Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:34 PM.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Cub Scout Pack 54

Leader: Frank Maynard & Jo Young

Members: Gordy Hao, James Lang, Benjamin Maynard, Jacob Riedel, Kevin Slawinski, Ian Young

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

Member Landry added Item #2 to Mayor and Council Issues, Ad Hoc Committee Report

Member Lorenzo added Item #3 to Mayor and Council Issues, Civic Center Traffic Light

Member Lorenzo added Item #4 to Mayor and Council Issues, Sanitary Sewer Service, Mayberry Estates RUD

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi added Item #5 to Mayor and Council Issues, Storm Water Management & Watershed Stewardship Committee

Mayor Clark announced that he was requesting a Resolution of Council for support that on Sunday, June 30, 2002 at 1:00 PM in the Civic Center, the City of Novi would honor veterans of the Vietnam War and declare that day as Vietnam Veterans Recognition Day – Sunday. If you are a veteran in any branch of the service that served in Vietnam please contact Maureen Malone at City Hall or contact the City Clerk to obtain the necessary information. Mayor Clark felt this recognition was long overdue. WWII was considered the good war, Korea was considered the forgotten war and Vietnam, unfortunately, was the war of the forgotten veterans. It is time for us to set the record straight and recognize those men and women in our community who served their country stepped forward without question and did their duty.

The Storm Water Management & Watershed Stewardship Committee met and reviewed the three proposals that the City of Novi received through Mr. Nowicki with regard to design concepts for South Lake Drive improvements. Upon review of the proposals, the low bidder appeared to be JCK. The group reviewed each of the proposals from the standpoint of what each of the consultants proposed to do. Also, the breakdown with regard to the costs by the hour and the specifics with regard to the deliverables, Mayor Pro Tem Bononi felt there were holes in the JCK proposal with regard to its brevity. The Storm Water Committee would like to provide written comments to Mr. Nowicki and bring the matter forward with regard to answers from each of the consultants regarding the holes in the proposals and then bring it to Council the first meeting in January.

1. Presentation of Service Plaque to Andrew Mutch

Mayor Clark presented the plaque to Andrew Mutch in recognition of his outstanding service to the community as a member of the Novi Planning Commission

Ms. Piccinini was unable to attend due to a prior commitment. She requested that her plaque be mailed.

Mayor Clark presented the plaque in recognition of the outstanding job Kathy Smith-Roy and her staff does on behalf of the City of Novi and the community. Once again, they have been awarded by the Government Finance Officers Association the distinguished Budget Presentation Award presented to the City of Novi for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2001. This award would not have been presented without the efforts of Ms. Smith-Roy, Ms. Sharpe and the rest of the staff. On behalf of the City administration and the residents of Novi, this plaque is presented in recognition of their dedication, hard work and fiscal integrity for the residents of our community.

CITY MANAGER

Mr. Helwig reported that Member Csordas, Mayor Pro Tem Bononi and Mayor Clark served on this committee that developed 10 specific recommendations. There was an hourly rate increase for paid on-call, recruiting is now with Human Resources and the

EMS contract to have dedicated service in our community is on this agenda. Two full time firefighters positions have been added and started December 3^rd and 4th and they will utilize the list developed for the next two firefighters to continue Council’s plan to add two firefighters a year. The replacement bid for generators was awarded by Council on December 3, 2001 and should be here in seven to eight weeks. The vehicle extraction equipment was awarded and received in September and is a major enhancement of service. The heating system replacement in the apparatus bay area is complete as of last week. The automated external defibrillators are on this agenda for approval. They will be placed in police vehicles and City facilities. The Police Department had hoped to receive a grant for these, but since they had not, it was necessary to move forward with it. The police officers have been trained on the equipment. The communications power generator for UPS (uninterruptible power supply) is in progress and should be installed in 8 to 12 weeks. Training for firefighters and paramedics began this month and will take over one year to complete. Upgrading the turn out gear is an ongoing process that is taking place as new, paid on-call personnel are hired. Chief Lenaghan was present to answer questions.

Member Csordas asked if there were two firefighters this calendar year? Mr.Helwig said for this budget year, but it would be revisited in the budget discussion. The notion was to add two per year for the foreseeable future.

Member Csordas asked Chief Lenaghan why it took so long to get the proposal ready for the ambulance service. Chief Lenaghan responded it began in September and the language regarding a dedicated car within the city had to be discussed. Member Csordas asked if this is modeled after other cities? Chief Lenaghan reported other cities such as Rochester Hills and Farmington Hills were reviewed. They used the contract Novi had originally and the biggest change was the reduction of the response time from 10 to 8 minutes. There was concern about the back-to-back runs, which would not leave an ambulance available and is the reason they are looking for two units instead of one. We are looking for one to back the other one up to meet the 8-minute response time. There were 72 incidences last year when they could not get an advanced life support unit. The contract still permits the 10% allowance but doesn’t hold them to 100% of meeting the County criteria. Member Csordas asked once this went to bid, how long before we have a vehicle implemented in the City. Chief Lenaghan stated the bid opening should be January 9^th and once brought back to Council for approval, it should be implemented He expected there were about three companies in the area that would bid on this contract and could furnish this service. Member Csordas asked if he thought the RFP was overly restrictive. Chief Lenaghan stated the purpose was to upgrade our service. The current provider had met the county criteria but this would improve the service especially regarding the response times, maintaining the system as it is, they covered the re-supply with 911 interface as well as the concerns expressed about liability and back-to-back runs.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi clarified that the dedicated cars were Council directives and asked if two cars could be had for $250,000? Chief Lenaghan said they would know when the bids went out and he assumed it could be done because they would also be charging a fee for their services as well which would allow them some flexibility. If we are going to look at the level of service we want provided, this is the avenue we’d have to take. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was looking for the difference between what the Council

action was and what he is doing now because it is substantially different and she didn’t know how the numbers would work out. She asked if he would consider using Fire Department Rescue to transport basic life support patients, which would free up advanced life support for those who really need it? She thought it would be more cost effective than using two cars. Chief Lenaghan stated they have the capability to transport but the City has not assumed that responsibility at this point. It has been left to the private sector. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi hoped that would be a failsafe if the bids come back too high or two cars are not possible. Is it normal to negotiate for a 3-year contract with the possible extension of 2 years, why not a two-year contract to see how things work out? Chief Lenaghan stated there is an escape clause if there are problems, but if Council would like a two-year contract the bid package had not gone out yet and a change could be made. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked who the group was that would review the bid proposals? Chief Lenaghan said himself and a representative of the company would review their response time, any complaints they have, etc. She asked who the City of Novi Oversight Committee was? Mr. Klaver stated it is the Purchasing Review Committee consisting of Kathy Smith-Roy, Carol Kalinovik, and himself.

Mr. Helwig stated he would like to have time with Council to receive some early input responses to some basic questions about their expectations in the upcoming budget process. He asked for input in terms of issues, content, timing and anything that would help them do a better job of knowing in advance, expectations and issues, in lieu of any expansive goal setting session. He would give Council the questions in advance so that their responses could be shared with one another. Mayor Clark suggested a meeting the first Saturday in January for two hours. Member Lorenzo noted the Ordinance Review Committee would meet January 3 and suggested it be after that from 7 until 9 PM. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked for more information regarding this session from Mr. Helwig. She asked for a stat sheet that would show the goals that we had last year, which are completed and where we are and also to know what Mr. Helwig’s goals are so Council could provide the resources he needed. Member Csordas preferred a Saturday morning when everyone was fresh. There was Council consensus to have the meeting on January 5^th at 9:00 a.m.

Mr. Helwig said they had transmitted to Council in recent weeks the long awaited Pavement Management System work product. This is a first for our community and it is designed to give us much better information about the condition of our roadways. The scanning equipment company was here in June and Mr. Nowicki, Mr. McCusker and Mr. Maurice guided the Council through a brief overview of this document.

Mr. Nowicki said Mr. McCusker and Mr. Maurice put together a program that would allow them to review, analyze and prioritize our road rehabilitation needs.

Mr. Maurice displayed the PowerPoint PASER. There are three steps in managing roads: 1) inventorying roadways and streets, 2) periodically evaluating the conditions of the pavements on all those streets and 3)use the condition evaluation to set priorities for projects and select alternative treatments for other areas of pavement. They contracted with GIE Technologies to survey the roadways and streets in Novi. GIE used a laser- enabled survey truck to drive the roads and store information about the pavement surface of the roads. It was stored in the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating System, PASER system format. It provides a qualitative rating system from poor to fair to good to excellent on a scale of 1-10. It can be used as our road system increases and implemented inexpensively using existing staff. It provides a picture of all roads and identifies what needed maintenance and rehabilitation. The goals of the project were to provide a visual representation and an attribute database on the pavement condition of the roads as of July 2001. The information can be used as a decision support system by the Department of Public Service to determine road segments to be maintained. Mr. Maurice created a GIS file of our street network. The data was processed and we linked the information they sent back to the original GIS file and rated each segment. 80% of the surveyed roads in Novi rated a 6 or better. 836 individual segments were driven by GIE Technologies and divided into local streets and major roadways. Dirt roads do not have a rating and when the survey was done, County roads were not included. Every tenth of a mile got a rating for each segment.

Member Csordas liked this report because it took the subjectivity out of it. He questioned Wixom Road rating a 7 because it is a new road. Mr. McCusker said the laser senses things they could not because it would pick up fine cracks in the pavement and other conditions. They also do a series of soundings with the vehicle, which sends sounding down below the pavement grade, and it picks up voids and utilities that have shifted. He said because of utility crossing at the Island Lake complex, there was road distress because of the unpaved temporary crossings and accel and decel lane failures that it picked up. Member Csordas hoped that would be verified and if the developer was damaging these roads, what resource does the City have to go to the developer and get some relief. Mr. McCusker stated since that time, the accel and decel lanes were put in along with the utility crossings. This tool allows the City to budget for areas of need and areas of development to spread the dollars further. Member Csordas asked about South Lake Dr. and what the laser said about the hump in the road. Mr. McCusker said overall it gave it a reading of three, and is four from Old Novi to West Park Dr. This system might be reviewed by the State of Michigan to look at the five counties and the overall State in the future and with the GPS System allowing us to connect to this in the future, we hope to layer everything from our drainage concerns in areas to street inventory to GASB34. This would provide a real good view and could be updated through a satellite link in the future, as needed. The entire 220 plus miles of the street network was surveyed. Member Csordas requested that if a new road rates less than 10, to keep them informed. Mr. McCusker said anything from a six is considered good even though we would like them all to be nine and ten.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi thought this was a wonderful resource. It puts it in perspective with regard to neighborhood requests. She asked if it would be possible to use this as a quality control check with regard to the acceptance of newly constructed streets? He said it was an ideal tool for that purpose. Mr. McCusker said new roads should rate ten.

She asked if that was surface alone? Mr. McCusker answered the laser would pick up depth and width of cracks, water infiltration, hollows in the bases, etc. can be picked up as well.

Mr. Fisher updated Council on the Sandstone matter. They had a hearing on two combined matters. The first was the case initiated by the interest group attempting to stop the settlement and the question was whether or not the group was entitled to participate in the proceedings and they sought preliminary injunction. After the hearing, the court determined he would not rule on whether or not they had the right to proceed in the case and denied their injunctive relief request. Combined with that hearing was the proceeding that was initiated by Council, they proceeded on that matter and the court gave them a road map for the steps to be taken to secure the court’s blessing with regard to proceeding with the settlement. The City could secure a vote of the people or allow the Planning Commission to remove the park designation on that portion of North Novi Park contemplated to be transferred as a part of the settlement pursuant to court order. On that basis, the Planning Commission agenda for Wednesday has the question of adopting a resolution to set a public hearing to modify the master plan consistent with the judge’s order. This had been discussed with Sandstone representatives and they are not happy with regard to the delay. He had no indication that they were pulling out of the resolution but as time goes by, they would anticipate a greater burden on the City. Mayor Clark noted the City initiated the other action, which was consistent with what the community was told after two public hearings. It was that we would go to the court and seek guidance for a proposed resolution to make sure we are in compliance with the law. The courts guidance was received and would be followed.

Kathleen Schulz, 22358 Sunrise Blvd., was present to discuss the stop sign at Sunrise and Mill. She received Ms. McClain’s report dated October 31^st regarding this stop sign. She did not receive the traffic speed data in her copy of the letter but read the meeting minutes on line and was astounded by the numbers that Member Lorenzo had provided. She found it hard to believe that the average speeds and the 85^th percentile speeds were below 28 mph. Ms. McClain’s report did not mention the site distance being limited at an approach to the intersection. This was mentioned in Mr. Nowicki’s letter saying it was one of the requirements in the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Ms. McClain did include a few photographs, however, they were not on the curve of the street. She advised Council that the view is obscured looking down Nine Mile and even more so if there are cars parked in the driveway. She questioned why Council would ask what the adverse affects were for installing a stop sign? She requested that the stop sign be placed at Sunrise. Ms. Schulz asked that Council reconsider the sign and asked if they could have it on a trial basis.

Mr. Sherman, Wintergreen Circle, responded to the presentation regarding the ratings of pavement. He said he is a geologist and does construction inspection testing and there are scientific ways of checking the pavement and asked about the rating method used in Novi. Mr. Helwig stated tonight there was a presentation of a laser pavement management system that was applied to all of our streets during June and July of this year. That report was prepared and distributed to City Council and that Mr. Sherman could talk with Mr. Nowicki to see what the report contained. Council will be using this information to help make judgments about priorities for applying resources for our residential and major thoroughfare streets.

Lynda Racey, 24740 Taft Road, stated she was in the courtroom that Mr. Fisher was in when the judge passed and made his ruling on the Sandstone lawsuit and the Friends of Novi Park lawsuit. She differed with Mr. Fisher’s characterization of the judge’s ruling and heard the judge say the City’s resolution was invalid and erroneous. She asked that the Council get a copy of the transcript and read it. She felt he did not provide a roadmap for the City and what he said was there was ample evidence that North Novi Park is required as a park and the only way it could be removed was if the City had a vote of its electorate or if it was not on the Master Plan. He did not say go take it off the Master Plan. Rather than put the issue to the voters where it rightfully belongs, the City had chosen to send it to the Planning Commission to remove that 100 acres from the Master Plan so a vote would not be required. If this issue had been properly brought before the voters in September instead of forging ahead with an invalid resolution, it would be time for the vote now. The City has still failed to answer critical questions such as what about the two properties that were condemned for this parkland? She looked at the court documents and they say that both of those people that owned that land have the right to seek additional compensation from the City. This would not be a cost free settlement with Sandstone by any stretch of the imagination. She felt this was about good government and given all these implications and costs and the impact of the lost parkland on the citizens of Novi, it is a proper issue for the voters to decide. Even the Detroit News said in an editorial today "let the voters decide". Let the system do its job and put it to a vote.

Ken Nanda, 21130 Chubb Rd., Northville, commented he was a resident when he developed Cheltenham Estates. He received a call from Ms. McGuire asking what was going on in the subdivision with regard to landscaping and other issues. Two homeowners from the sub were present at the December 3^rd Council meeting and they had a lot of complaints about him as the developer. He wanted to clarify some of these issues as he felt there were several mis-statements about what had been done. The subdivision was completed in June 1998 and the 28 lots were sold to the Toll Brothers as builders. They finished the building about September or October and the landscaping of the lots was left to the homeowners. He addressed the issue of snow removal by explaining to Mr. Gilburg, the Association President and Mr. Korson, Vice-President, and explained to them that he had signed a contract for snow plowing. He had informed both these gentlemen of the snow removal plans in a letter as well. The second issue was street paving but the landscaping was not done. There have been four different landscapers that used the roads and they didn’t finish until November. He asked the City Code Enforcement Officers to ask the landscapers to protect the roads and install fencing to keep dirt from being washed into the storm system. Mr. Nanda called the Novi Police because one of the landscapers was using the roads for his business and he asked that the landscapers stop using heavy equipment on the roads. It was not possible to pave until all the landscaping was done. Paving cannot be done from November on until next spring. He had a dispute with Toll Brothers who were supposed to pay the damages as part of the building activity. Mr. Nanda said they made a commitment to the City of Novi and the Association that the road would be paved come spring and summer of next year whether Toll Brothers pays the damages or not. These people did not tell Council they had received letters to that effect. He noted he had paid additional bond to the City of Novi. Mr. Nanda felt these residents knew all this. They had made false claims before Council and it was not fair to him. He also stated there were some difficulties with issues, but they were on track to complete the rest of the work and have placed a cash deposit with the City.

Bob Shaw, 40612 Village Oaks, noted he was also in the courtroom when Judge McDonald read his decision and felt Ms. Racey’s statement was much more accurate. He asked if they had told the citizens the judge declared Council’s resolution statements of October 15^th about the parks " invalid and erroneous" or that this was also described as being demonstrated with ample evidence? He asked, "Have you told the citizens that since the judge ruled your resolution of October 15^th invalid and erroneous that you need to take formal action again to approve the settlement since it is now a sale of property and can we expect such action to be taken? Have you told the citizens that the city actually provided sworn testimony that the City never planned anything for that property but a golf course and a banquet facility and denied any knowledge that any professional park designs were prepared other than for the golf course and banquet facility? Two were prepared in 1996, have been shown frequently since 1996 and were shown to the Council on October 15^th. He asked if Council had wondered why they continued in this direction after at least two citizens appeared before them on October 15^th and told them that the statements about the parkland were false and their actions were illegal according to the Home Rule Cities Act. He asked if Council had wondered why they continued in this direction taking another two months at an interest cost of approximately of about $600,000 only to have a judge tell them the same thing? Had Council wondered why it had taken eight months of work at an interest cost of $4.8 million to reach a settlement proposal that was so obviously illegal to even a lay person and was similarly stated by the judge. Have you told citizens that after the Friends of Novi Parks filed for an injunction, the requested hearing date was moved up at Sandstone’s request and the City’s concurrence from December 21^st to December 6th saving fifteen days of interest at $20,000 a day or $300,000? The Friends of Novi Parks actually saved the City approximately $250,000 in interest. Do the citizens know that the Gasior property, which was bought using Federal Community Development Block grant funds would have to be paid back at market rates for the new use, he estimated, between $1 and 1 ½ million. Have you told the residents about the risk of Paul and Marianna Mitchell filing suit against the City. Since their 40 acres were purchased with eminent domain for parkland and the agreement was made without prejudice and now that about 35 acres of their 40 is being converted for commercial and multi family residential use. They have possible recourse for the difference in the price of the land and related potential losses of income. This risk can be estimated at $8 million or higher and similar risks exist for the LaRue estate property as it was also secured through eminent domain for parkland and also done without prejudice. Have you told the citizens how much it would cost to provide the additional sewer capacity for the development since the new sewer lines put in do not have the capacity to service this new development. Do the citizens know they would pay for a public road with a bridge across the wetlands that would be provided for this private development and that the citizens would maintain the road in perpetuity and that it would cost approximately $2 million. Have you told the public that you now know and it was testified to that the arsenic doesn’t have to be remediated if it remained a park or that the unnecessary arsenic remediation would cost them since the initial engineers estimate is now around $1.5 million. Do the citizens know how much they would be spending in additional legal expenses to defease the parkland bonds that were used for the original purpose, including paying off the old and issuing new bonds. Do the citizens know how much they would be spending in additional expenses to chase the insurance companies all through the Supreme Court? Have you told the citizens now that the judge ruled this is a sale, the City becomes virtually shut out from any DNR grant that could be used to purchase parkland or develop our park facilities? Have you told the citizens when talking about the tax needed if there is no settlement, that the City has the sixth lowest tax rate in Oakland County and have you told them how much their taxes would go up to provide the additional services to the additional 2,500 or so residents? How many more school rooms would have to be built, how much more would that cost in construction costs, teacher salaries, etc. Do the citizens know that the settlement property would take half the upland territory present in all of North Novi Park and Lake Shore Park combined leaving a total of 100 acres of dry land to use and walk on? Do the citizens know that 80% of acreage being claimed as park is actually designated "swamp or marsh" on city maps. Have you told the citizens that there is not one acre of parkland protected from sale as long as it is removed from the Master Plan using six votes at the Planning Commission and five votes of Council without any recourse from the citizens and without so much as consulting with the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission or their staff? Have you told the citizens when you plan on answering these questions? Some have been before Council since October 1^st and we are still waiting and look forward to the answers.

Mayor Clark responded he had also been in the courtroom and that’s why there are attorneys on both sides of the issues. We appreciate your interpretation and suggested legal interpretation of what might happen and what if. Mayor Clark read from the December 10, 1998 Parks and Recreation minutes, which said "Commissioner Shaw stated we should put together a package proposal to take to Council to get professional services to come up with a design and development for just one direction including the golf course and the other park amenities which is the combined plan we all support. Don’t address the non-golf course proposal at all in our plans. Just take it to Council and say this is how we would like to finish out the design development of the park and the cost estimates. If they choose not to fund it then we know which direction to take." Mayor Clark commented he found it somewhat disingenuous that Mr. Shaw had come before them on many occasions as the champion of parkland when, if this golf proposal he supported would have passed, it would have destroyed about 85% of the parkland and not 95 acres that might or might not be subject to a settlement. Mayor Clark stated many seniors had come to him almost in tears saying if this settlement was not approved they would be taxed out of their homes. He asked Mr. Shaw if that was what he wanted to do to his fellow citizens in this community. He said Mr. Shaw was entitled to his opinion and the Mayor respected his right to it. Mayor Clark paraphrased Abraham Lincoln who said "Sir, you have no oath written in heaven to destroy this community." However, he and the members of this Council took a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend this community and its fiscal integrity against those who, for narrow interest, would take this community if need be to the brinks of bankruptcy. Mayor Clark, for one, was not ready to see that happen to our community, our citizens, our seniors and our young families in our community. Mayor Clark said the record needed to be made straight that there is more than one opinion on this issue and he thought the citizens of this community had on more than one occasion expressed to him and other Council members that hopefully this matter could be brought to a conclusion. What he got from them over and over again was "I cannot afford to pay any more taxes." The majority, including seniors, don’t want to pay any more taxes.

LuAnne Kozma, 23837 W. LeBost, wished all of Novi’s Council could have witnessed what she did in Court. She claimed Mr. Fisher told the judge that North Novi Park wasn’t a park and that it was not required on the Master Plan and it was bought only for a banquet facility and golf course. He said a transfer of parkland to Sandstone was not a sale and would be involuntary to be ordered by the court. These arguments were offered orally and in the City’s written brief. She stated the judge ruled that North Novi Park is clearly a park and that there is ample evidence in many City documents including the Master Plan Vision 2020 and it would constitute a sale. Ms. Kozma heard Mr. Helwig say that 30 people appeared before City Council for the October 1st public hearing. It was clarified that hundreds actually attended and additional chairs and TV monitors were required. Mr. Arroyo had been passed off as a park expert and testified that the City had surplus parkland. Mr. Fisher argued in his closing that the City could sell any City park including Lake Shore Park. In the course of the two days of the hearing, she witnessed Mr. Fisher and Sandstone’s attorney, Robert Carson sit on the same side of the court arguing the same points the best of friends. Mr. Carson cried out for the poor citizens of Novi and how harmed they would be saying, repeatedly, that the Friends of Novi Park group was a sham. She felt the real sham was the illegal settlement that the City proposed with their "buddy" Sandstone. The judge called it erroneous and invalid how can the City spin this and say they did nothing wrong? She felt that Mr. Fisher and Mr. Carson could work out a different settlement, a legal one, in the amount of $30 or $40 million. The illegal deal involving parkland was worth about $40 million anyway. More importantly, the so-called tax-free settlement, in fact, involves many millions of dollars in costs on Novi’s citizens. By buying judgment bonds to buy off the park bonds, putting in the sewer for Sandstone, filing a lawsuit for the insurance claims and all the rest. The City should divulge and specify these tax costs to the citizens, the City never has. The risk of a lawsuit from the Mitchells for the condemnation of their forty acres for the park that they wished to develop into residential is a real possibility and they could sue the City and it could become Sandstone II. The proposed settlement selling the North Novi Parkland either approved by the Planning Commission or the voters would still cause a substantial tax increase. We can’t afford to take on the risk of the lawsuits from the former owners of park property and even though the judge said that the condemned land could be sold he didn’t say it wouldn’t cost something. What it comes down to for our community is do we pay at least $20 million in additional taxes and possibly much more and end up in court with the Mitchells and LaRue’s for years, lose the park or pay a different settlement. A $30 or $40 million settlement and get Sandstone off our backs for good and keep the park. Perhaps it is time for Council to re-evaluate if the City could win in the Court of Appeals and get the entire Sandstone judgment overturned. The City must reveal to the citizens what Plunkett and Clooney said about our chances in court. Judge McDonald saw through Mr. Carson and his arguments and maybe the Michigan Court of Appeals and the appeals team from Plunkett and Clooney can too. This proposal came about because of a lack of communication and its residents.

Andrew Mutch, stated a couple of months ago, he appeared before Council and voiced his objections to the proposed Sandstone settlement. He asked that Council’s actions be open, fair and honest. He felt the City had failed to uphold those standards. At the October meetings, the residents raised significant questions that were never addressed. Information was revealed that residents had never heard and now the City was trying to use the Planning Commission to deny the residents an opportunity to decide for themselves the fate of North Novi Park. Mr. Mutch thought the City should tell the residents the truth and all the facts. He felt it wasn’t honest to tell citizens it would have to be re-mediated even if kept as parkland? Under oath, the City Manager admitted that the property would not have to be re-mediated to residential standards if kept as parkland. Was it honest government to go into Judge McDonalds court room and make the following argument, read from the City of Novi’s response for motion for preliminary injunction, page 10. "Interest group (Friends of Novi Park) makes much of the fact that the property was acquired for park purposes for a combination of means including park milages, condemnation and community development block grant funding. Interest group conveniently ignores, though, that the property was required not for the park purposes for which the interest group wants to see it used, bike paths and trails, but for a golf course and banquet facility." It then referenced an affidavit of Mr. Arroyo, the City’s Planning Consultant, and relevant exhibits. Everyone in this community here for the park bond campaign of 1993 and the Charter Amendment of 1999 knows that those are false. Where has honest government lost out to a government of expediency? He asked Mayor Clark if he was telling them the ends justify the means because that is what he has been hearing this evening. The City is asking the Planning Commission to justify the actions that Judge McDonald found illegal in court. Let’s be clear no Planning Commission and no good Planning Commissioner would voluntarily take these actions by themselves. The Planning Commission is empowered by State Law to make long term planning decisions through its Master Plan. It is not a political group and the law intends to insulate the commission from political decisions. Now the City is trying to force the Commission to justify a decision that has no basis in good planning or good government. He thought the questions Mr. Shaw raised this evening along with the members of Friends of Novi Parks and other residents of this community needed to be answered. He claimed the City told the judge that they didn’t know the total extent of land that would be lost and that they hadn’t calculated what the loss of the northern 20 acres would take out in addition to the 20 net usable acres.

Carol Crawford thanked Council for attempting to find a way out of this situation. She spoke as a friend to the Novi taxpayer and the residents she spoke with do not feel the same way as the Friends of the Novi Park. They do not speak for all of us and she didn’t know which side was correct but she would like two lists. One from Mr. Shaw listing all of the costs he believed would be incurred and one from the City reflecting the fines, insurance, arsenic cleanup, etc. so she could compare them. She said there are a lot of long time residents that don’t want to

pay more taxes and that is why the library and fire bonds were turned down. She commented she was personally turned away from the parks and would never vote them another penny until their attitude changed. She asked for other residents to come forward in favor of not paying more taxes.

Rick Katterman, West Park Dr. resident, was present to speak about Item #6 of the agenda. He had originally spoken against the rezoning request but had talked with the proponent and neighbor and now was speaking in favor of rezoning to R-3. Now that he had seen the concept drawings between R-2 and R-3 and the minute differences, he felt R-3 looked better. The proponent has been generous and offered to bring sewer through his development into our property. He felt it was a health and safety issue to have septic fields on such a small lot with no replacement space.

Rick Schulz, spoke about the number of cars traveling on Sunrise and Mill. He would appreciate it if a bike path or another option to make the streets safer could be considered.

Richard Atto, 2150-B Franklin, Bloomfield Hills, spoke in support of the Downtown Gateway Ordinance and its intent and commented it was great to see the possibilities that could be implemented. He spoke about specific items such as parking and front yard setbacks and felt if the setbacks were reduced the pedestrian oriented access would be better utilized if there was no parking allowed in front. The retail portion of the development - uses compatible with mixed use in NCC permitted uses such as soft goods, shoes, cellular and electronics, hobby store, tax preparation, cabinet store and mail store were ignored and many were taken away or disallowed such as specialty food stores. He felt this was a mistake and took away the chance for mixed uses to survive. Access roads may need some additional consideration because there may be other ways not to take 60 feet of land and not specify the location. Also, property owners with natural features are being penalized because they cannot be used as open space. He had an issue with the 300-foot minimum width and felt it should be reduced to 200. It doesn’t affect him but it might necessitate additional variances from the ZBA. Mr. Atto disagreed with City initiated rezoning.

Mr. Jung, Sunrise Blvd, spoke about the speeding problem and said the average speed is about 40 mph and even the school bus occasionally speeds on the street. In the past 3 years, they have been trying to get the City to do something about it and felt all they got was a negative response and negative attitude. He strongly urged Council to consider this serious problem.

Pat Holt, 40549 Addington Lane, said she didn’t know of anyone in the community that didn’t support a settlement except for this handful of people. She challenged everyone to step forward to support the Mayor and Council and said there had been talk of getting a petition of support going.

Paul Chicorian, 40811 W. Eleven Mile Road, with Minasian Development, appreciated time and effort put into the Downtown Gateway Ordinance. He suggested 3 improvements. 1) Location of shared rear access drive, 300-500 feet from centerline of Grand River is too restrictive as several lots are over 1200 feet deep. The parcels south of that will be very deep with a depth of 600 feet and he proposed centerline of shared access drive be 350-650 feet. 2) Front yard building setback is too shallow – gave an example of Maxon building at 42400

Grand River. It was developed as an office project is setback 155 feet from centerline of Grand River to create a strong presence. The proposed minimum setback for front yard parking – two rows of parking would be better and cited the Maxion building as an example. Proposed one row parking to be allowed on Grand River.

Tsuyoshi Nakashima, 22278 Sunrise, noted he appreciated the traffic device but most drivers go back to speeding after the device is removed. He has three children and so do his neighbors and they are concerned for the children’s safety.

Joe Atto addressed Downtown Gateway Ordinance. He said he manages properties and felt even one row of parking in the front managed things better and that minimum heights shouldn’t be forced on anyone. Also, it is critical to have reasonable retail uses available and residential densities could be tweaked. These few items are critical to successful projects.

Mr. Fisher removed Item D for discussion.

Approve Minutes of:

December 3, 2001 Regular meeting

December 10, 2001 Regular meeting - Interviews

Schedule Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation, immediately following the meeting in the Council Annex.

Approval of Traffic Control Orders 01-34 through 01-48

E. Approval of Intergovernmental Water Service Agreement: City of Wixom.

F. Approval of Final Pay Estimate No. 7 and Final Balancing Change Order No. 3;

Shawood Walled Lake Heights Subdivision Water Main Extension (Special Assessment

District #152),

Beck Road Sanitary Sewer Extension and Wildlife Woods Park Water Service.

G. Approval of contract with Linda’s Hair & More for hair salon services at Meadowbrook

Commons.

H. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 612

Member Landry stated there was a report, a great deal of resident request for a stop sign and the Michigan Manual of Uniform Control Devices was consulted and it was the conclusion of our consultants that the manual did not call for a stop sign. The question

had been asked previously in lieu of that finding if there could be any adverse potential effects if a stop sign were installed. Mr. Fisher said he was requested to answer that question and indicated that the City was not bound to follow the manual, provided we were not creating safety hazards that might come back to haunt us later. Member Landry asked if it was the report back to Council that the installation and maintenance of such a stop sign would not adversely affect the City. Mr. Fisher had not done that analysis, as it would be a traffic analysis.

Mr. Nowicki reported that data doesn’t exist about adverse affects and Ms. McClain had done research on the Internet that showed a potential for rear end accidents and increase in speeds at mid-block lengths. If Council wished to authorize the stop sign, he hoped the positive would occur. He hoped that speeds would slow down and people would abide by the stop sign and the quality of life for residents along Sunrise would be enhanced. With respect to the safety issues, it would be purely speculative of any adverse affects through the installation of that stop sign.

Member Landry asked if we don’t follow the Manual, would that open the City to liability and if there isn’t any from Mr. Fisher and Mr. Nowicki, that satisfied his inquiry. Members Landry, Lorenzo and Capello met with Assistant Chief Rasmussen and Lt McNamara and their discussion is included in a memo to Council. They suggested that a procedure they might want to consider in the future for citizen requested stop signs is a three-step process. First the resident would come forward with a formal request from the subdivision association or in lieu of that a petition signed by a certain percentage of members of the subdivision. Then the City would request the traffic count be done and a consultation of the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Council would see if the request complied with the manual and then the consultants would be asked if there would be any adverse impacts and if not, Council could make a decision. That is what the ad hoc committee proposed. He was ready to support a stop sign in this location and felt it would be for a useful purpose.

Member Lorenzo asked if legal counsel was satisfied? Mr. Fisher stated if nothing had been found with studies, and if there are no crash or safety hazard issues, then there is probably not a liability issue. There are cities that put stop signs up that are not warranted under the appropriate standards and he thought the City had done due diligence under these circumstances. Member Lorenzo noted she would support the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi appreciated Member Landry’s proposal to set up a policy and process and supported the motion. Mayor Clark supported the motion and felt it was a public safety issue and should be supported.

Nays: None

Mayor Clark nominated Lynn Paul to fill the vacancy left on the Planning Commission by Councilman Landry.

Member Capello stated he would support the nomination but had a problem with the process in which the nomination came forward. He stated he heard that Ms. Paul had told several people prior to the election that if there were a vacancy on the Planning Commission, she would be appointed to that position. Mr. Capello said Ms. Paul did not have the qualifications necessary such as being able to read mechanical blueprints, engineering or architectural blueprints and was not knowledgeable of the ordinances or in interpreting it. He felt there must be something that the Mayor knew about her and would support his nomination.

Mayor Clark stated most first time applicants didn’t have experience when they first came on the commission. He found out after serving himself for six years that long as you do your homework and come prepared, you can deal with any situation that came up. Mayor Clark felt that any person that dealt with life or death issues, was responsible for a staff of 60 people at Kettering Sloan Hospital, one of the top cancer hospital centers in the U.S., could certainly take on the Planning Commission.

Member Landry stated he has known Ms. Paul for a while and found her to be a very capable person. He thought she was very qualified person and a very humble and self-effacing person and he would have been shocked to hear that she made a remark that she was going to be appointed. He would support Ms. Paul’s nomination.

Mayor Clark asked Clerk Cornelius to notify Ms. Paul.

3. Discussion of naming rights – Ice Arena

Mr. Anastos offered to come back on January 7, 2002 to discuss Items 3 and 4. Mayor Clark requested that Items 3 and 4 be made Items 1 and 2 on the next meeting agenda.

Mr. Helwig suggested that Council designate a special meeting for this item.

Mayor Clark agreed and also that the documentation include all comments from everyone from all meetings including relevant Ordinance Review meetings.

Member Lorenzo suggested January 3^rd after Ordinance Review at 7:00 p.m.

Member Lorenzo noted that she continued to have the many of the same concerns she had the first two times this was discussed. Mainly that a lot of the items that she felt needed incorporation into this document are still "shoulds" and "encourage" instead of "shalls" and "musts" and so forth. Shared parking is encouraged, vehicular and pedestrian connections between sites "should" be provided, etc. She was looking for things to be required. We talked about the possibility of an option as opposed to a zoning classification. There is nothing in this document that refers to that and many of her concerns come from Mr. Fisher’s guidance that a lot of these issues could not be required in a zoning classification but could be in a zoning option. She asked that this be explored. With regard to some of the comments made at the podium, she is willing to explore changes in setbacks, minimizing commercial and increasing the amount of density. The commercial component is what she was most concerned about in this document. If this document were for multiple family and office, she wouldn’t have the concern. She would rather see the multiple family to support Main Street and the office for our tax base than she would more and more strip mall type developments. She is looking for attractive, high tax base generators and low traffic generator uses on Grand River. This document gives density for no reason and she asked what the citizens of Novi are getting out it for giving density without anything in return to the city. She would be willing to explore density for less commercial and for more office. She hoped when this came back, those things will have been explored more and there is possibly a Gateway A, Gateway B and Option A so that Council has a choice.

Member Capello agreed with Member Lorenzo. He felt the goal of keeping commercial to a minimum was not being met. We do need some commercial but it should be part of the residential to service the residents and not to be competitive with the Downtown District. He would like to see the office standing alone and giving some more residential density that is tied in with the commercial. He had always fought parking in the front but viewed a development in West Dearborn that had front parking and it was done well. Some commercial could be provided in front.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated that Ordinance Review Committee comments were not included in this document. Ted Minasian brings back some well thought out comments with regard to setbacks, which have been repeatedly ignored in this document. She asked Mr. Fisher if this was his draft document? He said it was not. She pointed out several important things. Density - how much multiple family housing do we want and if we want multiple family housing are we going to guarantee any quality of life for those folks? We are talking about an open space requirements for an acre of about a 66 x 66 foot space and that is not the kind of place she would like to live and it did not utilize all of that land in the greatest way. We have not addressed adjacency and how this odd couple grouping of uses related to each other. Lastly, the boundaries of this area; she objects to the inclusion of the properties at northeast and southeast quadrants at Meadowbrook and Grand River. They do not belong in this area. If we are going to make it a Gateway then let’s make it a Gateway. This isn’t ready and we need to tighten it up and include many of the important things that we need to make this a quality ordinance.

Absent: DeRoche

Member Lorenzo stated she was not usually in favor of increasing density but after considering his unusual parcel, she agreed to visit his case and hoped he would stick to

his commitment and honor the density of R-2. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she had misunderstood the motion and she would not support rezoning to R-3. Member Landry said he would not support rezoning to R-3 as it was not consistent with the Master Plan and because this is a conceptual plan and not binding on the City or anyone. Any property owner could come in and they would not be bound by this plan.

Brad Bach, the applicant, had owned the property since 1989 and the next year they built a home on the south property line to make possible future development. He offered more information and felt that it would be critical to Council’s decision. Mr. Bach said there are no protected wetlands or woodlands on the site. In previous Master Plans, this property was R-4 with 3.3 density and 80 foot frontage lots. They went to the consultants who suggested an open space preservation option be looked at. He read from the consultant’s reports "For all development approved under the Open Space Preservation Option, the total area to be reserved for open space shall in no instance be less than four acres." He said his site is just under nine so he would have to give up approximately half of the property in order to achieve that. That was a suggestion that came from the planning consultants and he did not think it was a viable option for them to give up 50% of his land in order to achieve smaller lots. If we were to develop under the R-2 requirements, it would be the only site in the entire section that would meet the requirements of R-2 lot sizes. Achieving consistency is a goal in good planning and they viewed their parcel as an extension of Bristol Corners. Bristol Corners is immediately to our north and when the development went in there, we were able to extend their sanitary sewer line at our expense to provide sewer to his project so now we have the opportunity to develop. He noted developers of Bristol Corners have no objections and are consistent with the lots they established in the area. Mr. Bach had a letter from Arnie Serlin, representative of the Novi Group LLC, developers of Bristol Corners West Subdivision stating they had no objection to the proposed rezoning and felt that it was consistent with and should support the values established from Bristol Corners.

The average lot of a Bristol Corners lot is 14,400 sq. ft. The proposed development’s smallest lot is 14,880 ft and the average lot density comes in at 19,252 sq. ft. They are well in excess of the required lot size under R-2 is 18,000 sq. ft. and well in excess of

the lot sizes that are developed in Bristol Corners property. Mr. Bach showed an R-2 design and the proposed design of R-3. He thought they created a more attractive development with the R-3 and the road could be double loaded with R-3 as opposed to single loaded road with R-2. His property abuts the industrial park and this creates a significant impact on residential development. According to the normal objectives found in planning manuals, transitional zoning is found to be the most desirable method and the R-3 would come closer to the transitional zoning. The longest common property line owner submitted a letter of support for the R-3 request. Using R-3 due to a reduction in required lot frontages is what they are asking for. They are not asking for greater density than in the Master Plan for this area. If they could receive the R-3 zoning and the 90 ft. frontages, it would make the development an economic possibility to move forward. They understood that the City desired to zone within the densities on the Master Plan and with their plan of 16 lots they stay under the density of the R-2 planning. They are not asking for specific site approval and if it were possible for Council to attach conditions to an R-3 approval, they would be more than willing to go

with that concept. The Master Plan does not show R-2, R-3 or R-4. It shows densities and 2 lots per acre and Mr. Bach said they would come in under the spirit of the Master Plan. The 1.9 lot per acre density is not in excess of what the Master Plan has called for. He noted that when the Master Plan was done, the entire 59 acre parcel to the east was zoned for residential development. It was sold to the City and they put a wetland mitigation site in there and so this entire area would not be developed as it was planned for under the Master Plan. There is another 70 acres also designed in the Master Plan for development and that was purchased as part of the parkland. So there is approximately 130-150 acres that would not be developed that was planned for development.

Ralph Nunez, 17225 W. 10 Mile Rd., Design Team Limited. He said they had done a number of concepts trying to lay out the R-2 in there. Mr. Nunez explained their thinking on the R-3 plan and that the size would be consistent with those in Bristol Corners.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Mr. Arroyo about his letter of 10-15-01, page 4, Compatibility with surrounding land uses. She asked him to state his comments likening this to Bristol Corners and how they are different. Mr. Arroyo stated Bristol Corners has the lot sizes it has today because it went through the preservation option approval. That meant they had qualifying open space and what we are talking about are non-regulated wetlands, primarily uplands, habitat areas that qualify as preservation credit areas. They preserved those areas in exchange for a reduction in lot sizes. To suggest that because you grant a preservation option on a piece of property and lot sizes are reduced that you should then reduce the lot sizes all around when they are not providing the open space, would not be consistent with what you are trying to accomplish with the preservation option. A lot of different zoning classifications would be needed to achieve that. He pointed out that the densities in Master Plan are not a guarantee of maximum density. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked about comparing densities under R-2, a 2.0 dwelling units per acre and R-3 a 2.7. She asked if that was correct; he said it was. She felt there were creative alternatives that could be done. This applicant is not bound to this particular concept. She asked if there was a requirement regarding perpendicular lines off the street and how these lots are

configured? Mr. Arroyo said yes, lots should be generally radial to streets and perpendicular. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she would not support an R-3 zoning.

Member Csordas stated he had not realized that this property was for sale and he had a problem with that and he asked Mr. Bach when he was going to sell it and why? Mr. Bach stated his property is for sale but he planned on doing the development himself. He does not have any signed agreements but did look at that as an option. He is not a developer and that was why he was offering it for sale but he wants to continue through the process and develop it. He was not trying to rezone the property to sell to somebody else. He planned on carrying it through to completion himself. He commented that when Bristol Corners first came in, Brandon Rogers urged Bristol Corners property developers to purchase Mr. Bach’s property. Mr. Rogers had suggested that they incorporate Mr. Bach’s property into their development. They never approached Mr. Bach. Member Csordas, seconder of the motion, was concerned about the potential sale of the property. However, he would still support the motion.

Member Capello asked if they meet the density requirements, why did Mr. Arroyo feel that the R-3 zoning was inconsistent with the Master Plan? Mr. Arroyo commented there is no guarantee that the density of the master plan would be given. Also established in zoning classification are minimum lot width and area, so you don’t always get that maximum density. There is open space that corresponds with that and we have to keep the Master Plan as a guideline, not a guarantee. Member Capello stated he would uphold the Planning Commission and the Master Plan and would not support the motion.

Nays: Landry, Clark, Bononi, Capello

Mayor Clark asked if another motion should be considered relative to a zoning map amendment?

Mr. Bach asked to go back to the Planning Commission and asked to table this issue. He was not opposed to the idea of trying approach this from an amendment to the Master Plan and he would prefer going in that direction rather than have it rezoned to R-2.

Member Capello asked when something like this goes out to bid, is this the contract that would actually be signed or would it come back to Council for review? Mr. Helwig stated the agreement that is attached is the actual agreement proposed to be executed based upon successfully complying with the bid specifications. There is a summary and then the actual agreement. Member Capello felt there seemed to be areas that would be agreed upon by exhibits such as performance reviews, price, etc. He asked when that would be decided? Mr. Helwig stated it would be part of their submissions in responding to their Request For Proposal’s. Member Capello asked if that would come back to Council before the contract was signed? Mr. Helwig responded it would come back to Council for award based upon a recommendation from staff.

Member Csordas asked if the recommendations of the task force specified one or two vehicles? Chief Lenaghan didn’t have the information with him but would provide it for Council. Member Csordas didn’t recall that it was possible to bring two vehicles into the City for the amount of money we are talking about. He thought it was one vehicle. Mr. Helwig thought it was one vehicle and stated this would be a breakthrough to have a vehicle 24 hours a day seven days a week stationed in our community. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated the Council approved one vehicle because we couldn’t afford two. She asked Mr. Fisher if this is similar to those used in other communities? Mr. Fisher said it was Mr. Schultz’s document. Mr. Schultz stated yes it is similar. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi also asked about improvements of performance standards but thought the term of the contract was long? Mr. Schultz stated the contract is a three-year term with a two-year option and an easy out clause of 90 days for the City without cause. She thought a shorter-term agreement might provide incentive.

Mr. Helwig remembered that two vehicles would be approaching $500,000 and requested that this be changed to one vehicle. The budget was $220,000 maximum.

Members Landry and Lorenzo agreed to amend it to one vehicle.

$39,999.00.

Mr. Helwig said this was to provide defibrillators to the Police Vehicles, Police Headquarters and the Civic Center.

46489 Grand River – property owner A. Kowal.

Mayor Clark clarified that Mr. Kowal was not disputing the condition of the buildings but wanted additional time for those buildings to be removed.

Mr. Kowal stated they told the City they would board up the buildings and tear them down as soon as they got their development going and they did that in January 1997.

At this point they were willing to move ahead with discussions with the City. Mr. Kowal said they had other violations and one of them stated not to do anything on that site. He asked his partner to make his presentation.

Rod Hadash said Mr. Kowal has owned the property for quite some time. Mr. Hadash advised he was a developer and there are tenants interested in office space in Novi with a high tech park. To that end they started some initial site plan and met with adjacent property owners. Mr. Hines showed some interest. Last fall they started collecting bids for removal of the buildings as well as getting the utilities disconnected and receiving wrecking permits from Detroit Edison and Consumers Power. There is a great amount of debris on the property and they hired someone to remove it, but because of the weather they had to wait. In May, they were issued woodland/wetland violations and an order for demolition on the buildings, which brought their conceptual plans to a halt. There are also a lot of historical issues that went with the property that they are trying to deal with. They are very interested in removing the buildings. They are in a position that most of their financing will go toward removing the buildings, removing debris and demolition. The debris consists of cement culverts, cars, engines, etc. Their holdup has been that their financing as of 9/11 had changed a little bit and although they have a commitment, it is based on site plan approval in the future. He noted they were at least one year away from preparing a site plan. He asked for as much time as Council could give them.

Member Csordas agreed the site is ugly and dangerous and he found it hard to believe that these properties existed in this state and wanted to be sure that in the future, no other properties would be allowed to get to this level of destruction.

Member Landry totally supported the motion but felt a specific finding had to be made that the hearing officer’s decision was supported by competent material and substantial evidence. If the maker of the motion would consider a friendly amendment to include those findings, he would support the motion. Member Csordas said he would.

Mayor Clark noted the City had been more than patient with them and the hearing officer is correct. This property constitutes a health and safety issue and is a public nuisance and he thought the findings of the hearing officer were correct.

Mr. Fisher said the appellant had raised an issue relative to notice and Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Kowal and Mr. Hadash if this went back to the hearing officer, was there any evidence they would want present to demonstrate these buildings were not dangerous properties?

Mr. Kowal said what was specified in the motion to dismiss was that the buildings were boarded up and were safe until the City got an order to take off the boards. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any other evidence they would want to present? Mr. Kowal said no.

Mr. Helwig noted it was over a year ago that he asked Ms. Uglow to show him the city’s underbelly because that is the only way you can stay ahead of these types of standards overcoming and becoming more abhorrent in the community. This was the reason for the Neighborhood Services Committee and the number one mission of that committee was to rid the community of unsafe structures.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Fisher if it was his recommendation that if the appeal is denied he would then move to take the matter pending in District Court and move it to Circuit Court. Mr. Fisher said exactly and asked that it be a part of the authorization.

The motion maker and seconder agreed.

Member Capello thought when the wetland ordinance was revamped, they specifically put criminal and civil infractions so that we could utilize the District Courts injunctive

authorities under civil infraction section to the statute. He asked Mr. Fisher to look at this. It might not be in the woodland ordinance but it was discussed at length in the wetlands ordinance and if we missed it, we might want to include that back in there.

Mayor Clark thought the normal avenue to pursue when talking about demolition of structures on private property is Circuit Court. Mr. Fisher said yes and we would want to as confirmation that due process was followed.

Member Capello said his question was in regard to woodland/wetlands enforcement so that we wouldn’t have to go to Circuit Court every time we wanted injunctive relief.

Mike Ducheneau, 911 S. Lake Drive, asked why we haven’t had our day in court with Sandstone and why isn’t it being pursued? He voted for and in favor of parkland and its original intent and against the golf course but he isn’t pro or con with what is going on in the City right now. It is going to play whichever way it plays. He has issues with the manner in which this issue was conducted. He was aware the City has been in negotiations and the residents are just now hearing about the 12% interest, the $20,000 a day. He would like a survey of registered voters in a mailing in a non-binding ballot that would give the residents opinions and the choices that they had. He thought the negotiations with Sandstone should be pursued and trusted Mr. Helwig more than any member of any political organization and trusted that Council did a good job when they appointed him. He thought Mr. Helwig could

come up with some recommendations for the Council with the input from the citizens and he would like to see that happen. Mr. Ducheneau thought specialized lawyers should be sought with the intent of appealing the original court decision. We need people the caliber of F. Lee

Bailey, Johnnie Cochran or Geoffrey Feiger that would look at this and decide whether there is any cause for an appeal and what options there were. He thought there were only a few options: pay the bill, fight it in court or make the swap and thought Mr. Helwig might be able to come up with some other options. He thought we should be looking at future assessments to development of this community and the development should be slowed down.

Mayor Clark noted the appeal is in the court and has been for two years and we do have one of the finest firms handling this case. The City is talking about a potential maximum of 95 acres and there are hundreds of other acres of parkland in the community.

Member Lorenzo supported the first part but would support the second part only if the language was amended. Her concern with subpart 2509.6(g) as it read, there was no prescribed perpetual maintenance program of that "permanent preservation easement" that would be presented to the City. She would change that paragraph’s last two lines to read, "property have provided a permanent preservation easement" and perpetual maintenance and woodland replacement agreement "in recordable form acceptable to the City Attorney for the wooded area, provided:"

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi commented the real reservation she had about this ordinance was the fact that there was no differentiation with regard to locations. She saw the corridor along the highway, a decidedly different setting than the Meadowbrook Road setting. There are land depth issues that would make this building height a decidedly different application and she thought a negative one from the standpoint of land use. The only way she would support this was if the area on Meadowbrook Road was excluded from this increased building height.

Member Csordas asked Mr. Fisher to expand on Mr. Schultz’s letter dated December 10^th, specifically the second paragraph and last sentence and in the next paragraph he refers to allowing increase to 65 feet only north of Grand River and south of 12 Mile. He asked for clarification.

Mr. Fisher responded basically the concept is that in limited locations within the City and then circumscribing again when limited locations within the OST District this height authorization would apply. We are allowing different heights within the same district, and the difference between two stories and five stories is a significant difference that

we are requiring those two authorizations within the OST District north of Grand River and south of 12 Mile.

Member Csordas asked if there were other OST Districts outside of that boundary? Mr. Fisher said yes, but the limitation is to allow the increased height only in those areas.

Member Capello said he was on the Implementation Committee when they were reviewing this and that was a compromise. They thought anything north of 12 Mile, they didn’t want to carry the high height nor south of Grand River. They did not want Meadowbrook Road to grow too high north of the 12 Mile area. He thought that the preservation easement itself had perpetual maintenance language incorporated in it. Mr. Fisher said he was not aware of any that would cover this.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said in her conversation with Mr. Schultz and Mr. Fisher, he did tell her that with regard to the setting aside of specific properties excluded from this increased height, that very specific parameters and criteria must be attached to those so each of those properties would be treated equally. Mr. Fisher said yes. She suggested if that were made part of this, the criteria must be determined. Mr. Fisher said in other words, something other than the Grand River and 12 Mile limitations.

Mr. Fisher suggested, for the record, that all the comments be itemized in the motion. It was decided those comments would be pulled from the minutes. Mr. Fisher asked if it would include the Maintenance Agreement and Mayor Pro Tem Bononi’s concerns and Mayor Clark stated all comments placed on the public record with reference to this item.

Member Lorenzo requested that when this went to the Planning Commission, the staff would do an analysis between the present proposed Open Space Ordinance, the old Open Space Ordinance and the Preservation Option. She wanted to see this on a graph particularly how they relate to lot size adjustments because she thought there were a lot of inconsistencies and overlapping there.

Member Capello opposed the motion because these amendments had been around for a long time and by not adopting this, it hurts the residential developments that are coming before the Planning Commission. This has the opportunity to create active usable Open Space in the subdivisions that are coming so that we can use the open space as opposed to under the old Preservation Option where it was always put in a preservation easement. There were a couple things he wanted to incorporate into this ordinance quickly before new developments come on line. He thought a larger setback was needed along larger thoroughfares to allow for road widening. Also, with regard to the entrances to the subdivisions, that needed to be looked at. The Planning Commission doesn’t need this, they’ll work it and bring it back to Council and Council will rework what they did. Let’s just keep it, roll up our sleeves and get it done.

Mr. Fisher recommended that when this is reconsidered, wherever it goes, the governor just signed new legislation regarding open space zoning for cities and it is something the City needs to do within a year. This ordinance is the vehicle for amending it right now.

Mayor Clark said in light of what Mr. Fisher said, he would not support the motion and it should go back to Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher said it could go to the Planning Commission to work on it there. Mayor Clark said with that clarification, he would support the motion.

Member Lorenzo would not support the motion because part of this proposal is to evaluate our priorities. She felt Council could evaluate their own priorities in accordance with the information provided and she felt this would be a waste of the taxpayers money. It was not ready to go to engineering until that is done.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said there might be a time when this is the prudent thing to do. However, in looking at the fact that Council would meet shortly to decide what the priorities would be, she thought the first move should be for Council to decide their priorities. She would like to see what had been done and not done in the 2001 Program before we move onto 2002. She wanted to see dollar amounts that had been allocated to specific improvements that have not been expended. Until the Council decided what the priorities were, she would not support the motion.

Member Capello said we are going to use the PASER system and they will make a recommendation back to the administration and the Council would make the decision on what roads are worked on. All that the consultant would do is design, inspect and administer the contract.

Mr. Helwig said he was accustomed to doing all of these functions in-house. We do not have the capability to do these services now and he would recommend in the budget that we add those capabilities. In the meantime, we need to do our advance planning consistent with the priorities Council set, particularly the neighborhood street rehabilitation program. We have four years coming up where we do not have the specifics for our program and once the priorities are set, we need the ability to implement those and that is where this comes in. He asked Mr. Nowicki how much time this would take and could we ask Council to spend a little more time with this at the early input budget session before proceeding with this.

Mr. Nowicki said they could definitely defer to Council and give Council more time to debate the various aspects of the program. He agreed with Member Capello regarding what the recommendations were. The recommendations are to utilize the PASER system as a basis for the decision making process. The engineer would evaluate each and every one of those roadway segments and work with staff to come up with a logical plan that they could present to Council for their review and approval at a later date. He would like to be allowed to get started on this process and put together a program for Council to discuss at the upcoming budget sessions and approve the program. The PASER system provided them with the priorities but that is part of the work. All the individual road segments had to be grouped into a logical program. You can’t pick off road segments from various parts of the City and jump all around. A program has to be put together that is economical, thoughtful and common sense program. Mr. Nowicki said that he was asking Council to allow them to start that process.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi thought they were headed in the right direction though a decidedly different direction than used in the past with regard to road improvements. She believed that the responsibility of setting the priority rested with Council and secondarily the responsibility in reporting to everyone who gave us the approval to do these improvements should be included in the process in a communication mode. She said of course they should be doing this work. She believed that direction and leadership is required from Council to determine what the priorities are. Then, when doing their study with the technical people who have that expertise, if they find other things, then Council should know that. This is an important leadership priority in this community. She felt the people believed that it was and she believed that it was. She was not asking people not to do anything; she was asking that it be done together. We need to find a way to coordinate that and she believed Mr. Helwig could help them do that.

Mayor Clark thought the comments Mr. Helwig made were very appropriate because last year in the budget session if things would have gone as initially agreed to, we would have had two more engineers and we would be doing this in house now and saving this money. He asked Mr. Nowicki if Council looked at this early in January, would it create any hardship from his perspective of getting this done.

Mr. Nowicki said they would compress the amount of time available to solicit the proposals, to get a contractor on board and begin the program. He would like to start the program approximately in mid June so there is time to discuss the issues if Council desired.

Mayor Clark said he would have direction from Council in about two weeks.

Member Capello didn’t have a problem postponing this until January. It was his understanding that when proposals are solicited, they didn’t have to be accepted but what he was afraid of is with the construction industry, which included design and engineering, if we get too far into the season, most of the competent companies are already going to have their schedules and budgets set. Therefore, the bids would be higher bids because people wouldn’t care if they get the work or not because their work schedules are full. January is fine but he didn’t want to push this off too far into the spring.

Mayor Clark said there is no intent to do that and they want to see it move along.

Mr. Helwig suggested the 28^th because it would give Council time to process their deliberation from the input discussion meeting on January 5^th.

Nays: None

Member Landry asked why the pavement maintenance bond is not good for two years after today’s date after we approve it?

Mr. Fisher said in this instance, the property owner and the bonding company wrote the bond in this fashion because the roads had been certified to be in usable condition for such a long period of time. While discussing this with the administration, the conclusion was that we have barely had the opportunity to examine these for a fair amount of time.

Mr. Nowicki said the road was available for public use in August 2000. He asked if it had been used since then? Mr. Nowicki said it had. Member Landry asked if Mr. Nowicki was satisfied that there were no premature defects in the roadway given its use since August 2000? Mr. Nowicki said it had been inspected by the consulting engineers as well as our internal construction engineer and both would certified that it is not showing any signs of premature deterioration. We also have the maintenance bond that would last us through August of 2002. Member Landry asked if it rated 10 on the PASER study? Mr. Nowicki didn’t recall if it was rated on the PASER study at all.

Member Lorenzo said it was a gray area, which meant it was not rated because it was not an accepted City street. She wanted to see it graded before it was accepted.

Member Capello asked who had been maintaining it since it opened. Mr. Nowicki said it had been a combination of the developer and the City. He asked what the delay had been? Mr. Nowicki said as with most developments it is typically a delay based on the submission of all the appropriate bonds, insurance, title policies and the other paperwork and documents that the developer is required to provide. Member Capello thought they needed to take a look at the ordinances and get it resolved because this happens way too often.

Mr. Helwig said he saw risk exposure written all over this. It even comes home to roost in the Sandstone case where we were moving the bar on requirements and in this instance, if you require a two year warranty and it is available for public use on a certain date, that is when that two year clock started. We do not have it set up where all these

dates are chronicled and consistent. We are going through this huge morass on Cabot Drive and Lewis Drive with the acceptance of those streets with the same developer. We need to proceed on this basis that the two-year clock started when they were available for public use. He didn’t know how they could argue otherwise. Basically we are accepting the streets when they are available for public use. Maybe we want to extend the warranty time in the future.

Mayor Clark said it was checked on the PASER study and it is a 9.

Member Capello said one of the major problems is that we are not going to accept the streets until we accept the sanitary sewer, the water, the storm sewer and by doing all of those in increments, by the time we get to one, we have to go fix something at the other, etc. It creates these long delays.

Mr. Fisher requested the approval also include the utilities. That is for Act 51 because it doesn’t accept utilities, just the streets.

16. Adoption of Resolution vacating Erma Street (west) Walkway Easement.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if this was the cemetery property? She asked if there were any human remains, cremains or medical school donations of human remains being exhumed or moved? Mr. Fisher said yes, it included some of Wayne State University remains being moved, but no individual graves.

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

Mr. Fisher said in this approval, Council would find in the resolution on page 2, paragraph 4, it contemplates that we are establishing a policy for a permit review and approval for individual companies. It should be done by City Council or the Director of Public Services. This is not a policy decision that would be made, it is for an individual company coming in for a permit and they recommended that it be administrative.

Mayor Clark said this would be different than in the past, as it would be held at the Civic Center instead of the Chamber of Commerce luncheon. By having this in the evening, the entire community could be invited along with the Chamber and members of the business community who are not members of the Chamber. It would provide the Chamber an opportunity to meet with those members of the business community who are not members of the Chamber and give residents the opportunity to meet the business community. A reception will follow.

Member Landry asked that due to the late hour, this be added to the next meeting.

Member Lorenzo brought this to Council because a resident e-mailed her with concerns. She noted that Monday through Saturday, the traffic light at the Civic Center on Ten Mile operated but on Sunday it provided no help for the children and families wishing to cross Ten Mile to get to the park, tennis courts, etc. She asked who was in charge of the traffic light and if they could speak to someone to change it from a yellow blinking light to a red light like it is the rest of the week.

Mr. Helwig asked Mr. Nowicki if a traffic controller was needed for that?

Mr. Nowicki said it would be the Road Commission for Oakland County since the primary road is Ten Mile. He said they could be asked to make the modifications and they would adopt the appropriate Traffic Control Orders and take action as needed. We would make our request when we hear back from the Road Commission. Member Lorenzo asked to do that.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Helwig to have the administration take the necessary steps as soon as possible. Mr. Helwig responded he would.

Member Lorenzo commented she read a letter from JCK dated December 3^rd and JCK seemed to indicate that "sanitary sewer service is proposed by extension of public sewers to the site with the use of a temporary pump station and force main connection to Bellagio Condominiums to the northeast until the gravity sewer becomes available along the eastern property line. This gravity sewer, which serves a larger district to the west, will extend from Maybury Park east to Beck Road and north to the existing sewer sub and is a City of Novi project."

In the September 10, 2001 Regular City Council Minutes, Member Bononi asked questions of Mr. Fisher with regard to sanitary sewer and "Mr. Fisher said he thought it would be implicit in this agreement for the City to act in good faith to pursue the appropriate means of finance including the establishment of a SAD to construct the permanent facility." He said "he did not believe there was an obligation to do it within a specified period of time but it would be something the City should do with some due deliberation. Member Bononi asked if

he was satisfied that this language protected the City’s interest in that regard and Mr. Fisher said yes."

She raised this issue because JCK said it is a City of Novi project. This discussion centered around a possible SAD and she asked the question just last week, what is it?

Mr. Fisher said because it is a City project does not certainly take it out of the realm of an SAD. Member Lorenzo said there has been no SAD. Mr. Fisher said his understanding was that the developer was going to construct the temporary system and the permanent system isn’t anything that is occurring yet so there wouldn’t be an SAD right now. Her concern was that the JCK letter spoke to the permanent system being a City of Novi project. We need to clear this up and bring this before the Council and decide what this is going to be and that conforms to Mr. Fisher’s language that this should be done with some due deliberation.

Mayor Clark asked this be put on the next Council Agenda. Mr. Nowicki requested it be put on for discussion. Member Lorenzo wanted to know if an SAD or the City taking funds out of Sewer and Water fund and doing it would pay back faster? Mr. Nowicki said the cost would be covered much faster if it was not done with an SAD because the SAD would be structured over a 15, 20 or 30 year payback time. If the funds were advanced through the Water and Sewer Fund and then collected on a tap basis as builders pulled building permits, funds would be collected much faster. She asked that that be documented and to find out how much it would cost so an intelligent decision could be made.

This item was dealt with earlier during Committee Reports

1. Letter from Mr. Ken Nanda Re: Cheltenham Estates.

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

12:46 PM.

_____________________________ _________________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: ________________________

Charlene McLean

Date approved: January 7, 2002