Mayor Csordas called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Csordas, Mayor Pro Tem Landry, Council Members Capello, Gatt, *Lorenzo-absent, Nagy, Paul

*Member Lorenzo arrived at 7:03 P.M.

ALSO PRESENT: Richard Helwig, City Manager

Tia Gronland-Fox, Director of Human Resources

Kathy Smith-Roy, Finance Director

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Randy Auler, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry

Rob Hayes, City Engineer

Benny McCusker, Director of Department of Public Works

Mr. Helwig removed Item 10, Approval of Benefit and Pension Policy Review for Administrative Staff. He advised Council that communication was received from the President of Teamsters Local 214, State, County and Municipal Workers, indicating they have received authorization from the City’s administrative employees and have filed a petition for representation. He said until the election is held, we are prohibited from discussing Item 10.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry added to Mayor and Council Issues, Item #2. To discuss the portion of the Zoning Ordinance regarding storage of mobile homes and construction equipment in residential lots.

Member Nagy, on behalf of Member Lorenzo, added, under Mayor and Council Issues, Item #3, An account of the Library fund raising for the next Council meeting.

Member Capello added, under Mayor and Council Issues, Item #4, Representation at Union Negotiations.

Member Paul added, under Mayor and Council Issues, Item #5, Wixom and Eleven Mile Intersection, and #6, The Timing of Lights on Novi Road.

Member Paul added, under Matters for Council Action Part 1 Item #3, 3A, Windows on the present police building.

Sherry Peters, President of the Northville Community Foundation, and the person who had to connect the dots for Maybury Farm. She presented a plaque to Council to thank the City of Novi, and said Maybury Farm has opened for the first time in 688 days. She said they owed a great deal of gratitude to Novi for giving them the barns, which have been magnificently redone. She said they greatly appreciated their kindness in helping Maybury come back to life again.

Mayor Csordas congratulated her on the grand opening of Maybury, and thought it would be a welcome asset back to the community.

Ms. Peters said there is a plaque in the new barn recognizing the City of Novi for their contribution. Mayor Csordas said and Toll Brothers and Ms. Peters said yes.

Steven Landau, Serenity, Timber Ridge Subdivision, said he had sent an e-mail to Council regarding not seeing many barns anymore in town. He requested an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would prohibit, on residential property, the storage of mobile homes, trailers, recreational vehicles, water craft, construction equipment and construction material. He thought it was time the City, as residential as this one is, started dealing with the kinds of things that are stored outside. Mr. Landau said he and a number of the residents in his subdivision are concerned about the fact that the Zoning Ordinance does permit the storage of these kinds of vehicles and equipment. He said they thought it was time to change the ordinance, and asked Council to give this serious consideration and start the process.

Kathy Mutch, Chair of the Novi Historical Commission, said they had a very successful annual Fuerst Farm Family Day two weekends ago. As part of that event, in support of the library, they decided to put out empty jars, and ask that if people wanted to contribute to the Library Building Fund in appreciation for the Fuerst Farm Family Day event, they would be glad to facilitate that. Ms. Mutch said they collected the money at the end of the day, and were surprised to see what it had added up to. She said they wanted to present the money to the President of the Library Board, in this particular setting, because they would like other people to think about what they might do to contribute to that process.

Ms. Mutch introduced the members of the Historical Commission, Roy Prentiss, Dave Lussier, Betty Nick. Thomas Swope was not present. Ms. Nick will do the presentation and once the figure of what is collected is released, an anonymous donor has offered to match the amount raised. Ms. Mutch said the doubled amount will go to the Library, which in turn will double it again through the Walker Fund.

Ms. Nick presented to the Library Board $480.00 collected at the Fuerst Farm Family Day. She said there was a wonderful turnout with about 1,500 people attended. She hoped that

the money would go for a very good cause at the Novi Library. Rick Smith, President of the Library Board of Trustees, accepted the donation and thanked the Historical Commission Members. He said they had a display of the plans for the new Library at the Fuerst Farm Family Day event, and appreciated the event. Mr. Smith said more events were coming up, and he was looking forward to talking with City Council in the future.

A. Approve Minutes of:

September 10, 2005, Special Interview meeting

September 12, 2005, Regular meeting

September 15, 2005, Special Interview meeting

B. Enter Executive Session immediately following the regular meeting of September 26, 2005 in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing labor negotiations, pending litigation and privileged correspondence.

C. Approval to award bid for Fire Station #1, #2 and #3 painting to Cornerstone Painting, the low bidder, in the amount of $15,400.

D. Approval to award bid to Maddox Irrigation, Inc., the low bidder, in the amount of $32,950 for the installation of an irrigation system on four baseball fields at the Community Sports Park.

E. Approval of Final Pay Estimate No. 3 to Coop-Arz Excavating, LLC for the Grand Court/West Park Drive water main service connection in the amount of $1,450.

F. Acceptance of water main and sanitary sewer as public utilities with corresponding 20-foot permanent easements for each utility from Singh of Churchill II, LLC for Churchill Crossing Phase III.

G. Acceptance of water main as a public utility with corresponding 20-foot permanent easements and acceptance of a sidewalk easement from Paychex Partners, LLC for the Paychex project for property located on parcel 50-22-12-200-037.

H. Approval to cancel October 17, 2005 City Council Interview meeting.

I. Acceptance of water main as a public utility with corresponding 20-foot permanent easement from Citizens Bank and approval of the Storm Drainage Facility Maintenance Easement Agreement for the Citizens Bank project, 40020 W. Twelve Mile Road, located in the Haggerty Corridor Corporate Park and identified as Unit 6; Parcel 50-22-12-400-053.

J. Approval of the 2006 Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (S.M.A.R.T.) Municipal Credit Funds Resolution and Contract in the amount of $44,713.

K. Approval of License Agreement with Ted March for the placement of a fence and shed within the retained easement of the vacated Iva Street right-of-way at 2001 Austin Drive.

L. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 705.

Caren Collens, SWOCC, said there are three big things happening simultaneously. The Telecommunication Act is being rewritten on the Hill, the Michigan Telecommunication Act has sunset and we have phone companies entering the competitive picture, especially for cable services. We, referring to the National Association of Telecommunication Officers and Advisers, National League of Cities, National League of Counties, Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Townships and Protec, in terms of retaining local control over our cities rights-of-way. She said that is one of the biggest issues in addition to retaining franchise fees, public, educational and governmental channels. The timing is very urgent right now. There is a Senate draft bill. She said they just got back from Washington D.C., where they met with several legislators. She said the City of Farmington Hills passed very similar resolutions, and they were able to hand deliver those to our representatives in Washington D.C., which had a tremendous impact. They need to hear from our cities and our residents. She said they have also been involved in a letter writing campaign and Mayor Csordas has written several letters, and that has had an impact. She said members of National League of Cities and Counties and Protec were invited in a three hour session to meet with the House Subcommittee on the Senate draft bill. It is very urgent that we retain our local rights, so these resolutions before Council are very important.

Member Nagy said residents are concerned about the rising costs of Basic cable. She said residents were also concerned and wanted to know why the City of Novi has a contract with only one cable company. They wanted to know why others weren’t allowed so there would be competition and the ability to chose who they want.

Mayor Csordas said he was on the Cable Committee for about four years and the reason there is no other cable company is because none of them are coming here. He said regarding the rising rates of Basic cable he thought the rates of the very basic service is one of the only things that the SWOCC Board has any jurisdiction over and every time it comes up for renewal that battle ensues and things happen. He asked what the cost of the very basic cable was. Ms. Collens said it was $11.95, and that was frozen due to action from the board. He said it is a constant battle and there are very few people on just the basic, which has about 17 channels.

Member Nagy said several years ago the cables were hanging on bushes between buildings. Now, the newest thing is they tape it to the sidewalk and leave it there. She would like to see the cable buried. She said people have tripped and fallen because of this. Ms. Collens said it

is a violation of the franchise agreement and asked Member Nagy to notify her of the areas and she would take care of it immediately.

Member Capello asked Mr. Helwig if the forfeiture funds, where they are at now, are in

an interest bearing account. Mr. Helwig said they were. Member Capello asked what the interest rate was, and if the money is taken with this budget amendment and put into another fund is that an interest bearing account. Ms. Smith-Roy said the funds are in interest bearing accounts and some money was put out for a longer period of time. She said they spread out through CD’s and the lowest CD is around 3% and the highest is around 3 ¾%. All of the City’s funds, everyday, are in interesting bearing accounts. She said every dime is in an interest bearing account, at least a minimum money market account. The funds are not being transferred except for, upon approval tonight; the funds for the debt service would be transferred to the Debt Service Fund. She said what is happening is they will appropriate the monies to a line item as designated on the budget amendment. They are not actually going to move to another fund except for the debt service. Member Capello said we are not going to use this money to pay off the bonds until 2008, correct? Ms. Smith-Roy said what happens is we will transfer the money to the Police Debt Service Fund that has been in existence and in May we will enter into an escrow agreement with a third party. They will go out and purchase investments to hold that money and then pay off the debt. That is what equates to the Federal Government as us spending the money, by locking into the escrow agreement.

Member Capello said so we are not going to just put it into another interest bearing account. Ms. Smith-Roy said no, it will be earning interest in the Debt Service Fund and that’s why the dollar amount we will need to set aside for the 2008 path is less than the principle. We are going to anticipate earning a certain amount of interest.

Member Paul advised Council she had discussions with several people, former Police Chief Lee BeGole, former Chief Shaeffer and Acting Chief Molloy as well as Ms. Smith-Roy. She said all four of them agreed that the building improvements for the windows and also for a door were needed. There is money being spent on a police station with leaky windows. The windows leak because of a tornado 14 years ago when the window frames were bent. These repairs have been needed for quite some time.

Mayor Csordas asked if the money was there and Member Paul said it is.

Member Capello asked where the money was at. Mr. Helwig said after earlier action tonight there is on hand, in reserve, $486,212 in Police Forfeiture Funds from this major drug bust, and there are other smaller amounts from other drug activity. If the $50,000 is taken it would reduce it to $436,212 in reserve. Member Capello said so we are nit picking and hacking away at the forfeiture funds. Mr. Helwig said it would come from the forfeiture funds to do the window replacements and asbestos. Member Capello said he had no objection to the improvements but did not want to use forfeiture fund money to do it. We are going to hack away at it until it is gone. If money can be found somewhere else, he would have no problem with it.

Member Nagy thought that with about $7 million they would have all the money necessary. A compromise motion was made which included the fact that the shooting range would be built. She thought it would be a smart idea because it involves the police building, and the increasing cost of energy won’t be helped with leaky windows. She felt the improvements were necessary, and she would support the motion. There is still a lot of money coming in and she reminded them that they have all agreed to do the shooting range.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated he would not support the motion because he is on record as saying he didn’t want to piece meal the forfeiture funds out. He said as soon as all of the forfeiture funds are in, he would be happy to consider this. He agreed with Member Capello that if the money could be found elsewhere he would support it.

Member Gatt agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Landry and thought it was necessary, but wanted to see all the figures in for the expenditures they are already committed to.

Member Lorenzo said this as a priority.

Dave Potter, Engineer with Spalding DeDecker, said they had worked very hard with the Novi staff and legal counsel to have this presented tonight. Mr. Potter said agreement had been reached on the terms and the fees and he would be available to answer any questions.

Member Capello asked what impact the language "open for review and negotiation by mutual agreement for an additional one year term". He asked if it created liability on either party. Mr. Schultz said no, the language is a good faith acknowledgement that there will be an opportunity for discussion with the City. Mr. Schultz said it is not a binding obligation on anyone to give the contract, just to meet and discuss. Member Capello said there will be a whole new negotiation after one year and Mr. Schultz agreed.

Member Gatt said he wanted to be consistent and would not support the motion as he thought this should be before the next Council.

Member Nagy said she would also be consistent in not supporting this motion. She was looking back at Council discussions on engineering services, and recalled she had asked the administration to negotiate some of the fee structures given to Council. She didn’t think that was done and could not support the motion.

Mr. Auler, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry, said, for background purposes, during the joint meeting between Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission and City Council there was discussion about the potential source of additional revenue, and pursuing the possibility of naming rights. He said they proceeded forward and established a Naming Rights Policy which the Council adopted in April 2005. At that time, Council directed staff to negotiate an agreement between the City Council and the Novi Park Foundation for the Park Foundation to implement the naming rights program, to seek markets, negotiate and bring back agreements for Council’s approval. Mr. Auler said he and Mr. Schultz spent a lot of time working on the agreement with the foundation and felt they had a win win agreement. It would benefit the City, the Park Foundation and the citizens of Novi in terms of enhancing the park system.

Mr. Auler said some of the key components within the agreement are that the City is allowing the Park Foundation to utilize the City facilities to market those facilities, to receive contributions to the Foundation, and then name those facilities after the donor. He said following City Council approval, contributions would come into the Novi Park Foundation and 20% would cover expenses and remaining money would establish an endowment within the foundation. He said an endowment is an important component in establishing long term viability and support for the park system, and minimizing the impact on the tax dollars within the community. The remaining monies would remain within the Foundation, and as the agreements currently written, at budget time City Council would request funding from the Foundation in terms of what the priorities would be, and the Foundation would weigh in and agree upon those. Then the Foundation would hopefully fund those projects with the money available. He said the Foundation’s

Intent and discussion has been to fund above the 80% with monies they have raised above and beyond, for instance through the golf outing. He said in the event that the Council and Foundation can agree, they tried to build into the contract a minimum amount that the Foundation would be required to fund, which would be 50% of the monies available within the account, and then the money would roll over and be available for next year. Mr. Auler said all the money the Foundation raises, whether it’s through naming rights or other means, has to be spent for the improvement of the park system.

Mr. Auler noted alternate language had been included within the agreement. They are policy issue or direction that they would seek from Council this evening. As they drafted the agreement they tried to follow the Naming Rights Policy approved on April 18^th and felt they had succeeded with one exception. In the policy it states that the contributions be utilized for capital improvements for establishing an endowment fund and/or for park programs. The Foundation requested, through the naming rights, that monies be available for park improvements and for an endowment, and not necessarily for park programs. He said the Foundation felt that they didn’t want to fund operating budget items within the Park Department’s budget.

Also, included in the agreement on Page 5, is alternate language as it relates to the money that will remain with the Foundation. As it is currently written, the Council, at budget time, will make a request from the Park Foundation and they will consider those

Requests, and then fund them. He said their hope is to fund more than the 80%, utilizing other monies they have raised. The alternate language, if Council chooses, would be that at anytime the Council would ask for money, the Foundation would have

to provide that money. The Foundation included in their motion on September 20^th to approve the agreement as written with some alternate language. That being the first item, to eliminate the termination without cause by the City, and Mr. Auler didn’t feel that would be in the best interests of the City. He said they chose the second option in the agreement as currently written, which was if the City terminated the agreement without cause the money would remain with the Foundation. Mr. Auler introduced Mr. Staab, President and Chairman of the Board for the Novi Park Foundation.

Member Capello said more money will be raised than just through naming rights. Mr. Auler said correct. Member Capello said the second to last sentence says "if the two parties cannot reach an agreement on projects to be funded, the Foundation would be obligated to provide 50% of the existing Fund Balance to the City for park improvements. Member Capello asked if that included money beyond money raised for naming rights. Mr. Auler said no, just related to naming rights. Member Capello said so the golf course money they raised without City help is 100% theirs. Mr. Auler said yes, but they could use that money to help supplement, if the City asked for a grant, they could use that to put up more money for an improvement. Member Capello said the most we can take is 50% of the 80% of the naming rights. Mr. Auler said as the agreement’s currently written, yes.

Member Lorenzo reiterated some of the discussion. She said the Naming Rights Policy that was adopted by the Council to raise additional non-tax revenue for the City. Through this policy the Council did agree to give all of the money raised to Parks and Recreation. Conceivably, the Council could have raised money from Naming Rights and basically just used that money for anything they saw fit. However, the Council did choose to include in the Naming Rights the three uses for Parks and Recreation, those being facilities capital, endowment fund and programs and services. These are the three areas the money can be utilized only for Parks and Recreation. She said we are selling the naming rights to City owned facilities and the use and stewardship of City owned facilities lies here with City Council.

Member Lorenzo noted that’s why she had concerns. She said it appeared to her that a lot of this language has the Foundation seeking authority for the use and distribution of funds that non-elected persons or entities are not entitled to have. She said that authority rests with the City Council. It would be inappropriate for the Council to give away that authority, and not only inappropriate it would be a dangerous precedent. Member Lorenzo said if a totally separate, private non-elected, non-appointed organization were to gain authority over the use and distribution of what are going to be City funds, because they are based on City owned facilities. She said wouldn’t we have outside and/or City organizations such as Parks and Recreation, Planning Commission, etc. seeking some kind of authority for those kinds of uses.

Member Lorenzo said she would not support the document with that language in it for the above reason. She suggested they go with the alternate language as proposed by the City Attorney with regard to termination without cause. Also, she didn’t think what the money would be used for needed to be included, because that’s already in the policy itself. Member Lorenzo said she wouldn’t want to limit it to only capital, because the policy itself says it can be used for capital, endowment or programs and services. So, she said she would just eliminate capital improvements and she would be in favor of the alternate language.

Member Lorenzo said, additionally, other concerns are on Page 3, Item 3, ii, it says that the Foundation agrees to "use its best efforts to secure donations, gifts, or bequests and to manage same for the general purposes and specific facilities set forth in the Naming Rights Police." She believed that commitment language is too lack luster, because from the beginning she has said that whoever is going to do this needed to aggressively pursue this. She suggested adding "use its best efforts to aggressive pursue securing donations, gifts, etc.", because that more accurately represents how strongly the Council feels about raising these funds. She was hoping the Foundation felt the same way.

Member Lorenzo said on page 4, Item e, #2, (a), Deduction for Foundation Costs/Expenses and for Foundation Capital Improvement Endowment Fund. She believed that 20% is too generous on the part of the City and gave away too much discretion of some of those funds. She said she would be agreeable to locking in 10% for an endowment fund, and then agree to reimburse expenses at cost. She thought it would be greedy for the Foundation to expect to have expenses paid beyond what there is. They are a non-profit organization, and should not be seeking profit from the City. She would be happy to reimburse them at cost but it would be too generous to ask for any more than that. Member Lorenzo believed the distribution, which is the alternate language, the deduction and the more aggressively pursuing this are her main concerns to this agreement.

Member Lorenzo asked Mr. Staab how the Foundation was operating and the monies it has raised thus far.

Mr. Staab said the balance sheet was presented to Council this evening. It shows assets of $34,546, net income year to date of $28,632.47. He said the beginning of the Foundation was in April 2004 and the first major fund raiser or kick off was in March of 2005. The major fund raiser to date was the golf outing on August 4^th. There have been commitments from outside sources for soccer and the White Jaguars also gave donations. She asked if she heard correctly that the net cash assets to date are $28,642. Mr. Staab said no, he said the net income is $28,632.47. Member Lorenzo asked how much cash did they have to spend and Mr. Staab said $34,546 in the checking and savings accounts. She asked how much of that, to date, has been spent on Administration, and Mr. Staab didn’t have that number. He said it would be minimal amounts because a lot of their printing, etc. has been negotiated, and they were fortunate to have a board member who operates in the printing industry, so the rates have been very favorable. She asked if comparable bids had been done and he responded no. Member Lorenzo asked how he knew the rates were good and he responded that when receiving in kind donations he wasn’t going to "kick a gift horse in

the mouth". Member Lorenzo said no, not an in kind donation, but is all of it in kind and he said not all of it is in kind, and some nominal fees have been paid out. Member Lorenzo said the information she saw looked like the total expenditure was $4,000 for printing and copying from June, and she didn’t know if that had been increased or not. Mr. Staab said the expenses year to date on the profit and loss statement were $1,000 for grant contract expenses, fund raising expenses of $15,000, non-personnel expenses of $5,305 and miscellaneous expenses of $995. He said he knew for a fact that there is

over $1,500 of insurance costs in there too for general liability and directors and officer’s liability, which is in force at this point in time. Member Lorenzo said the profit and loss statement dated January 1 thru June 19, 2005 includes non-personnel expenses of printing and copying of $4,488. She said with regard to Naming Rights she would like it in the agreement that they would competitively bid out any costs that would be associated such as printing, companies, vendors, etc. Mr. Staab said OK, and if an amendment is made he would have to go back to his Board of Directors to get that approved. Member Lorenzo said that’s fine, she thought that was prudent, and it is the way the City operates. Mr. Staab said they are not a City entity, and Member Lorenzo said she understood, but we are.

Member Lorenzo said with regard to the income that has been accumulated, how much of that has come back to the City so far. Mr. Staab said $1,000, and asked her to remember that their biggest fund raiser was August 4, 2005, and we still have expenses that are being paid out for that final outing, etc. He said they will be making decisions at the October meeting for further disbursement of funds and a strategy and plan going forward with disbursement. She asked if that was a scholarship donation, and he said yes. She said other than that, the Foundation activities in terms of contributions to the City have not included any of the others that are included in their activities and operational information from their Foundation Articles of Incorporation, such as park amenities, playground equipment, etc. Mr. Staab said not as of yet, but they did identify at their September Parks, Recreation and Forestry meeting several opportunities to fund, within the department, such things as safety equipment for softball, other amenities and needs. She said then you have identified those. Mr. Staab said right, and he asked at that meeting for a report or recommendation coming out of the department to them so they could entertain it at the next meeting. Member Lorenzo said then you anticipate forthcoming funds to the City. Mr. Staab said exactly, because as a Foundation we must disburse the money.

Member Lorenzo asked if they had a plan in place to raise additional funds before the end of the year. Mr. Staab said no. She said then it didn’t look like they would meet their intended goal of $100,000 as set forth in their financial data. Mr. Staab said probably not, and the reason being that the golf outing was a major undertaking. He said they did that with five or six people. Now we are a board of twelve. Those people came on board in August, and they wanted a transition period to get them up to speed. Mr. Staab said there are different committees they will be allocated to or signed up for, and then they will begin strategizing and planning fund raising and disbursement activities for 2006 and beyond at the next meeting.

Member Lorenzo said she and Mr. Staab spoke on Saturday because this was going to be a rather large agenda, until today, so she wanted to get started early. Mr. Staab said

he appreciated her heads up on a few issues. He said he knew her concern about their 20%, and said one thing to remember on that was that back in April when they were negotiating they were at 20% and 10%. He said they had 10% costs and 20% endowment fund. She asked where that came from and he said it came from negotiations back in April during the discussion of the policy. She asked who mentioned that. Mr. Auler said he recalled that he and Mr. Staab were at the podium while the Council was discussing the policy, and there was a discussion regarding percentages and what the expenses should be and would need to be happening later as part of the

contract negotiation. He believed at that time it was 10% for expenses, 20% for endowment and then 70% into the fund. She said there was no contract at that time and thought this was comments from that side of the podium. She didn’t remember any agreement and asked Mr. Auler if she was correct, and he said there was no agreement.

Member Lorenzo said what she does recall from the March minutes when Mr. Staab said 3% to 4% in terms of administrative costs. She said her concerns were that whatever their administrative costs were as long as they go out to competitively bid, they are what they are. She didn’t think it would be prudent or fair for the Foundation to look for more money for expenses than they have. She thought they should be satisfied with reimbursements at cost, and anything above that would be greedy, and she didn’t think that was where the Foundation wanted to go. Mr. Staab said they would not be greedy and Member Lorenzo replied that she guessed they would accept reimbursement at cost. Mr. Staab said he would have to talk with his board, because it has been approved with a minor amendment. He said as far as the costs are concerned, the Foundation has initially taken all the risks, because they haven’t collected a dime yet as far as Naming Rights, etc. Member Lorenzo asked what risks they were taking now. Mr. Staab said after everything gets approved, etc., they will be outlaying all the funds, marketing materials, etc. Member Lorenzo said and the City will reimburse them, at cost, for whatever the costs of those materials are, etc. Mr. Staab said their mission too is to put this money into the Foundation, over and above the normal Naming Rights monies, etc.; it will still be used for park services and programs. She said she understood that but her concern was that, in that sense, they were looking for authority over those "extra funds", if any, and unfortunately that authority lies with the Council, not with the Foundation. You are separate, non-elected and not appointed and she could not in good conscience give over that kind of authority to anyone else, not even if it was a City appointed commission, so she would certainly not give it to a private entity. She said if there are members of the Foundation that are not satisfied with their volunteer status and would like more decision making authority then the correct action is to run for Council. Mr. Staab said he understood. She said sitting at Council table you have to take the good with the bad. Council has a lot of authority and funds to spend but also have accountability to the public that comes with how the funds are spent and how action is taken. She said that is the right of being elected and she couldn’t give over that authority, because she didn’t think he was entitled to it, with all due respect. She would be happy to support the document with the changes of 10% for endowment, reimbursement at cost, and alternate language allowing Council to terminate the agreement without cause. Member Lorenzo said if money was being spent in the middle of that they would be reimbursed. She said what she sees as a reason for without cause is suppose the Council, after a year, didn’t think that the Foundation was pursuing these Naming Rights aggressively enough and weren’t raising enough funds

that would be a reason for "without cause". She wouldn’t want the Council to wait three years to adjust a situation that wasn’t working out for the City financially. These are City funds and there are City owned facilities that would benefit by them.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said there are two kinds of relationships between the Parks Foundation and the Council. One is in the manner of a partnership, and there is a relationship in the law that is called master/servant or employer/employee. The hallmark of the partnership relationship is both parties have some manner of control. In a master servant relationship, there is no control. The master says this is the way it will be done,

they hold all the cards. He said he saw this agreement as this is a private board that is coming forward saying "we will help you raise funds using your naming rights but we would like some control." They are saying they don’t want total control but some manner of control. If we are going to stick our necks out, take time out of our businesses, because we want heavy hitters on this board who are professionals and want to give their professional time to go out and raise big dollars for the City. He said we are talking about naming rights for entire parks here, so we want people who know what they are doing. If those kinds of people are going to give their time up, they are simply asking for some modicum of say so. So then he would analyze how much say so are they asking for and as he is looking at this document he thought the amount of say so is minimal, there are a number of safeguards, and there is a total out for the City if the City is concerned about giving up control.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said if they look at the safeguards, first of all on this board, two full fledged members are going to be voting members from the Parks and Recreation Commission. Plus, Mr. Auler the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department will be an ex officio member and present at every meeting. Secondly, there is a fiduciary relationship that is spelled out with all the legal responsibilities that go with it, quarterly reports are required to the City, fidelity insurance is required, and indemnification language is in the document. If a donation comes in with a specific condition on it we have to abide by that condition. So, when talking about control, and a large donor says I want to purchase this naming right but you have to use the money for this, City Council has say so whether or not to accept the naming rights. So, in the first instance Council can control it and Council has to abide by all specific requests. He said there are a number of safeguards in this document, but look at the amount of control that they want. He said as he understands this after you take the 10% or 20%, whatever is decided or agreed upon, let’s use 20% for sake of arguing, if $100,000 donation comes in you take $20,000 out leaving $80,000. If the Foundation and the City doesn’t agree, the City can say give us half, which is $40,000 leaving $40,000 in there. The next year the City can say give us half, that’s $20,000, leaving $20,000 in there. The next year the City can say give us half, leaving $10,000. So in a relatively short amount of time the City has total control over all the money. He said if the board is just stubborn the City ultimately controls all the money.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said for him, for them to say they would like an opportunity to come to the table with Council and have some say for 50%, is not a big deal in light of paragraph 3D. Paragraph 3D of this proposed agreement says "However, should a donation or bequest in connection with the Naming Rights Policy be proposed directly to the City with the representation that the donor or contributor does not wish or intend the involvement of the Foundation, nothing in this agreement shall preclude the City from

honoring that request and intention, in which case none of the terms of this agreement shall apply." So if the City wants to go out and deal with naming rights, they can do so any time they want and completely bypass the Foundation. So, he said, the City can’t be everywhere all the time. So, we are in a sense, delegating. He thought Member Lorenzo was correct when she says the Foundation wants some control. He, also, thought they did. He said to allow someone else to do what the City doesn’t have time to do, he would not have a problem giving them some say so in it. Especially, in light of the fact, anytime Council wants they can go out and deal with naming rights and completely bypass the Foundation. If it is so easy to do, we can do it anytime we want,

and we wouldn’t even have to give what is negotiated, we could do it all. He would not mind giving up a modicum of control. If we want to talk 10% plus costs advance, he didn’t have a problem with that. If the Council felt better with that he wouldn’t have a problem, rather than the 20%, but he thought the board did need some control. So, he thought the 50% was a good solution and whoever came up with that did a good job. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said likewise on the termination, with or without cause, he thought kept everybody honest. He said that didn’t bother him either. He said the fact that if the City terminates it without cause the money stays in the Foundation, but next year they have to give the City 50%, a year after that 50%, so the City ultimately has the control. If that clause were not in there and the Foundation raised $600,000 City Council could say see you later, you did a great job, but you are dissolved, and then Council would have total control of the $600,000. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he didn’t think that was fair, after people spent a lot of time raising the money; it is not easy to raise this kind of money. If we really expect to raise big money, we are going to need big hitters to do this. So, he would support this.

Member Nagy said she appreciated the work done by the City Attorney on the agreement and the work that the Foundation has done. She stated she understood what Mayor Pro Tem Landry said, but she had to look at what the attorney said. She thought the alternative language was important, and didn’t think the attorney would have put it in the agreement otherwise. She thought this was passing money through one organization to another, and she thought the City was looking for the naming rights to supplement things that they could not afford in the future. Namely, when the Headlee Amendment comes in, which means we have to be living in 10.514 mills, and later on we are not going to get the monies and this would supplement it. She thought it was a great idea but didn’t agree with the 20%, because of the various discussions in the March meeting. She thought she had said, at that time that she believed the Foundation should get some monies, but she thought 20% was way too much. She said she also believed that Member Lorenzo had a good point about getting the cost back and 10%

plus the cost, and thought that was fair. She understood about wanting to have some control with the Foundation, but they already have some control with other aspects of the Foundation. Member Nagy said this because when talking about control, she preferred authority, it should be a cooperative effort on our parts. The Naming Rights

Agreement allows the Foundation to generate income, and the property itself with which they try to generate donations is the City of Novi, and in essence the taxpayers of this City and they own it. Member Nagy didn’t want to take anything away from the good intentions of those on this Foundation board, but she didn’t want to give people more

authority than she thought they were entitled to when it comes to taxpayer owned property. She would not support the motion in its present form.

Member Nagy said, speaking to Mr. Schultz, having heard what was said by previous speakers, and obviously you put the alternative language on page 5 regarding "all remaining amounts from any donation, gift, or bequest (which amount shall be not less than eighty, 80%, percent of such donation, gift, or bequest). She asked how he came up with that. Mr. Schultz said after getting the direction in the Spring to work with Mr. Auler and the Foundation on the agreement, the first thing they did was to take the draft that came from the Foundation, which was fairly rough, and look around for other models. This would save a little time and energy and also, get some comfort level on what was going on. He said they were breaking new ground with this and he thought this concept was being used more and more often. He said they focused on the parts of the agreement up front making sure the relationship is fiduciary, describing the kind of partnership style relationship. He thought that all worked well, but did leave a true policy question, and it is not a legal question. Mr. Schultz said they went back and forth, and it became clear that it wasn’t going to be resolved by the City Attorney’s office. It was a question for the City Council and the Foundation to decide how the money would be accessed once the Foundation had done its work. He said what’s there in bold and italics is not so much a recommendation from the City Attorney’s office, it is just the other way to do it. He said it is a policy thing that Council needed to make a decision on. The issue with what happens if the agreement is terminated without cause by either party is a significant policy and legal issue. The legal issue is resolved just by making it clear to the Council what happens if you do it, and then you make the call. He said they tried to draft the language clearly in both directions. The way it is written in the agreement now, under the motion, is that if the City terminates the agreement without cause, the money in the Naming Rights account stays there. The alternative language is if the City wants to pull back a little and say they will reimburse all their expenses, which is the other way to do it. Mr. Schultz said having laid out those two legal possibilities, it becomes Council’s policy determination which way to go. He said the only thing that needed to be avoided was doing anything that looked like a gift to the Foundation. The important thing to remember about the Foundation is if they dissolve, all their money goes to the City. Also, that to the extent the City has a contractual relationship that at some point, the City would have access to all of those files. He said at the end of the three year initial term, this continues every year, an automatic extension. Mr. Schultz thought he should point out clearly that if there’s a desire on the part of the City to end the relationship after the three years, the way the agreement’s written now, that would be a termination without cause, which would be a forfeiture of whatever is in the naming rights. He said if Council wanted to say, at the end of the three years, everybody has done their job now let’s end it, he thought Council would change that word to "walking away is with cause". He said that was all he would point out.

Member Nagy noted she appreciated the clarification, because she thought it should come from the attorney. She appreciated the people who are working on the Foundation, and she could appreciate the fact that we all want a little authority over what

we do. However, she realized that there are people volunteering their time for all kinds of things, including Council people. She said even though they are looking to raise

money, it is continuous work not matter what you do as a volunteer. She was concerned about what Mr. Schultz said and wanted to make sure that the City is

protected. She thought of a foundation as being a pass through entity where the money is collected and then disbursing it for good causes. She agreed that there is not a lot of this in this area, but thought it is an up and coming thing. She said Mr. Helwig and Mr. Auler are from states where this is normal. Member Nagy would not support the motion with that percentage in there. She said the percentages were not the ones discussed in March by those representing the Foundation. She also agreed with Member Lorenzo about competitive bidding for printing, etc.

Member Paul said her husband is on the Foundation board and had made the motion, and she asked the City Attorney if she should be recused and wanted Council to know this. Mr. Schultz said this is clearly not a direct financial interest. If Member Paul is able to be objective, she is permitted to vote, and that really would be the basis for recusal.

Mayor Csordas asked Member Paul if she could be objective and she replied she could and Council members agreed she should participate.

Member Paul said a lot of people have worked very hard on this Foundation, and a lot of new board people have been added to this. She said there are some very valid concerns. She said it would be a compromise, at this table, to have 10% plus expenses, and she thought that was fair. Her concern was regarding after the three years, and asked Mr. Schultz to repeat that for her. Mr. Schultz said the comment made by a Council member seemed to be to the effect that if at the end of the three years, and Council wasn’t happy, and the relationship hadn’t gone well, but we didn’t go ahead and terminate without cause during that three year period, the City could walk away from that agreement. He said the way the agreement is set up now, in paragraph 8, is that it is an automatic extension for one year unless either party gives notice that they don’t want to go on to the next year. Mr. Schultz said that notice, the way it is set up, is a termination without cause. This means the City would give up the right to what is in the Naming Rights account. Again, that is a policy question. If the intent was otherwise, if the intent was at the end of three years you could terminate without cause, we would have to change that word. Member Paul asked Mr. Schultz what was the best legal advice he could give Council, and how would that be worded in case that actually happened. Mr. Schultz said it would just be changing the word "with" to "without".

Mayor Csordas asked if that was included in the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Landry responded he would accept it as a friendly amendment. Member Paul asked if he would accept 10% plus expenses, and the maker of the motion said he would.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said his understanding was 10% they get to retain for endowment, and their costs would be reimbursed by the City, and he asked if that would be out of General Funds or out of funds that they raised. He was told it would be out of funds that they raised. He accepted the first friendly amendment and the intent of the

second. The problem with the second was that as he understood the section of the 20%, they get a payment in, take 20% of it, and put it in a fund and use it to pay actual costs and expenses only. Then, whatever is left at the end of the year goes into the

Capital Improvement Fund, so we don’t have to say 10% plus costs, because the 20% goes towards actual cost. Mayor Pro Tem Landry suggested the amendment, 3, E, 2A

Not to exceed 20% of each donation, gift or bequest. Such amount shall be used by the Foundation to defray the actual administration costs and expenses.

Then on the second page, Any remaining funds not used for defraying, delete "such costs" these actual costs and expenses shall be placed in the Foundation’s Capital Improvement Fund.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry thought this amendment would do what Member Lorenzo wanted. It is limiting the use of those funds to only actual expenses. He said, the other way, the 10% could be used for anything and then actual costs on top of that by just saying 10% plus actual costs. They are not saying where that 10% goes. This way we are saying it goes to actual costs only.

Member Lorenzo said, for clarification, there are only two places that that 20% can be used, administrative costs and the endowment fund. She was agreeable to putting aside 10% right off the top for an endowment fund. Anything beyond that would be administrative costs at cost, because the way this is worded now, if they take 20% off the top and they only have 4% in administrative costs then 17% is going into the endowment fund. She said that is 17% not 10% that’s there.

Member Lorenzo said she is agreeable to taking 10% off the top to put away for an endowment fund and then reimbursing them for administrative costs at cost. She said then they wouldn’t be making any profit on the situation. She said the Council should have the ability to access their funds at any time they see fit, and that is the whole thing about authority and who has control. Theoretically, the Council can say "with whatever funds are raised". So if there is $100,000 raised, and 10% goes to endowment, and Council has the rest of that money, conceivably, the Council could say they would like to put another $20,000 away for endowment, and that’s Council’s discretion whether to do that or not. She said how ever they spend the money, other than the Council agreeing to a 10% endowment off the top, should be the Councils discretion, because it is City owned public facilities and City owned money. We wouldn’t give the right to the Parks and Recreation Commission to spend General Fund money, and there is no difference.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said then all you are trying to do is change the 20% to 10%. Member Lorenzo said and that the City will reimburse them at cost. There will be no profit on their reimbursement. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he never anticipated that there would be any profit in it so all you are doing is changing the 10% to 20%. Member Lorenzo said the way this reads there is profit there. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said it says "administrative costs and expenses". She said it’s profit. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he would accept the friendly amendment.

Member Paul felt that if the 10% is done for the endowment and they are reimbursed at cost, and if Council wants more money put back into endowment at a later time we could do that. She thought this was a fair compromise and the amendment put in for the

disclosure that Mr. Schultz brought up is very fair. She said she was comfortable with that. After that, with regards to accessing the money and all of those things, that is just where she wanted to draw the line on this portion of it and make the motion. If there is

something you want to add, that’s fine. She thought it was a fair compromise for all seven of them and she would be supporting the motion with these amendments.

Member Gatt said he was ready to support the motion as first offered. He thought the compromises made are beneficial and thanked the members of the board that were

present and everyone who is not here. He thought they did a wonderful job. Member Gatt said the word relationship was used many times tonight, and he hoped the relationship with the board starts off friendly and productive, and he was sure it would continue that way.

Mayor Csordas said he was looking at the Profit and Loss Statement, Line Item #7700, Fund Raising Expenses, and it said Contributed Support of $51,441, and then a net income of $28,832. He asked that they expand on the $15,300.33 for Fund Raising expenses. Mr. Staudt said $11,000 of that is the direct cost to the golf course for the golf outing, $1,500 of that is for insurance, the balance was related to the two mailings that were done and most of it was postage. The contribution of the printing was largely that and the brochure was done for a third of the price. He said most everything there is directly related to the golf outing. He said the golf outing made a little more than $20,000.

Mayor Csordas asked Ms. Cornelius to state the motion. Ms. Cornelius said the motion is to approve the agreement as written and the amendment that was accepted was that on Page 7 of the agreement using the words, "shall be treated as determination with cause instead of the words "without" cause and 10% directly for endowment and reimburse the Foundation at cost for expenses.

Member Lorenzo questioned the section regarding cause and asked Ms. Cornelius to repeat it. Ms. Cornelius said it is on the bottom of Page 7, reading, "Termination in such case shall be treated as termination with cause by the party giving the notice."

Member Lorenzo said so we are saying that after three years we have to have cause in other to terminate.

Mr. Schultz said it will be termination with cause by the City which will trigger the provisions in the paragraph before, which say, that if the City walks away from it then it reimburses the actual expenses to that date and whatever is in that Naming Rights account comes to the City.

Member Lorenzo asked how paragraph 8 is being changed. Mr. Schultz said the last sentence "Termination in such case shall be treated as termination with cause by the City." He said that triggers the language that would allow the City to get whatever rights it would have for a termination with cause. Whatever is in that Naming Rights account would come to the City as a Fund Balance transfer.

Member Lorenzo said if the City terminates with cause and asked what about without cause. Mr. Schultz said we are talking just now at the end of the three years. We are

going to leave the language unchanged so that if the City terminates without cause during the three years, as proposed, the City would walk away from the rights to what’s in that Naming Rights account. That is the motion. He said the change is that at the end of the three years the City can retain that amount if we terminate the agreement.

Member Lorenzo said then we are locking ourselves into this agreement for three years even if we are not happy with the performance. Mayor Csordas said that’s a fair statement and Member Lorenzo said she could not support that, because she didn’t

think it would be prudent of the City to be locked in for three years. She said if we don’t like their performance, we are stuck with the Foundation for three years doing nothing for us. She said not to take anything away from the Foundation but they said by the end of this year they are not going to raise the $100,000 they intended to raise.

Mr. Schultz said there is a provision that defines cost as a failure to comply with the agreement. Member Lorenzo said yes, but all the agreement says now is that they are going to use their best efforts to do that. It doesn’t say they have to come up with a certain amount of money, so if the Council was not satisfied with the amount that was raised after a year, we can’t do anything about it. If we did want to do it without cause, they get to keep the money. She didn’t see why the Council would allow another entity to keep money without cause. It is just not a prudent business decision. She suggested a friendly amendment. Member Paul asked if there was a motion on the table.

Mayor Csordas asked what the parliamentary process on this. Mr. Schultz said the motion is in the process of being restated, and probably should be voted on without the amendment. Any formal amendment, after that, would have to come in the nature of reconsideration or a separate amendment not part of what’s already been decided.

Member Lorenzo said she could not support this, it put the City at risk of losing whatever funds the City has available to them if the City, before three years, doesn’t feel that the organization has raised enough funds, and wants to terminate the agreement.

Member Nagy said this is the "with" cause.

Mr. Helwig said Chief Lenaghan was present. At the last Council meeting there was discussion of the Fire Staffing Report, distributed several months ago. Chief Lenaghan was asked to bring back to Council his top priority in the $140,000 - $190,000 range. He has done that, and recommended the extension of the paid on call sleep over program to Station #2, which has become a dire need due to the small number of paid on call personnel available to the station at the north end. This would provide the same staffing week nights and week ends that the Station #1 sleep over program has. Mr. Helwig said they had been advised that if Council takes action, on this issue, tonight it should be subject to acceptable conclusion at the bargaining table. He said they are in negotiations

with the newly formed paid on call union, and have been advised by labor counsel that this is an appropriate topic for bargaining. He said they would like to do that as early as this week, so the Chief could implement this program as recommended to Council, in phases starting this Saturday, October 1^st.

Mayor Csordas said he would like Council to consider what Mr. Helwig just said; fully understanding why he was requesting this, and because of the situation that has arisen, he would like someone to make a motion.

Speaker DeRoche, Michigan House of Representatives, said it is a pleasure to be back in Novi and in front of Council. He said it took a little bit of the spirit and fiscal discipline from the City Council that he enjoyed as a member, and enjoyed reading that it has continued since he served. Speaker DeRoche said the State will be balancing its budget without tax or fee increases for the first time in a number of years, which is something they fought very hard for. He said the House of Representatives presented a budget that was $800 million below the Governor’s recommendation. He said they had to negotiate their way up, compromise is part of the program, but they didn’t go so far as to raise any taxes or fees during those negotiations.

Speaker DeRoche said he continues in his role as Speaker also to balance that with being the State Representative serving Novi and other communities. He noted he has had reasonable success in dealing with his relationship with the Governor as the State of Michigan tends to the important issues facing Novi including the Wixom Road project, the completion of Beck Road and the development of Providence into a hospital. He said they continue to fight the good fight, and things are going well at the State of Michigan from his perspective. HH

Cindy Gronachan, 21668 Garfield Road, stated she was before Council a couple of months ago regarding the dewatering taking place, particularly on Garfield at Tuscany Estates. She said through hard work, voicing opinions and some ears listening the Tuscany has actually taken upon themselves to change their dewatering. She thought this was monumental. She

asked Council to support Tuscany in their request this evening. They went from a 30 foot dewatering project down to about 8 feet. Ms. Gronachan said she would really miss Member Lorenzo when she leaves because her ear, work, knowledge and dedication to it all has inspired her to learn about dewatering. She said when talking to candidates, who are running

for Council and dewatering is brought up, they have this blank look on their face. She said, with all due respect, it is a very complex and complicated issue, and asked Council to please pay attention to the current dewatering ordinance, and do whatever possible to support the residents west of Beck. It is a big issue. She said two weeks ago, she went to her laundry room to turn her water on and it was brown. She said it was the first time in 25 years that she has had a water problem at her house. They are dewatering at Maybury and Tuscany and it is happening. She said she was not against development, but did have a problem when people didn’t want to protect the residents who have been there and made this wonderful City what it is. It shouldn’t cost a resident $5,000 for a new well just because a new subdivision is coming in, and she thought that was where the frustration and tension comes from. Ms. Gronachan said this was a frustrating subject for her because it is so massive. She asked Council’s support to look at the ordinance, and instead of making it the Engineering Department’s call to have monitoring wells, make it mandatory. She also asked, instead of asking the Engineering Department to determine if they need a geological study, order the geological study. She believed the geological study saved twenty to thirty wells in her area. She said it is an all

encompassing impact and it doesn’t happen at the time they are doing the dewatering, it happens afterwards. This is an unknown subject, none of us are geological engineers and west of Beck is untouched virgin territory, and she asked Council to keep an eye on this for the residents of Garfield Road.

Council recessed at 8:43 P.M. and reconvened at 9:01 P.M.

Ms. Cornelius announced the appointments:

Nidhi Maley Scott Czekaj

Kaitlin Gray Stephanie Raymundo

Rachael Kohl Rose Xie

Benjamin Drafta Jeremy Hilliard

Wendy Ying Nicholas Kroll

Shane O’Connor Kaitlyn Gardner

Michelle Kohls Brett Schwarlose

David Denyer Gabrielle Hagege

Christopher Jodoin

Bindu Manyam

Kevin Lai

Vidhi Bamzai and Scott Wagner

Bryan Glick and Rachel Mueller

Elizabeth Schulhoff and Kamal Yechoor

Annie Song and Steve Eroyan

Denise Rowe

Ms. Cornelius said there is a conflict because Nicholas Kroll was appointed to the Beautification Commission and the Youth Council.

Mayor Csordas said we can’t have that. Ms. Cornelius said he was appointed first to the Youth Council. Mayor Csordas said they would take care of this later.

Mayor Csordas thanked everyone who interviewed and said it was extraordinarily refreshing process for Council to experience to see the quality and enthusiasm of all of the young people who had come forward. Mayor Csordas said there are additional opportunities for Providence Hospital and thought that they would absorb anyone who might not have been appointed.

Member Paul thanked all who cooperated to get the Youth Council going, because all four school districts were in support of this, and she appreciated it. She said the number and quality of young adults who came forward was amazing.

Member Paul said the people who are on the boards and commissions would come before the Youth Council and share what they were doing, which would provide collaboration between the groups. Mayor Csordas thanked Member Paul for being the initiator of the project.

Mayor Csordas said the developer initially wanted to put in a lift station and was required by the City to dig a 33 foot ditch, and now we are back to the original proposal.

Joe Galvin said the request was for an amendment to the SAD 170 Agreement. He said the purpose of the change is to allow a forced main, shallow sewer with a lift station to be substituted for a deep sewer, entirely gravity. He said in the initial discussions with the City, the developers had requested that this be the method used, and at that time,

the City declined. Thereafter two things became apparent. One, that there would be a lift station, which was necessary anyway to serve properties outside of the properties

that are paying for it. Those being properties to the west of the three participants in the SAD, and the other with the severe dewatering problems that occurred with respect to the Maybury portion of the sewer. Mr. Galvin said, at that point, the City approached the

developers and asked if they could switch back. At the time they were asked to switch back they had reached the point where they had the MDEQ permitting to allow the deep sewer, they had done preliminary work for the wells, and they were ready to go. In discussions with the City staff, they agreed they would do this but it was significant to them that it be done on an expedited basis. The City said it would cooperate with us,

with the MDEQ and the City, in fact, did cooperate with them. He said the reason was that they wanted to get the paving in, if possible. He said they are in a position where they have presented an agreement to the City and have negotiated all of the terms of the agreement. Mr. Galvin said one provision the City has asked for is that they include in the SAD an amount for operating and maintenance of the lift station. Mr. Galvin said they have said that this is not ordinarily included in a Special Assessment District and that sort of operation and maintenance, O and M, is generally paid for in user fees. As a matter of fact, if this money does go into the agreement, and there is a blank in the draft in front of Council, that the people who would be the ultimate beneficiaries will not through the user fees be paying the maintenance through this particular piece of sewer; based upon that history they are asking that no amount be included. However, he said they had met with the City staff and have agreed with them that the $3,800 a year or the $38,000 for the ten year period is a reasonable amount if the Council should choose to do that. Mr. Galvin asked that the amendment be approved without the items concerning the payment of the operating and maintenance.

Mayor Csordas asked if Mr. Helwig had anyone on staff that wanted to address this. Mr. Helwig said no, staff has communicated several times with Council. However, Mr. Schultz has some background and has been working with the parties to provide Council with an agreement and an appropriate amendment. He said staff is interested in getting the operation and maintenance. Mayor Csordas said staff is recommending this and Mr. Helwig yes. Mr. Schultz said Mr. Galvin accurately indicated.

Member Capello said this is truly a lift station and not a force main. Mr. Galvin said it was a combination of lift station with a force main. Member Capello asked what the difference in elevation between gravity sewer and the sewer with the lift station. Mr. Galvin said originally it went as low as 35 feet and now it is at 6 feet. He said the amount of dewatering is substantially less and that will alleviate a previous problem. Member Capello said that will resolve the problem of the speaker of audience participation whose water was coming out brown because of the dewatering. Mr. Galvin said it will minimize it, but didn’t know if it would alleviate it 100%. He wasn’t qualified to make that statement but it would make it much better.

Member Capello stated he didn’t have a problem with the change and didn’t think it was fair to require that any additional monies be paid to the City as part of the approval of the amendment of the SAD. He agreed with Mr. Galvin, that if that were to occur, the users paying the fee would not benefit from the fee that is being paid.

Member Lorenzo stated she questioned, with all due respect, whether the motion maker should be voting and discussing this or recusing himself, because he did have a financial relationship with Maybury at one time. She said if she understood, in previous discussion and decisions, he had recused himself, if she remembered correctly.

Member Capello responded that he had a relationship over four years ago and that relationship is terminated. He said he has no relationship with Maybury, Tuscany or the Singh project to the west. Any ties he had terminated when while he sat at this Council table.

Member Lorenzo asked if he had recused himself in voting on SAD 170 when it originally came before Council. Member Capello thought that early on he did because of the relationship he had at that period of time. The relationship had just terminated, but that was a long time ago and he didn’t feel that he had any reason to recuse himself.

Member Lorenzo said she was uncomfortable with it. She believed that the City should get the operations and maintenance costs with this as the administration is recommending. She said the previous speaker, Ms. Gronachan, didn’t think adjacent homeowners should have to bear the cost because of a new subdivision coming in. Member Lorenzo said in the same way that she didn’t think that users of the water and sewer system should bear the cost of something that’s necessary because a new subdivision is coming in. Mr. Galvin said that was the point he was trying to make. This lift station is necessary not for our three subdivisions but rather for construction to the west. Member Lorenzo said that has not been clear to her and Mr. Galvin thought it was in the materials from the staff that this is a substitute for a lift station that would be necessary to develop properties farther to the west. Member Lorenzo said her position is if there are lift stations needed, those costs should be borne by the developer and not by system users. If there is property to the west that will someday be developed, if they need that lift station then it would be incumbent upon them to pay those costs. She said her understanding is that this lift station is needed now to address the dewatering issues. Mr. Galvin said that is a different question. The answer to that is yes, but it’s dewatering issues that were raised in the Maybury construction that the City has asked them to alleviate. He said they were ready to build the deep sewer and were asked to stop, which they did. Member Lorenzo said this Council was not involved in any of those discussions or decisions, and this Council is the only one that can change this document. She thought that any risks that Mr. Galvin decided to take, in terms of stopping or starting, he could have come to Council and asked if that was what they would want him to do. She would have told him that the water and sewer users should not have to bear the burden of what has to happen due to new development.

Member Lorenzo said in terms of dewatering she thought there were other options. If the issue is how far down they go or not go, she thought there were other options and they were pointed out to Council. In fact, that was her first question when she saw this. She had thought that one of the options could be that the developer would have to put temporary ponds on the property to take the water; that’s an option. Doing this is another option in terms of the list station. She said she was willing to approve the document but not without Mr. Galvin paying for the maintenance of the lift station. She

said she would be willing to change the language that the cost they are paying for the lift station would be to maintain the lift station. She wouldn’t say it should go into the City Water and Sewer Fund for utility related purposes. She would say it should pay for their station. She was not willing for the water and sewer users of this City to bear the burden of the cost of developing that property. We are not profiting from the developing of that property, in terms of what Mr. Guidobono is profiting. We are not party to that profit, and the water and sewer users are not party to that profit. Why should the burden of something that had to be done for that project so it could continue be borne by the water and sewer users. She saw this as totally unreasonable and unfair. She said if they don’t like this agreement they have other alternatives available to them to alleviate the situation. She could not support this without that clause. She asked Mr. Schultz if the agreement had this clause in it. Mr. Schultz said the agreement is set up, bolded, italicized, and in brackets so that Council knows it is one of those policy questions that they need to make a determination on. Member Lorenzo asked if it was in the motion and Mr. Schultz said the motion was without it. Member Lorenzo said in order to put it back she would have to make a motion to amend the main motion.

Member Capello said the problem he sees that Member Lorenzo isn’t seeing, is who’s ultimately paying for this is the residents who are going to get serviced by that sanitary sewer system and lift station. We don’t ask any other residents in this City to put additional money up front to fund any maintenance to the lift stations or pump stations we have around the town. He said she is looking at it as if the developer is going to fund this. He might fund it up front but the residents are going to pay for it. It is unfair to make them pay for it. Just because they are new and coming into town doesn’t mean we gouge them and treat them any differently. We have to treat everyone equally.

Member Lorenzo said we aren’t passing those costs on. Member Capello said we are, it’s part of the SAD and the financing.

Member Gatt said people in the area had some water problems and their water was turning brown, correct. Mr. Galvin said it was the prior piece of it, but substantially yes.

Member Gatt said then the City came to them and said stop, we don’t want you to dig so deep and to resolve the problem you came up with this pump station that is 8 or 9 feet deep, and that will substantially repair the dewatering problem. Mr. Gavin said it would serve the same purpose for servicing properties farther along.

Mr. Helwig said what you have now is a win win conclusion for this whole sanitary sewer extension for development that will proceed over an extensive period of time. Originally, there were two lift stations envisioned with a lot of extra piping, dewatering was tried at

staff’s urging and it was a colossal failure and proved to be a negative. The developers have now come back and said they will go ahead with that lift station on the front end, which can serve the entire project. This means there will be one list station to maintain rather than the original potential of two, and the developer said at the end of the SAD, not to be borne by the residents but to be borne by the developers, they will pay the $38,000 to the City, if it is imposed. Mr. Helwig said that is what staff is recommending because it is win win, in all regards, to an extremely difficult SAD.

Member Gatt asked if the City was recommending that this developer pay the cost. Mr. Helwig said not the residents, but the developer at the end of the SAD the developers pay the $38,000, which is ten years at $3,800 at year. He said that’s a beautiful thing; that’s the private sector and the public sector bringing a ribbon around something that has had a lot of give and take, and hard work by many members of this Council.

Member Gatt said he didn’t think it was a beautiful thing to make them pay $38,000, when it was Council’s request they stop digging, and put this lift station in instead of what they were going to do. Member Gatt said he would support the original motion.

Member Paul asked if there was some savings in doing the lift station, at this point, for this SAD as a whole. Mr. Galvin said she was correct. There is a cost saving, but then we are not certain of what the ultimate delta is, but we have to bake the lift station cost in that we didn’t have, but there will be a lesser cost. If the Council chooses to impose this cost it will be the only lift station in the City that has been done this way. He said he has tried to make clear that it is not the people who live in this subdivision on a pass through, it is not these developers who will receive the benefit, it is other people. It fits right in to the normal operating and maintenance custom of this City.

Member Paul asked if the original SAD was for the actual sewer to go in thirty feet deep. she thought this was a nice proposal for a win win for everybody. So, she asked what the estimated savings would be provided by this SAD. Mr. Galvin said it would net out at about a quarter of a million dollars. He said when you back out the total savings, and add in the additional cost, he thought it was a fair number more or less.

Mr. Hayes said it would be somewhere between a quarter million and three hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Member Paul asked if he thought $38,000 would be appropriate to put on this lift station to cover some costs since there is a larger savings to this SAD as a whole. Mr. Hayes said they looked at the numbers and memo’s submitted on the subject Council would see that the amount has been whittled down because they didn’t have a good feel of what the actual scope of the lift station was going to be. By working

with Mr. McCusker they determined that $3,800 per year is a fair amount, so over ten years $38,000 would be equitable.

Member Paul asked if there would be a SCADA System and a backup generator attached this lift station. Mr. Hayes said yes, there will be telemetry that will allow them to dial in and have control over the station. Member Paul thought that the $250,000 to $350,000 in savings, that $38,000 is not a lot at $3,800 per year for ten years was a problem. She stated she was in favor because of the dewatering problem, and it seems to be escalating as time goes on, and she wants them to move forward with the project. She thought time was of the essence, also, in saving money. She would support the

money that the City recommended for this to go forward and would support the amended motion with the money in it.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said the lift station is in the City’s plans to be built and always has been, but ten years down the road and not now. The City’s asking the developer to build it now at the City’s request. Why should the developer have to pay to maintain it when it wasn’t the developer’s idea to build it now. They are doing it because the City wants them to and he didn’t think it was fair to ask this developer to do what no other developer has done. He would not support the amendment to the motion.

Member Nagy said she talked with the developer and this has been built already. She said her understanding is that this pump station wouldn’t be built for five years or so any how, because Singh Development would not be going in for that amount of time. She asked Mr. Guidobono if he would be amenable to $38,000 over ten years, and asked if the other two developers would be amenable to that also, since there is a savings to the developers as it is. Mr. Guidobono said their position was that they wouldn’t take a hard line on it with Council. He said their position was that the other developers didn’t have to pay maintenance fees, because these fees generally come out of sewer tap fees that builders pay when they pull a building permit. So, down the road these builders will be pulling building permits for $7,000 to $9,000 per house, and that money goes into the Sewer Fund and is used to pay for the maintenance of the pump stations. He said they felt it was fair that they be treated the way everybody else was treated. It is unusual to charge a developer this fee. Member Nagy said she understood and also understood that Council could raise fees down the line too.

Member Nagy said she also understood that they already had an SAD Agreement, and now we are looking to make a change to the agreement. She said Council has extended themselves as well. She said with this area and the development spread between three developers, she didn’t think the cost was that much. She said things down the line aren’t going to look so great financially for the City and she would appreciate it if they would do this. She understood their position but the City has accommodated them by bringing a change to this agreement. She asked Mr. Schultz if there was already an agreement.

Mr. Schultz said the City is agreeing to amend the route and location, and there is obviously benefit to the City to do that, because of the effect of minimizing the dewatering. He said that’s why that amendment is recommended.

Member Nagy asked what if none of these changes were made, because if these changes were not made they would have to find alternatives. She said she was not pushing the SAD aside, but wanted to some give and take. She asked if they could have basins.

Mr. McCusker said they had met with the attorneys and all of the developers and they thought this was a win win on it. The biggest focus regarding the deep sewers wasn’t so much the wells in our community, but the amount of water we were sending to Northville to Maybury. This created a problem at their dam and to actually negotiate how much water could be sent there, and take on the DNR and the DEQ at the same time, who were the caretakers of that situation, they thought this was a better situation. We knew

a pump station would have to be there eventually. He said this pump station, in the future, would supply an outlet for our park at the far end of town. This pump station will benefit us in the future. He said they knew the pump station was going in four or five years ahead of time and would probably go in and really not function the way it should for about four years. Singh is probably four or five years out on that development and it would probably be 30 homes on it over the next four or five years. He said they thought $3,800 a year if they were going to do it, versus the costs of dewatering and sending the water to Northville was kind of a win win for them. He said the developers were really on board with everything that went on and with the City attorney also.

Member Nagy said if the dam burst again wouldn’t that affect some of the homes on these properties. He said the things going on in Northville were way beyond their control. They were functions of Wayne County and Northville that were not taken care of over the years, and it is about who sends the water and not about what you do with it when you get there. She asked if the Consultant Engineers reviewed all of this during that time. Mr. McCusker said they didn’t really know the structure at the Northville Dam and the pond they put in that wasn’t really a part of the structure down there, and it wasn’t capable of holding some of the waters. There was a lot going on at Maybury State Park that nobody knew about because they are controlled by a State agency that wasn’t really a part of what was going on. She asked if they were aware of the Northville side. Mr. McCusker said they did the geologicals, and knew how much water was going there and Northville approved most of it at the time. He said the Maybury situation called attention to a problem down there at the time. Member Nagy asked if the consulting engineer for Novi was the same as the one for Northville. He said he didn’t know, but knew JCK originally reviewed it here and sent it to Northville to review. There were things in Northville that we were unaware of with Wayne County.

Member Nagy said the ultimate recommendation for Council then is this will be good for the City in the long run. Mr. McCusker said they knew there was going to be a pump station because that end of town, at Eight and Napier, to pump from there they would have to pump back and they knew eventually there would have to be a lift station, but didn’t know where or when.

Mayor Csordas said the original proposal presented by the developer was a pump station. The City reviewed that and required a 33 foot ditch. Then Council found out, during the original discussion, that there was a dewatering issue. Sometimes things don’t work out and this didn’t. The City approached the developer and requested that they change back to the pump station, which sounded like it was amenable. He said when they went through the process regarding the City’s original requirement, which the

developer thought was totally reasonable at the time and Council agreed. Mayor Csordas asked how much it cost when they applied for the DEQ permit, engineering designing, etc. Mr. Guidobono said there were a lot of extra engineering costs to study

to the west on how the sewer had to be done, the engineering drawings were done twice and he didn’t know if that was covered in the SAD or not. He thought someone from the City would know if he would be reimbursed for those. He stated that cost would be more than his share of the 30%. Other expenses were involved such as time, his attorney, and it was costing him 30% of the SAD, which is $12,000, and he thought his cost was greater than that to have this redone.

Mayor Csordas reminded everyone that there were some associated costs that would not have occurred otherwise. He stated he very highly valued staff recommendations and the record will show that a high majority of the time he votes along with them. It would have to be some sort of an exceptional change for him not to do that, so he appreciated all the hard work that the staff puts forth.

Mayor Csordas said his main concern is discrimination, and he knew it to be true that this had never been done to any other developer. He appreciated the recommendation of the City and all the comments of Council members, but his concern always has been that they don’t discriminate against anyone. He said he wanted to confirm that there has not been any other developer that had to do this before. Mr. Helwig said to the best of his knowledge that is correct. Mayor Csordas said that is the reason he couldn’t support the developer. It is not the money it’s the principal and the policy that concerned him.

Member Lorenzo asked if the developer is going to pay for it or are the water and sewer users, the citizens, going to pay for it. The dewatering is occuring; the City of Novi did not send the water down there. The dewatering is a process of a subdivision going in. She said she assumed that Mr. Guidobono, Mr. Kahm of Singh, and Mr. Paciocco of Maybury Park had engineers looking at this. She said it was hard for her to believe that the engineers didn’t know what was going on in the City of Northville. If they didn’t know then they didn’t do their jobs, because they should have found out what was going on with the dam, etc. Member Lorenzo thought they had met with the Township of Northville and made some voluntary repairs to the dam, and apparently that still isn’t good enough. She said that was not the water and sewer users’ problem. She said this is very simple, either they pay for it or the City’s citizens pay for it. She said the City is not sharing the profit from any of these three developments and neither are the water and sewer users. So, why should the water and sewer users be burdened with the dewatering issue. It is not our issue, it is theirs. This is a unique situation, perhaps no other developer has had to do this and perhaps no other developer has had this dewatering issue that is affecting another community. She said the bottom line is it is not the citizens of Novi, or the citizens who have water and sewer that should be bearing the burden of their dewatering issue. It is not our issue. She said if you want to support the developer fine, but she would support the City of Novi water and sewer users, because that’s who she represents.

Mayor Csordas asked Ms. Cornelius to read the amended motion.

Ms. Cornelius said the amended motion as originally made by Member Lorenzo stated that "on page 3, subsection 4, shall include $38,000 to be placed into the City’s Water and Sewer Fund to be utilized by the City for maintenance and operations.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said this is a motion to amend the motion on the floor, not voting for that.

Member Capello said there is an exception for temporary signs in retail development. Those temporary signs only apply if the retail development has ample window space, which is 25% of the space to be occupied by a temporary sign advertising a sale,

promotion, program or special for not longer than 30 days. If the façade does not have windows or has minimal amount of windows on the frontage of the street that retail business owner is not permitted to put up his temporary signs. Member Capello said banners or any type of signage on the face of the brick is not allowed. He thought it seemed as though that retail user was being discriminated against. Member Capello said in the Sign Ordinance, Section 14 or 15, talks about the exception for the

temporary signs not more than 25% of the space and Member Capello suggested there be an additional section added after. It would indicate that in a designated space no larger than 2 ft. by 3 ft. or 3 ft. by 4 ft., a retail business establishment could post the same type of sign a retail establishment with windows could post for a sale, special promotion, etc. He had spoken with Ms. Uglow and she suggested that to be able to control the size, location and type of sign, the department could come up with a permanent fixture, approved by the City. Then a business owner could come to the City and apply to have this fixture put on the building and once that is approved then they would be allowed to put their signs within that fixture. Ms. Uglow was concerned that this be tasteful and not hanging banners, etc. It would be lower on the building where windows would normally be, visible from the street, and it would avoid having hanging banners.

Member Capello said he had discussed this with Mr. Schultz and had sent a draft of this over to him and he has looked at it.

possible.

Member Gatt said a 2 ft. by 3 ft. is not big enough because it can barely be seen from the road. He said 3 ft. by 4 ft. is unobtrusive and would serve the purpose. Member Capello said that would make more sense.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said the gentleman during audience participation approached him regarding this. He said our ordinance does allow storage of mobile homes in residential districts, but what we are finding is that subdivisions are moving next to larger lots and this is becoming a problem. He suggested sending this back to the Planning Commission to study whether the ordinance regarding storage of mobile homes and construction equipment in residential areas should be changed.

There was Council consensus to do this.

Member Paul said there are also people who store rubber tires outside, and she felt that should be looked at also, as several residents have contacted her. She felt they should look at any outside storage as to what is allowed and what is not. She said possible, Mr. Schultz could help, because she knew there have been things that have come forward under ordinance enforcement that have been permitted. Perhaps, Mr. Schultz could offer a recommendation also.

3. An account of the Library fund raising for the next Council meeting – Member

Member Lorenzo requested an account of the Library fund raising for the next Council meeting.

Member Capello said we know as a Council that there will be some difficult issues to address in the upcoming union negotiations. He said this is more obvious as we had to put off the one item today where our administrative staff is looking at unionizing. He said he didn’t anticipate that the item would be passed tonight but was anticipating they would be able to get some ideas from selected members from Administration, and get some ideas of what they thought was a feasible way or check with other cities. Member Capello said maybe that is behind us now and we will have to negotiate things at the union table as opposed to before we get there. He thought in these times now, we need to spend some money and hire, not necessarily lawyers, but consultants who are experienced in negotiating union contracts. He said he would be interested to find out from Administration if there is a list of such firms out there, who they are and what the costs are. Then we can begin to identify who will sit at the negotiation table with us for the upcoming negotiations with the various unions and not just Administration.

Mayor Csordas said there are consultants and firms that do that and they are doing that in cities that are in distress like the direction that we are going in. Member Capello asked that administration bring a list of these people back and possibly Council could interview a few of them to see what their skills are and what they have to offer.

Member Paul said she had an email from Sue Colaccino and she said between the hours of 7:30 and 7:45 a.m. to get out on Wixom Road, north or south bound, is almost impossible. She said with the addition of the middle school, Catholic Central, Beck Road being changed, and Wixom being the only intersection, it is becoming quite problematic. She said some of the busses, parents bringing children to school and all the people going to Catholic Central are having issues with this. This is not just one person. She requested that Administration look into this, and see if there is an issue and what could be done about it. She stated she was very concerned about the kids on bikes and the safety of the families.

Mr. Helwig said he would be glad to research that.

Member Paul stated she received a letter from Carol and Kenneth Johnson on Andover Drive. They are very upset at how many lights are on Novi Road. She said she and Mr. Helwig had a meeting with Hugh Crawford, Oakland County Commissioner, and some of the Road Commission administration. She said the new mast arm was at Grand River and Novi, correct. Mr. Helwig said yes, and he believed if it has not been activated, the SCAT System will provide timing at that intersection, which until that fourth mast arm installed, in the last two weeks, it did not have. Mr. Helwig thought, as of this week, the SCAT System was up and running. Member Paul said she shared that information with the resident and the residents

concerns was that you can go 100 ft. stop at every light. She asked that the timing on the lights be lengthened so that traffic could flow through a multiple lights at the same time. She said she would like to meet again regarding the SCAT System and whether it is up and running.

There being no further business to come before Council, they adjourned to Executive Session at 10:00 P.M. for discussion on labor negotiations, etc.

_______________________________ ______________________________

Lou Csordas, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

_______________________________ Date approved: October 10, 2005

Transcribed by Charlene Mc Lean