike Path

Letter from David J. Chaundy-Enclave Condominium Association, Re: response to Novi

Fire Department incorrectly opened entrance gate on April 18, 2002.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:01 AM.

_________________________________ ________________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: ________________________

Charlene Mc Lean

Date approved: August 26, 2002