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

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Jr. Girl Scouts Troop #3343

Co-Leaders: Amy Abboud and Kim Ziegler

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

Member Csordas added to Mayor and Council Issues, #1 Fire and Task Force Recommendations Update.

Member Capello added to Mayor and Council Issues, #2 Ordinance Review Committee Status.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi explained that Cub Scout Troop #54 from Hickory Woods Elementary earned their Citizenship Badges by producing citizenship posters that reflect their attitude toward citizenship with regard to government. The posters will be displayed in the Civic Center atrium for 30 days.

Representative Nancy Cassis noted two Novi couples, Ernie and Eva Dawn Aruffo and Bob and Trudy Stone, were being honored this evening as both couples have raised families, been active in church and community and have contributed much to Novi. In the early 1980’s Rep. Cassis met Ernie and Eva Dawn when Ernie was on the Planning Board. She noted Ernie was the ultimate salesman and he was called upon to help get the Novi Civic Center built and had a special part in the road improvements around Novi. Eva Dawn is extremely creative and gave a hand painted homily to Representative Cassis and her husband when they were married. It’s about giving rather than receiving and this couple has made a life out that.

Mr. Aruffo expressed it was nearly a quarter century that they had served Novi and it had been fun all along.

Bob and Trudy Stone first came to Council about drainage problems in the1990’s. As an engineer, Mr. Stone assisted the city in understanding drainage issues. He was on one of the committees to assist with the World War II and Korean Veterans Recognition Program. Representative Cassis wanted to remember and commend Mr. & Mrs. Stone’s active support of the City and it’s candidates standing at polls in the cold and the rain. Representative Cassis went on to say that a marriage needed caring, tending, forgiveness and work much like a garden. Their marriages have been nourished to create an abundant harvest. A special tribute was given to both couples signed by herself, Governor Engler, Lt. Governor Dick Posthumus and Senator Bill Bullard. They honored their anniversary and praised the examples they have been to Novi residents.

Mr. Stone was overwhelmed with the kind and gracious words from Representative Cassis.

Hugh Crawford, County Commissioner, congratulated both couples and presented a Proclamation to Bob and Trudy Stone and extended wishes for future happiness.

Kathy Smith-Roy, Finance Director, explained property tax revenue increased by the expected 8%, which offset expenditures in DPW. The fund balance for the General Fund was increased from approximately 10% in the prior year to approximately 15% in the current year after adjusting for working capital and capital outlay items. An offset this year against our fund balances relates to our State Shared Revenue. There have been a number of legislative items that have come up to reduce it by approximately $300,000 in the current year. They are looking at that as well as other items as they prepare for the budget process. She commended the Finance Department staff in preparing the comprehensive annual report and noted she was pleased with Plante & Moran’s service to the City. Ms. Smith-Roy Introduced Joe Heffernan, Scott Janssen and Chris Weber from Plante & Moran.

Joe Heffernan noted the comprehensive report was really not their work but our Finance Department’s work. An audit looks at all their work from the year and tests a sample of that so they could give an opinion that the accounting records do state what happened during the year. There are no significant deficiencies. There is a good accounting system with a good set of internal controls of checks and balances.

Chris Weber began with the General Fund Revenue trends graph package, which represented the last five years from 1997 to 2001. The largest source of revenue is property taxes and it increased by 8.1% during the current year due to an increase in taxable value and population not from an increase in millage. Another major source of revenue is the Police and Fire millage transfer. The next graph was General Fund expenditure trends and the largest is police expenditures amounting close to $8 million. Ms. Smith-Roy noted there had been an increase of about 13.3% primarily due to salaries. The next graph is Fund Balance of General and Capital Improvement Funds, which have been combined because transfers are made from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund to purchase items. They have increased almost every year and this year revenues exceeded expenditures by approximately $1.5

million, which increased Fund Balance. The next graph was Water and Sewer Fund operations from 1997 and 2001. These were dry years causing an increase in consumption of water. The working capital increased in the current year primarily because of cash received from the County. The City had funds held by the County for certain projects. The projects were completed and the money was returned to the City. The next graph showed Taxable Value and Population Trends. Property Taxes increased by 8% due to increased taxable value. There was also an increase in population over the last 10 years, which caused an increased demand for various city services and requirements for that revenue. Last graph was 2001 Municipal Tax Rate Comparison that represented operating and debt millages only. Novi has the 6^th lowest millage in Oakland County at approximately 10.5 mills.

Member Csordas noted there are 30 cities on the comparison chart and the other five lowest communities are Bloomfield Hills, Troy, Lake Angelus, Rochester Hills, and Orchard Lake Village. These communities are very upscale and progressive communities. Novi has not raised taxes in the city for a very long time.

Scott Janssen, reported on legislation updates. The State Shared Revenue accounts for one fourth of the city’s General Fund revenue. The State Shared Revenue is much lower than expected because of the slowdown in the State’s economy and slowdown in anticipated growth in the sales tax collection area. The Michigan Department of Treasury indicated there would be a minimum growth percentage on a per community basis of a negative 2.6%. There is a negative decrease in the Revenue Sharing for fiscal 2001. For 2002, projected moneys available for State Revenue Sharing were to be about 5.4% and part of the budget bill for 2001 there is a $50 million reduction to local communities. The $50 million has been re-allocated to other budget line items within the States operating budget. There was a special estimating conference that announced that the State was going to revise downward their projections because of declining sales tax collections. The Governor issued an Executive Order approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committee, which reduced the Statutory Revenue Sharing by another $37.2 million in addition to the revenue sharing, decreased due to the sales tax collections. When referring to the statutory it means the discretionary portion of the Revenue Sharing. The impact on the local governments because of these developments for 2002 now indicated a projected decrease of about 2% from the States 2001 operating year. About a 1% decrease is projected in the upcoming year. Due to these negative developments it would be important to consider these during cash flow planning and analysis and it was likely budget amendments would be needed. Next is the Act 51 road money. For the year 2001 the States revenue consensus estimated that the distributions would decrease by about $19.2 million for the entire State and for the 2002 year revised October 2001 Consensus Revenue estimates and a Governor’s 2001 Executive Order indicated this would result in Act 51 distributions of much less than the 3.3% decrease. MDOT is in the process of quantifying the impact. Also reported that GASB34, new financial reporting model, would become effective July 1 2002. Staff has attended training through MMFOA and Plante & Moran also offered additional workshops to prepare themselves to be in compliance with GASB34.

Mr. Heffernan stated the City had a very good year with property taxes and building permits. However, there are clouds on the horizon with the decrease of State Shared Revenue and Act 51 money.

Member DeRoche asked if Plante & Moran took the State numbers and aggregated them to the cities in an orderly fashion as best they could predict? Mr. Heffernan noted when looking at State Shared Revenue they were looking at the distribution of sales tax that the State is collecting to the local units of government through the State’s formula. Some cities are hurt more by the formula than others. Novi has increased in population from 10 years ago so that helps and we are a little more advantaged by the formula. The actual millage rate is no longer part of the formula.

Member DeRoche asked Ms. Smith-Roy if the reduction in State Revenue Sharing would impact the budget passed earlier this year? She replied it would by a reduction of about $300,000. He asked what she would do with this budget to make sure there was $300,000 left at the end of the year? She said they would make sure that as they come up to the new budget process that all of the revenue and expenditures are looked at in the current year and find out where it would end up. They would then target what their Fund Balance would be for next year and that would determine what there would be to spend for the upcoming year and appropriations and recommendations made accordingly. Ms. Smith-Roy said this would not affect the operations of the city.

Craig Klaver introduced members of HCD, Sarah Gray, Tim Shroyer, Kevin Bartlett and Tom Lindberg and not present was Jerry Ross. These members help make recommendations for the spending program and assist in monitoring and supervising the expenditure of funds. These are Federal funds administered by Oakland County. The recommendation this year consists of four service programs. They are recommending $11,000 for the H.A.V.E.N. a group focusing on battered and abused spouses. OLSHA funds Jan McAlpine’s services at Meadowbrook Commons. She provides nutrition support and support of senior activities and is essential to the operation of the Senior Center. Novi Youth Assistance provides a variety of services through our funding focusing on specialized counseling and camp scholarships. Lastly, the Senior and Handicap Van Program, which provides transportation that otherwise would not be available to a number of shut ins in our community. Mr. Klaver said we are required to spend no more than 50% of these funds on service programs and we are at exactly 50% with these recommendations. The recommendation was to allocate all of the remaining capital funds, $54,000, to the minor home repair program. As a part of the recommendation, they included the Parks and Recreation Facility, which is a supplement to the committee’s recommendation. They brought it to the committee’s attention. They seemed interested but felt it had not been fully developed, but it was added to the recommendation because they felt it was better to have that money earmarked for that project even with some of the outstanding questions. We do have the opportunity to reprogram these funds as necessary throughout the year.

Louis Carpinelli, 2047A Hidden Meadows Dr., Walled Lake, member of St. Vincent DePaul Society was present requesting $5,000 for fiscal year 2002-2003. He noted that FEMA and MSHDA have cut funds for charitable agencies. The Society of St. Vincent DePaul would use these funds for emergencies of Novi residents. They assist the needy regardless of race, creed or color is the primary purpose of the Society of St.

Vincent DePaul. In 2000-2001 thousands of dollars in emergency assistance was given to Novi residents. Their mission is compatible with the requirements of CDBG funds and with Novi’s community development objectives. Volunteers work with clients to assist them in becoming financially independent. The Society’s volunteers operate out of Catholic Churches in the community in groups called conferences. The conference that assists Novi residents is located at St. William Catholic Church in Walled Lake. Between February and October this year 25 families in Novi were visited and 19 were assisted financially for rent, utilities, medications, vouchers, etc. for a total of $2,664.69. Members of the conference visited 181 families last year and financially assisted 143 of the families and the others were assisted through counseling and referrals.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi noted this item was brought forward to the HCD and not included in the recommendation.

Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin, member of the advisory committee, noted the St. Vincent DePaul request was received after the budget was prepared and noted they didn’t meet the guidelines and encouraged them to re-apply for the next budget term. They were unsure how to deal with this request under the auspices of HCD.

Ms. Gray reluctantly supported the proposed budget due to timing and understood funds could be re-allocated. They weren’t in a position to make a decision on what Mr. Klaver proposed for the parks and recreational facilities, as they didn’t have enough information. She urged approval of the resolution so they could get the budget in and not lose all of their funding.

Janis Wilson, representing HAVEN, thanked Novi for its support. One of HAVEN’s new programs is intervention in battering for both men and women. This is having positive results in the community.

CITY MANAGER

Mr. Helwig Introduced Randall Auler, the new Director of Parks, Recreation & Forestry. Mr. Auler’s wife and two children are still in Carmel, Indiana where he had most recently served Carmel and Clay Township with a population of about 65,000. He also served in Columbus, Indiana. Mr. Auler has a proven track record in terms of increasing acreage, greenways, and volunteer participants and as a result developed strong, collaborative, community partnerships and has received national recognition for the work associated in these communities. Mr. Auler’s Masters Degree is from Indiana University and concentrated in Parks and Recreations. He is a certified parks and recreation official.

Mr. Auler noted he was excited about becoming a member of the community and the city’s team. Member Csordas asked why he came to Novi? Mr. Auler responded to have a new challenge at enhancing the parks. Mr. Helwig noted Mr. Auler is looking forward to helping Novi through its growing stages and meeting and exceeding this

community’s expectation.

DEPARTMENT

Director of Public Services Nowicki reported on the water main break emergency from last week. By Wednesday afternoon, the repair was complete and the water was good to drink. After notification of the break of a 42-inch main, staff set up two water stations for residents to obtain water, boosted the water feed from the south and began the public notification process. Flyers were printed, notices were on cable TV and the police department began the reverse 911 public notification program to notify residents. Some of these measures prompted calls from residents that were handled through dispatch and the Water Department. He thanked the community for their support and patience throughout this water emergency. The residents were appreciative that they were notified and received the public telephone calls through the reverse 911 system.

Member Csordas asked what percentage of the reverse 911 system actually worked and how could it be improved? Mr. Nowicki commented that Chief Shaeffer provided a report with that information in Council’s Thursday packet. Mr. Nowicki did not have the specifics with him. Mr. Helwig noted this was the first time the system had been used. They would now audit the system and find out what percentage was reached on Wednesday and how to maintain a more current base of phone numbers. The objective was to try to notify everyone twice through a combination of neighborhood flyers, cable, reverse 911 and major media communications along with Maureen Malone who lived here all weekend. Mr. Helwig thanked everyone involved. Member Csordas thanked Mr. Nowicki and his staff and asked to see the results of the improvement in the reverse 911 system.

Mr. Landry reported that the staff did a great job of informing the residents with cable, phone and major media and should be commended.

Member Lorenzo asked about the cause of the break. Mr. Helwig and Mr. Nowicki noted there was no construction in the area and no cause was determined. Member Lorenzo asked who restaurants would file claims with due to business loss? Mr. Nowicki said the Detroit Water and Sewer Department. Mr. Nowicki reported that in 1999 the Council approved an agreement with DWSD to construct a 10 million gallon reservoir to be created along 14 Mile at Haggerty, had it been in place, it would have minimized the impact of the water disruption. The system should be fully operational by 2005.

Member Capello asked if the City was doing anything to wean itself from Detroit water? Mr. Nowicki stated it’s the only source available and stated during emergency services, mixing water systems wouldn’t be pursued due to problems with chlorination. Wixom uses their water reservoir to supplement their system. It is something to think about but he didn’t know if the expense was justifiable. Member Capello asked if there was money in the current budget to investigate a private well system? Mr. Nowicki thought it could be investigated. They had commissioned a study on the reliability of the system and to update the Master Plan through JCK and we might be able to piggyback on some of that work to see the viability of a private well system.

ATTORNEY

Mr. Fisher reported that a lawsuit has been initiated against the city seeking a judicial review on whether or not the Sandstone settlement matter approved by Resolution of the Council on October 15th may move forward. Council specifically contemplated a judicial review of that potential for moving forward relative to the precise issues that are raised in the new litigation. The city anticipated these concerns, moved forward on its own with the idea of initiating litigation in that regard and having a judge specifically review the same issues that this suit seeks to review. We have to respond on December 5, 2001 to this suit brought by a local group and will look to see if the group has the right to bring this case, but this legal issue will be presented to the court for a determination one way or the other.

Member Csordas thanked Attorney Fisher and asked if there would be additional costs incurred due to this? Mr. Fisher said there would. Member Csordas asked if this would continue to add to our interest as well? Mr. Fisher said for each day the case is not settled there is a potential of an additional $20,000 in interest if the case is resolved by the Court of Appeals. If the case is not resolved as a result of this new lawsuit, there is the potential of placing the settlement entirely in jeopardy and could have very serious ramifications.

Member Capello asked since the lawsuit is public record. was there a way to keep the public more informed about lawsuits. Mr. Helwig replied that in the spirit of the request the answer is yes. The information is available at the Clerk’s office as well as City Manager’s office. Community input would be welcomed. Mr. Helwig noted in the lawsuit initiated against the city, the last paragraph stated, "there is no emergency", and he differed with that statement. There is an emergency, there is a very serious crisis confronting this community with this lawsuit, which now has reached a defined judgment with a value of 3-1/2 times the annual General Fund. This will be communicated very clearly next week to the court.

Member Capello asked if a copy of the pleadings file could be kept on record with the City Clerk along with a scheduling calendar. Mr. Helwig said yes and the files were in Ms. Cornelius’ office now.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi noted there is always someone available from the manager’s office to speak to any resident regarding a lawsuit.

Member Landry asked if he understood correctly that all of the issues raised were anticipated by the City government and that judicial review would be sought in any event? Mr. Fisher said the fundamental issue relating to the legality of transferring the park property was something that actually was generally recognized in the resolution itself that we are looking for a court determination on that issue. Regarding the other principle issue having to do with the issuance of bonds, essentially is something that we have sought and continue to counsel with Miller Canfield, a very well recognized and one of the largest bond firms in this State.

Member DeRoche didn’t see where there was a downside to the city pursuing these matters. Some residents want to compel Council to answer certain questions and he felt it was an acceptable inquiry. He felt these issues did need judicial review and it is good

that the administration and the city attorney are initiating it. It’s in our best interest to answer these questions in front of a judge so that we know we are in compliance with the law.

Scott Lloyd, 25204 Birchwood Drive, wanted to revisit the parkland giveaway issue as he was the Eagle Scout who built the nature observation platform on the land in question. Mr. Lloyd encouraged the council to look at every possible option and not settle on a marginal solution.

David Ruyle, 40474 Mill Road Ct., E, Whispering Meadows, congratulated Member Lorenzo on being re-elected and Members Landry and Capello on being elected and looked forward to working with every Council member as a Planning Commissioner. He was present for Item #8 which is to put a stop sign off of Sunrise and Mill and encouraged Council to put the stop signs up to control speeding.

Toni Nagy, 22647 Cranbrook, congratulated Member Lorenzo on re-election and welcomed Members Capello and Landry. She noted she had read disturbing articles in the Oakland Press and the Free Press regarding an organization called Friends of the Park and how they are suing the City of Novi. Ms. Nagy believed that when suing the city, they are suing all the residents and when suing the City, the residents would pay extra costs to our attorney. She checked the court records to see who the main plaintiffs were and one of them sits on the Parks and Recreation Commission. She felt that was a direct conflict of interest and that person should resign. The residents should be receiving the support of a parks and recreation commissioner not being sued by one. She didn’t believe anything Council had done was wrong; they made a difficult decision and a majority of the people agreed. In speaking about lawsuits, when in settlement negotiations, you cannot talk about them and they cannot be brought forward to the public. Council shouldn’t be judged on that they didn’t withhold any information. She again asked for the resignation of the parks and recreation commissioner.

Sara Gray, 133 Maudlin, wanted to talk about South Lake Drive. Someone went over the Shawood Canal bridge and hit the bridge and part of the fence was knocked down. This is an illegal fence around city property. Mr. Nowicki and others know about it and it was put back up. The fire hydrant is on a kilter and if we knew who hit it, we should go after their auto insurance to pay for it. She noted another fence was hit west of the bridge. She felt that when the work on South Lake Drive began, something should be done about the fences in the city ROW. We have so many boulders, etc in the ROW that we could not begin to win the lawsuits and the fences needed to be moved and this needs to be maintained even when the ROW is not being used. She said each time we ignore it, we are asking for more litigation.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked for Mr. Helwig and Mr. Fisher look into impediments in the South Lake Drive ROW and also the cost of repair and giving it to the responsible party if we know who caused those damages. Mr. Helwig noted they have been apprehended and were

charged and the city would seek a claim for repair. Mr. Helwig would look into the fencing issue.

Andrew Mutch, spoke on behalf of Friends of Novi parks. As a member and director to the Friends he said it was made up of many Novi residents and was founded to support the protection, acquisition and development of open spaces in the City of Novi. Membership is open to anyone and can be accessed at their website, www.friendsofnoviparks.org. He welcomed Mr. Auler. Mr. Mutch said as advocates of Novi Parks they have been forced to seek an injunction to stop the city from transferring a large piece of city parkland to the Sandstone developer. It is not a position they wanted to be in but they would not back down. They felt the facts were clear. On October 15, 2001 the Council approved the settlement resolution with the intent to transfer parkland to the Sandstone developers and directed administration and the city attorney to negotiate and approve the consent judgment language with Sandstone attorneys. It gave no indication that the Council would approve the final language of the consent judgment, it provided no opportunity for review of the issues raised by the residents before Council and left no venue for residents to address concerns that arose after the resolution was approved. The Home Rule City’s Act makes quite clear that cities are prohibited from selling a park or any part of a park that is designated as a park on the city’s Master Plan. The North Novi Park area proposed to be transferred is on the master plan as parkland. That land was purchased with city park bond dollars approved by the voters. It was developed and maintained by both city and volunteer resources. Finally, it has and continues to be used as a park and clearly no one could dispute this land wasn’t a park. Whatever the merits of that resolution the city must act legally and follow the law. They believed if Council was fully informed of all the ramifications of the purchase they never would have improved transfer of the parkland.

Paul Sherbeck, Simmons Orchard subdivision, commented on Grand River there is undeveloped land and Council adopted a resolution supporting an overpass called a Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI). This is a change in plans and evidently MDOT thought it would be a good thing because it would use less land, have greater capacity, would be very safe and lower land costs. All the claims made were based on one study published in 1997 but much of the data was gathered in 1996 and earlier. The man that wrote this study is Dr. Nicholas Garber who is a chair of civil engineering at Virginia University and has impeccable credentials. However, in his report he cautioned that using a SPUI should be looked at on a case-by-case basis because each had its own advantages under different conditions. MDOT has ignored that portion of it. The environmental document, according to MDOT, took place over 10 years. They looked at everything and came up with five proposals. One of these ideas came up with abandoning the rest area. He noted a value engineering study was done and took one week versus ten years. The Garber study was old and didn’t apply. He felt it was wrong because a detailed study was needed including engineering, specific information such as costs for the overpass, etc. He said that the contract had to be let in order for Mr. Bowman to take possession of the rest area so anyone the supports the Novi Expo Center project would want to move this along. We don’t have enough information to make a rational decision about building a SPUI.

Brian Smith, 42434 Park Ridge, noted there was a suggestion that someone resign from the Parks and Recreation. He felt Council should think about where that came from. It comes from a true passion for green space and parks in Novi and Mr. Smith felt it was exactly the kind of person they wanted on the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Barry Kline, 1081 Monticello noted he spoke with Mr. Klaver around October 19th regarding the parkland. He enjoys the park all the time and it provides the environment and habitat for many animals. He asked Council to find a better solution to this than giving up 95 acres.

Member Landry removed Item C.

CM-01-11-311 Moved by seconded by CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

Absent: Clark

Approve Minutes of:

1. November 13, 2001

Adoption of Criminal Background Check Ordinance No. 01-166.01.

D. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 610

Mr. Helwig said they were trying to get much-needed pathways completed this year. This project dragged on and they didn’t have the necessary easement from White Hall Nursing until

a few weeks ago and the only way it could be built was if the City did it. The property was certified and we are approaching wintertime but the work can be accomplished in the wintertime. The Mayor has asked about this project every week since June. Three bids were received and the bottom line is this should have been done a long time ago.

Member Lorenzo supported the project but could not support it with an additional $35,000 to $50,000 because of adverse weather conditions doing this in the winter. She wanted to wait until spring.

Member DeRoche was concerned about the ongoing delays. His experience was, when sending things back to bid, there were price increases. There could be a $30,000 to $60,000 increase by spring anyway and felt it was prudent to do it now and complete it for our residents.

Member Csordas also supported the project. He felt the cost was far more outweighed by the fact that it is a public safety issue as there are a lot of people walking on the street. He asked what would happen to the wall by the nursing home where the sidewalk dead-ends? Mr. Nowicki didn’t recall the specifics but they would negotiate it around the wall, or they would take part of the wall down as we have easements all the way through. Member Csordas was also concerned about the White Hall sidewalk in front, which was torn up about two years ago. He asked if this was an additional $63,000 over and above whatever negotiations we had with the ROW with the property owners at White Hall? Mr. Nowicki said they granted the city the easements and ROW for the project in exchange for the work being performed across the frontage of their property. Member Csordas asked if they could come back and take it back because they are sell the nursing home? Mr. Nowicki said at a later date as a condition of that easement if Ten Mile Road is widened and the City has to require ROW then we would have to renegotiate and that is in the agreement. The boardwalk is being pushed further up to the ROW line to avoid any removal of the boardwalk.

Mr. Landry didn’t like spending more money than the estimated cost but did agree this is a public safety issue and he would support the motion.

Member Lorenzo asked if alternatives to wood had been looked at for the bridge? Mr. Nowicki thought that was a good debate to have but the cost of materials is more expensive.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi wanted to know why things ended up the way they did. She was very disappointed and felt it was not a wise use of financial resources. She asked who would maintain the walk at White Hall? Mr. Nowicki said the maintenance would be done by the City per the discussion several weeks ago that along all the mile roads the City of Novi has been maintaining them for snow and materials replacement. We are under contract with Oakland County Road Commission that when we occupy their ROW we do regular inspections and execute the maintenance that is needed.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if there was a policy statement to that effect? Mr. Helwig said he had not seen one but did recall the discussion Mr. Nowicki mentioned. There should be a policy statement and a Master Plan with these linkages that we want to complete and do not want to complete. She suggested that he bring a policy statement and a financial impact

analysis of what these dedications for the City to maintain sidewalks along mile roads meant with regard to what remained to be constructed, what impact it has and whether Council wished to do that. She had a reservation about not re-bidding this but on the other hand no one would be using this walkway in the winter. Whether or not we would get a lesser bid in the spring is anybody’s guess but it would be good to get it finished.

Nays: Lorenzo

Absent: Clark

Mr. Klaver noted the Parks and Recreation Project was included.

Member Landry asked if this was to approve the request for $109,749 or to allocate those dollars tonight? Mr. Klaver commented they asked that the application be complete and that it include the expenditure of all those funds. Member Landry wanted to know where the spending program proposed to allocate those monies for the next year and is it part of the application process. Mr. Landry thought they were bound only by the 50/50 rule; 50% on service programs and 50% on capital programs. Mr. Klaver stated the only requirement is a 50% limit on service. If you wish to spend it all on capital, that would be fine. Member Landry said the committee wanted to spend it all on residential home repairs but the administration recommended $34,874 be put on the park. When looking at the 5-year history, it looked like year 2001 was an aberration and asked why they didn’t spend any of it. Mr. Klaver noted a couple of years, they didn’t allocate because there was prior years money in the same category. In 2002 that $14,000 was reprogrammed into other activities. Member Landry stated if the request is approved, we aren’t bound to spend these specific dollars on parks and home repair? Mr. Klaver said no, they could be reprogrammed throughout the year. It would come back to Council for any variation of the original submittal. Mr. Klaver commented the $109,740 needed to be approved and reprogrammed. If the projects were done it would require a bid and that would require a separate Council action.

Mr. Helwig noted these funds would be available in May and Council would be finalizing the budget document in May as well. We will be referencing these block grant funds in the budget document. Member Landry was concerned that the committee had a different recommendation than what was laid before Council, however if there is flexibility in the future he would reluctantly support this.

Member DeRoche did not want the money for Parks and Recreational facilities spent until they went through a budgeting process and evaluated it with the rest of the discretionary spending. We did not spend any increased money in Parks and Recreational facilities so he would likely be advocating that from the General Fund anyway. He didn’t want to spend any of the $34, 874.50 until sure that $20,000 would cover us for the year. He thought that if minor home

repairs that qualify for this program exceed $20,000, that is probably the higher priority for this grant. He would support it with that understanding.

Member Lorenzo shared the others concerns and moved to approve an amended resolution that would take $5,000 of the $34,874.50 and allocate it to St. Vincent DePaul’s Society’s request and designate the remaining $29,874.50 to minor home repair. Motion died for lack of second.

Member Capello was concerned this would put us over the 50% service. Mr. Klaver said if that was allocated it would have to be taken from one of the other four services. Member Capello asked how much money was left in the Home Improvement Fund that has not been spent from the previous two years? Mr. Klaver said it had been reallocated and felt that what they reserved was enough to handle the remaining projects. There are park development funds that might not be spent and if not expended, they might be reprogrammed. There was approximately $70,000 to be spent on Lakeshore Park that is outstanding and that project is about to be closed out.

Member Capello said soon this area would no longer be able to have funds designated for the park in that area because of the new housing coming in. He suggested utilizing as much of the money as possible, allocate it towards the park and put more into the budget for minor home repairs. He would like to see $10,000 for home repairs and $44,000 for parks if we need to re-allocate until we have an influx of home repairs.

Member Csordas supported not allocating money to the parks until the homeowner’s needs are satisfied. Regarding the $5,000, he would not agree to take $5,000 from the other charities currently supported. He wanted to hold accountable any funds allocated to any charities to be sure that 100% of the money is spent in Novi. He would not support this because he didn’t want to take any funds away from Novi charities.

Member Lorenzo moved to approve an amended resolution that would take the $34,874.50 and allocate it to Parks and Recreation and designate it to minor home repair along with the $20,000 already in there. Motion died for lack of second.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated this shouldn’t be here as Council has wasted an awful lot of time going over and over this. She had asked for an outreach program as to why people are not being reached who need this help; Council had not received one yet. In the memo, dated November 20^th, to Mayor and City Council from Mr. Klaver she was disturbed that it read "we therefore brought together several of our key department heads to identify possible projects that could be accomplished through the CDBG Funds." Nobody asked the customers, we keep doing this over and over again and the people who need the service are not being reached. What about home chores help as well? Also she asked about water and who needed water and who doesn’t. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked why there are so many streets that don’t’ have street signs. That is an infrastructure item, why can’t we do these things? Is it from a lack of initiative? She would not support any pathway for the park until they address the problems they have consistently not addressed. She was concerned that the information the HCD Committee asked for was not delivered to them or not delivered in a timely manner. She is looking for a cost with regard to street signs, any folks who need water, allocation for home

chores and we can be creative in finding ways to get these services to these people. These people need this help and the money is for them and if we address all their needs, we can look

at other things. To presume that we are looking at access pathway and gravel parking lot for a park because it happened to be in that area was not her priority. We are up against the wall again and she would support Member Lorenzo’s taking the $34, 874.50 that is in the budget to home services and home chores and set up the program and get it going. Let’s find these people, make it easy for them; they have paid for this and deserve to have the help.

Member Capello asked if there was a criterion to be met to do the home repairs? Mr. Klaver said there was income qualification for all the programs both minor home repairs and home chores as well. Member Capello said if there is a way to spend this money and the need is there he wanted to hear it. He didn’t see where there was a need for $54,000 but if there is we will spend it.

Mr. Klaver noted there had been attempts to advertise this and they had met with Oakland County personnel and agreed to jointly market the program. A month ago, letters were mailed to everyone in the target area as well as the lowest 25% assessments throughout the community because you can income qualify without being in the target area. They did receive a number of inquiries. It was also featured in the neighborhood services newsletter, cable and in the annual calendar. Mr. Klaver noted there were four times the inquiries they normally get and a significant portion was senior citizens. The income guidelines are reasonable. He felt resistance was due to any stigma that would involve assistance of local government.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said outreach was a form of recruitment. Although it is wonderful to send a letter about what is offered oftentimes the people you are trying to reach are going to be reticent to avail themselves to this service. They need one on one contact and they need people they communicate with and trust. This is part of this mission it is just not to see how we can spend this money. She asked if there was a percentage line item variance that you are allowed to use to move money around in this program? She said money cannot be moved around or re-allocated to any other line item, is that correct? Mr. Klaver said that is correct but it could be requested through the reprogramming program.

Member DeRoche explained he received the packet information that was sent out under Oakland County’s label along with the City’s joint effort explaining it wasn’t just a letter but contained a lot of information.

Absent: Clark

Member Landry commented that this zoning map amendment does reflect the Master Plan and he would support it for that reason.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Mr. Fisher if the conservation easement description met with his legal requirement regarding form and content. Mr. Fisher said it did and they sent a letter to the city in that regard.

To approve Point Park Conservation Easement as soon as it is

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi had the same question regarding legal form and content. Mr. Fisher said a letter was sent. One thing that needed correction on the easement was only one witness and the property owner is redoing the easement and bringing it back with two witnesses. It might be in his office already. She asked if it could be a condition of the motion. Mr. Fisher said yes. The maker and second of the motion agreed.

Mr. Fisher said the representatives of CSX created an agreement based upon their determination of the type of agreement that would apply in this situation. Mr. Fisher received it for review purposes and passed on comments to Council that there is potential to revisit this with CSX in the sense that they refer to this as a private pedestrian crossing agreement and it is not a private crossing. This is a public sidewalk and is for non-motorized vehicles also. If Council wants to defer this there would be a penalty based on some amount of money that we might have paid or been obliged to pay in the maximum amount of $2,400 or $2,500. Or, Council could approve this with the idea that we would attempt to renegotiate this based upon what we think is the correct statutory classification that we don’t think it would require all these onerous provisions. If it is deferred there would be some financial ramifications or it could be approved with the understanding that the administration would move forward with us and pursue a renegotiation.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if he thought this would come back to Council after working with Mr. Helwig to do that? Mr. Fisher said if able to get the correct agreement absolutely.

Member DeRoche said as long as we are just facilitating our City Attorney to proceed with this and try to get us what we want he could support it.

Member Landry commented he would be in favor of pursuing the former option that Mr. Fisher has suggested. He didn’t think this should be approved and then ask Mr. Fisher to negotiate something better. If the other side found out that the Council already approved this they would not negotiate. He would like to see Mr. Helwig and Mr. Fisher attempt to negotiate something better. He would like to at least try to negotiate a better agreement that wouldn’t require us to accept as much liability say for their sole negligence. The $2,500 now could save hundreds of thousands of dollars later.

To ask the City Attorney and the City Administration to go

Member Csordas said on the first page of the packet it referred to a $664.00 annual replacement fee. He asked if that was ad infinitum? Mr. Fisher said it was. Member Csordas asked if that was common? Mr. Fisher said in his experience the railroads are very difficult to deal with and the potential saving grace in our case is there might be a statutory classification of agreement that is different than this and would not put us in a box like this for negotiating purposes.

Member Csordas commented that in a November 19^th memo from Mr. Helwig there was a line that concerned him that said, "it must be noted that the agreement contains risk liability indemnity provisions which are favorable to CSX." Member Csordas appreciated them pointing that out. Then in the memo of November 19^th from Secrest Wardle, the third paragraph down is very scary; it said "contains risk liability and indemnity provisions which are substantial. Essentially the City accepts with this license, all risk of loss and waives all claims to damages even for acts of losses that are the fault of CSX." This concerned him and he was interested to see what happens when they come back. He asked that they try to get relief from "annual replacement" and asked replacement of what?

Member Lorenzo was also concerned with that paragraph. She suggested Alternate Plan B and asked what if we didn’t use their easement. What if we put the bike path connection up to the beginning of their easement and on the opposite side? What do people do now? Who assumes liability right now? Mr. Fisher said we don’t have an easement but we don’t lead people into this area. Member Lorenzo said we have a sidewalk on both sides. Mr. Fisher said the critical question was whether or not the sidewalk was in the public ROW, etc. She said as soon as the City puts a pathway in, we assume liability for the nature and foreseeable consequences of what we do, but not for the CSX liability as this document states. Mr. Fisher said that is correct. She said those are the terms we are looking to negotiate.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi’s first question was the definition of road and that has been covered. Second, would be whether other municipalities receive the same treatment from CSX. Are the numbers the same for the same kind of application? On Page 2 of Mr. Schultz’s memo he

says, "CSX has the right to require barrier signs, lights, signals at the crossing at its discretion and at the city’s expense." She wanted to know what the cost range was and she wanted to see a cost not to exceed because this would be an ongoing agreement. Also, what additional insurance costs would the City have as a result of this proposal? Also, in the second bullet on the second page of memo "upon termination, all improvements are to be removed at the city’s expense and the premises restored in a manner satisfactory to CSX." They talk about anytime they want to relocate their tracks that we also have to remove all of our facilities, pay for that and pay for all of the additional equipment. We are also talking about any existing or potential drainage issues are present, either prior or after, we are responsible for those. She wanted to know what the situation is with regard to the drainage at this point and also we are required to have a grass cutting program of which we are responsible for maintaining and paying for. We are also responsible for any present or future utility relocation costs. If in their discretion they want to change anything, we have to bear the price. She asked that all of these things be asked and she wanted to know if no one investigated this up front with regard to this proposal. Are we going to do this anywhere else in Novi? This is a quid pro quo situation in that there was quite a bit of money tacked onto the cost of the Grand River Bridge with regard to the requirements that CSX needed and that could be brought to their attention. This seemed burdensome from a corporation that has quite a profile in our city.

Mr. Nowicki introduced City Engineer Nancy McClain who did the traffic analysis at the intersection of Sunrise at Mill.

Ms. McClain said the request was made by Council to look at placing two additional stop signs at Sunrise Blvd. at Mill Street. Traffic counters were placed from October 9^th until November 2^nd to get current traffic counts. She reviewed the counts and went over the warrants in the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. These are very specific in allowing multi way stop signs to be placed. This corner does not comply with the regulations for a traffic signal, 5 or more reported accidents in a twelve month period, minimum traffic volumes greater than 500 vehicles per hour for each of eight hours in the day. Secondly, the minor street vehicle and pedestrian traffic has to be greater than 200 per hour for each of those same eight hours. If the 85th percentile speeds are above 40 MPH those numbers could be reduced to 70% of their value. The 85^th percentile speeds in this area are only 30 MPH so that did not apply. While looking at the traffic volumes each day there was no time that those conditions were met. She recommended that multi way stop signs not be placed at this location. In addition, Mr. McCusker had also not recommended additional stop signs.

Member Csordas noted in Ms. McClain’s report said "at no time did the intersection approach the required 550 vehicles per hour for 8 hours." He thought it was more important that the average speed on Sunrise Blvd was less than 20 miles per hour with a 85^th percentile speed of less than 30 and there were no accidents. Although, all of us support public safety he would have to agree with her recommendation and would support a motion to not recommend.

Member Lorenzo asked if Kathleen Schulz, representative for Whispering Meadows Homeowners Association, was notified that this item would be on the agenda this evening? Mr. Nowicki said his office did not notify her. She requested that in the future when a request comes from the homeowners association that someone be notified when their item is on the agenda.

Member Lorenzo commented a previous Council and previous legal counsel advised the Council that while we have the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices that the Council had the discretion to place stop signs even when not warranted by that manual. She asked if Mr. Fisher agreed with that.

Mr. Fisher said he did. However, before proceeding in that manner he would want a traffic engineering or other determination that placing the device in that location would not create a problem that might come back to haunt us.

Member Lorenzo had requested additional information, which had been given to Council members. She understood that under the control of the manual the warrants had not been met but looking at the speeds north of Mill Road four people were going between 46 and 50 MPH and 24 people were going between 41 and 45 MPH. There were 147 people driving between 36 and 40 MPH and 1,287 driving between 31 and 35 MPH on a 25 MPH residential street. She thought this was a problem. South of Mill Road there were 8 people driving between 51 and 55 MPH, 1 driving between 46 and 50 MPH, 10 between 41 and 45 MPH, 69 between 36 and 40 MPH and 682 between 31 and 35 MPH. She was sympathetic to these residents. This is a safety hazard and quality of life issue and if we can slow those people down with traffic calming all way stop signs and it wouldn’t be a safety hazard to place the signs she would be inclined to approve the request.

Member Capello agreed with Member Lorenzo and would be inclined to approve the request also but he did not feel there was enough documentation to support the approval. He suggested this be tabled. He thought he and Member Landry could get their committee together and use this as a case study. The issue is not so much the stop sign but the residents want the speeding corrected and perhaps Chief Shaeffer would be of some help.

Member Landry asked if the maker of the motion would accept a friendly amendment that in the meantime we ask the traffic engineer for a report on whether there would be any potential adverse impacts if a stop sign were installed.

Member Csordas asked why the numbers given by Member Lorenzo did not agree with Ms. McClain’s report.

Ms. McClain invited Council to look on the second to last page of each of those reports where it listed the station speed data. Notice that under the grand totals it is the total volume over the days the study was taken.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked how much a stop sign costs? Mr. Nowicki said approximately $100 installed. She was concerned from the tone and information that they might be getting into a war of wills and she hoped they were not. These folks have concerns and if nothing could result from the placement of the signs she would be in approval of putting up the two stop signs at a total of $100 each.

Mr. Helwig asked if this was to be on the December 3^rd agenda or the 17^th. Member Capello said the 17^th was good and Mr. Helwig agreed.

Ms. Cornelius stated she had received an e-mail from Ms. Schulz and responded prior to the election that this would be on the November 26^th agenda.

Mr. Klaver said every year they are asked by MERS to respond to three different options. They are: 1) An automatic rider that would do this without any specific action.

2) Allowed for a fixed fee

3) Benefit E which applied a 2% Cost of Living Allowance increase.

Ms. Gianakos, Human Resource Specialist, put together a packet providing background information in general on the benefit as well as the costs. This is being brought forward, as it is each year, for Council consideration.

Member Capello asked if this was required under the contract? Mr. Klaver said no. Member Landry said then at any time we can say we are not going to do this? Mr. Klaver said yes.

Absent: Clark

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

Member Landry said he only saw Change Orders #7 through #12. Mr. Klaver said it looked like they issued the bulletins on the last page and #13 and #14 are written in on the front and the back of that. Mr. Klaver noted Member Landry asked why it didn’t total and Mr. Klaver said he could not answer but he knew one of these was being processed through the construction company, as it would not be appropriate to pay for it out of the bond because it is an improvement to the Civic Center and not the Police Station.

Member Landry asked if Change Order #7 for $18,841 was included in the $69,000? Ms. Smith-Roy said it was. The last time a Change Order was brought to Council some of the Change Orders were renumbered. Consequently, when Council was given the new information on the cover page they tried to put in the $69,000 what the new items were. So, the sequencing might have gotten out of order. She thought #8 and #9 were brought to Council once before. Member Landry asked if she was asking for approval of numbers 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14? Ms. Smith-Roy said the dollars are correct and if he would look at the last Change Order signed and approved, Change Order #12, third page back, at the bottom of that contract the contract sum including the Change Orders to date is the $2,095,000. If the two additional Change Orders we are looking for them to prepare are added, #13 for $7,040 and #14 for $7,343 that would total the $2,110,012. That is what they were looking for. They are looking for the approval up to that dollar amount with those reclassifications. It’s 7 through 14 and she tried to simplify it because they took it out of order. They did verify the contract amount to date and we are in concurrence with it.

To approve Change Orders 7 through 14 in the amount of $69,

Member Csordas said Mayor Pro Tem Bononi, Mr. Helwig and himself served on the Fire Task Force Committee. He asked Mr. Helwig to provide Council with an update on the progress of the contract by the meeting of December 17^th.

Member Capello requested a status on what ordinances are in the Ordinance Review Committee now and when they got there. As an alternate on the committee he requested copies of each of the ordinances so he could update himself as soon as possible. Also, a list of when the committee meets for Member Landry and himself.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Mr. Pearson if Member Capello would be on the packet list? Mr. Pearson said he was and would receive a packet this week. She thought there was a status report done a couple of months ago so that could be furnished also.

Member DeRoche asked to see a log of what is before the Ordinance Review and when Council directed those to come out as well.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at

11:01 PM.

________________________________ _______________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: ________________________

Charlene McLean

Date approved: December 3, 2001