Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Pack 50 Dragon Webelos Den

Leaders: Lynda & Tony Bauschka

Members: Chris Bauschka, Kenneth Hanson, Kylan Huacuja,

John Lu, Mark Zheng

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

Under Mayor & Council Issues – Member Csordas added #1 Sewer Extension by Trane/ Quadrants and #2 Northern Equities Consent Judgment

Attorney Fisher requested that Matters for Council action item #4 be moved to #1 due to the applicants desire to postpone.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi added to Mayor & Council issues item #3 Set a date to review Council rules and item #4 Grant application & intent notification

Member Lorenzo added to Mayor & Council issues #5, Consideration of assigning Novi SWOCC employee to cover Library Board meetings

Mayor Clark presented Mr. Koneda with an appreciation plaque for outstanding service to the community as a member of the Planning Commission.

Mayor Clark and John Chambers, President of the Library Board, presented Ms. Bell-Moore, Head of the Library Specialized Services Department with a Proclamation for successfully securing competitive grant funding for the Novi Public Library and for empowering and

inspiring those with special needs. Mr. Chambers expressed his appreciation for Ms. Bell-Moore’s dedication and hard work.

Mr. Helwig said in the month of January there were three significant opportunities for the community to meet, greet and find common ground at the Appreciation Dinner, State of the City Event and for the first time, a Homeowner’s Association Appreciation Breakfast. He thanked everyone for their participation and also for Council’s leadership.

Philip Koneda, 23535 Highmeadow, said as a past member of the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission he had concerns about the public hearing held on January 9^th to rezone the parkland to help with the Sandstone settlement and he supported the decision. Mr. Koneda gave a brief history of the parkland in the City and said parkland had not always been a priority. He noted the department began in 1977 and in 1980 became full time with a dedicated ½ mil. There was 115 acres of parkland under the jurisdiction of the city and most of it was through gifts and by the mid 1980’s a group of residents came to the City Council and suggested establishing a committee called the Needs Assessment Committee. The committee had a charter and reported to City Council prioritizing actions to acquire additional parkland and proposed a charter amendment for additional millage, which didn’t pass. They came back with a second proposal, which was to have a dedicated parkland millage issue in 1993. It passed and $9.9 million dollars was dedicated to acquiring and developing parkland. $8.8 million of that was dedicated to land acquisition. There were recommendations to City Council to buy land. One was to buy a 170 acre tree farm that is the heart of the North Novi park property, at least 50 acres on the west side of the City that is the Community Sports Park and others. In 1987, an internal self-assessment document or performance against objectives was prepared and in 1997 it was re-evaluated and an internal document was presented that measured where they were. The document was adopted by the Commission on April 17, 1997 and he had copies for the Council. Some of the performance against objects were recommendations on active and passive recreation and other things. One of the recommendations was to provide picnic facilities at Powers Park, acquire the Novi Tree Farm expanding Lake Shore Park from 70 acres to 200. They actually bought the Tree Farm plus an additional 271 acres including the acreage that fronts 12 Mile and is now the subject of heated debate. They also recommended incorporating the Natural Resource Design Plan, which was a plan to develop linear park systems throughout the City. In 1995 City Council repealed that because of opposition from citizens. As for active recreation, they requested to acquire land for use as a youth oriented sports complex. The bought 72 acres at 8 mile and Napier and a 52-acre site adjacent to the school property. There were deficiencies and the most significant was there was no identified funding to complete the existing parks as well as the new parkland. He felt Council purchased the right amount of land. Based on

standards in 1988 there should be one acre of parkland for every 1,000 residents, so at build out we should have about 750 acres of land. We currently own 736 acres less whatever the Sandstone judgment turned out to be. It’s important to understand there were objectives, they did move forward and we are moving in the right direction. One of the issues was that during the purchase of the land at North Novi Park, some of the parkland was bought and will be used for our storm water retention basin on the North end. He felt the Storm Water Fund should pay for the land they use not the park system and he hoped they could recoup some of it for land development. There is another piece of property on Novi Road and 13 Mile Road that we have been holding; it was the site of the old casino. In the mid 80’s the City purchased the casino site for traffic calming measures and used road bond money with the intention of realigning the roads around Walled Lake. There was a question about this property and whether we needed a park that was a quarter mile from Lake Shore Park. A decision needs to make made on what to do with that site. He suggested Council determine if there is sufficient land banked to meet the demands of recreation needs and is it the right mix of passive and active to meet the demand. Also, he suggested forming a committee to assess parkland needs based on current information with respect to current recreation trends, national standards and citizen interest. Mr. Koneda suggested, with the reduction of land from North Novi Park, the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff should be instructed to develop a new master plan for that site. Next, communicate with the residents concerning parkland developments. Finally, he felt the Walled Lake Casino site could be an opportunity to have a gem on the lake.

Larry Papp, 46000 White Pines, noted the Lakes Area Police Academy had taught him to be eyes and ears for the City. He said a cement truck dumped cement in a woodlands area across the street from him and he got the truck license and photographs and the ordinance department took care of it right a way. He thanked Maureen Underhill for convincing Mr. Richards to remove a large chunk of cement out of wetlands on White Pines Drive and Mr. Papp suggested there should be a stiff fine of $1000 for this illegal dumping if caught. He noted the building at 10 Mile and Novi had too much writing on the windows and asked for someone to follow up with this because it was not within the ordinance.

Mayor Clark asked Attorney Fisher to communicate with the Ordinance Department on the last item.

Member Lorenzo removed Item D.

To approve Consent Agenda items A,B,C and E-I.

Absent: Capello

Approve Minutes of:

January 3, 2002 Special Meeting

January 5, 2002 Special Meeting

January 7, 2002 Regular Meeting

Schedule Executive Session for February 4, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. (in the Council Annex prior to the regular Council meeting) for the purpose of discussing pending litigation (Sandstone).

Approve Request from Novi Lions Club for an Outdoor Gathering Permit – Main Street Art Fair to be held on Saturday, June 8, 2002, Main & Market Streets.

E. Adoption of Special Assessment District No. 162, Resolution No. 2, setting a Public

Hearing for Monday, February 25, 2002; Sierra Drive Sanitary Sewer.

F. Adoption of Special Assessment District No. 163, Resolution Number 2, setting Public

Hearing Number 1 for Monday, February 25, 2002; Sierra Drive Water Main.

G. Authorization to Register for Act 32 of 1986 Funding for Primary Public Safety

Answering Point Dispatcher Training Distribution.

H. Award the bid for Team Youth Photography to J. L. Photo, the low qualified bidder

based on unit pricing.

I. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 614.

Mr. Fisher said this is a proposed transfer and issues have arisen and he and the applicant thought the best way to resolve them was to postpone this until the Council agenda of February 4^th. Joseph Swerb, representing DPG, confirmed the request for postponement of this issue.

Member Csordas noted he would not support this unless the issue of NSF checks to employees was handled. Mr. Swerb understood and said those were the purpose for the postponement and they would take care of them right away.

Mr. reported everything was going well at the Ice Arena and he was sure Council would be pleased with the progress at the end of the fiscal year. He presented the concept of the naming rights for the Ice Arena. This was not a matter of urgency but rather a matter of discussion. He said since operating the facility, his company’s primary objectives was to help grow the business to be as self-sustaining as possible

and it was progressing very well. Participation is up, revenues are up, expenses are down and we are going into the Winter Olympics, which is always good for ice arenas. He had talked with administration about initiatives they thought were worth considering both from a revenue standpoint, expense control standpoint, concerns over insurance, utility cost, etc. One of the concepts he presented was a naming rights sponsorship. They did some research and he had not found a number of municipally owned facilities that have entered into naming rights deals. There are a number of private facilities that have done this. In talking with the City administration, they felt this was a philosophical thing to discuss as to whether it was worth pursuing. It was recommended that he take the general concept to the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission. They discussed this and it was recommended from there to be presented to Council for their input on this general concept.

Member Csordas said he would fully support the idea of naming rights for the area. He felt Mr. Anastos would know who to go to and who to approach for that and he thought it was a great idea and asked him to pursue it. Member Csordas thanked Mr. Anastos for his fine job and professional way he managed the facility.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi supported the possibility of naming rights and was interested in knowing whether they would be talking about high profile versus low profile versus no profile naming rights. Also, she asked what his thoughts were whether it would be revenue generating or recognition generating or both? Mr. Anastos was not sure because of the economy but they would not know until they tried it. He thought it would be unlikely they would pursue a company with no profile and that the ideal fit would be a company that wanted to be integrated within the City of Novi, if possible, or might be here and felt it would be important to be involved. They would have to take a very slow, methodical approach and really analyze what might be available to us. He said if they pursue this, they would put a target list together.

Mr. Anastos said people had read about the speculation of this in the paper and he has had two companies who specialize in this type of thing contact him. One is the Palace Sports and Entertainment of Auburn Hills who have done this with the DTE Energy Center, sponsorship sales at the airport, they own the building in Tampa and are doing similar things down there. This type of company has expressed interest in representing us and going forward. They would be very careful on how they would attach any kind of corporate name to the facility but he could not be certain on what to expect. There might not be any takers. She asked if it was worth looking into foundations or endowments? He thought anything was an option. He thought the type of revenue that these kinds of things could supply to a facility, such as the Sprint situation Council had put together has been fabulous. She supported the concept and asked to hear more as it becomes available.

Member Landry commended Mr. Anastos for his efforts during the last three years and wholeheartedly supported raising additional funds for the operations of the arena. He thought that by inquiring into possible naming rights was a step in the right direction. He supported this from every source and asked him to ask everywhere, locally and nationally.

Member Lorenzo commented she was very supportive of this idea and was open to any idea that would help the facility become self-supporting. She asked if it would be appropriate to make a motion to support this?

Mayor Clark thought it would be a good idea and would put before the public the impression that this Council supported this so that anyone who might be interested in the concept of having the naming rights for the arena would know that Council supported this.

Member DeRoche thought, unanimously, Council was in support of this. He wanted to empower Mr. Anastos to represent the City in this motion when he talked with people. He wanted him to speak with the authority that Council had asked him to be the point person. When Mr. Anastos has one or more interested parties he wanted him to bring it back to administration and purchasing and put out an RFP or RFQ for this at that time and allow other people to get involved if they wish. Member DeRoche offered an amendment that Mr. Anastos is authorized to represent the City in pursuing this, including talking with people who would potentially represent the City and obtain their terms and what they would bring to the table. Member Lorenzo was agreeable to the amendment.

Mayor Clark said this had been talked about as one possibility to deal with the deficit Mr. Anastos inherited and doing a yeoman’s job in trying to erase. If this would assist him in that task, Mayor Clark was all for it.

Mr. Fisher said given the fact that this is a public facility, we act under special rules in relation to private facilities. Therefore, he would promote Mayor Pro Tem Bononi’s suggestion of looking for a foundation to get grant monies as opposed to other income monies on this because that would open up other avenues for income that might not otherwise be available.

Mr. Anastos noted the contract began in 1999 and it’s not too soon to begin looking at the future. They enjoy the relationship; it has been terrific working with the City Council, management, Finance Department and the Recreation Department. It hasn’t been easy

but they were very pleased with the progress. He said they were interested in a contract extension or renewal as he felt they were going in the right direction and would get to what the objectives are and possibly sooner then they thought. Mr. Anastos Introduced Deb Grace as the General Manager of the arena.

Member Csordas asked the City administration to go forward with an extension as he felt that everyone would like to see them stay involved. He appreciated Mr. Anastos’ comments submitted in the Council packet that it is hard to attract and retain the quality of employees he needs without any commitment with the City. He would support an extension with the outline and structure to be developed by Mr. Anastos and city administration.

UNANIMOUSLY: To authorize the City Manager to negotiate

Member DeRoche asked who would negotiate the contract? Mr. Helwig said it would be a recommendation from him to City Council. It would incorporate himself, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Klaver, Mr. Auler and Ms. Smith-Roy.

Member Lorenzo stated Mr. Anastos has been doing an outstanding job and she was pleased with the relationship as well. Mayor Clark agreed and appreciated the positive direction they have taken.

Chief Lenaghan commented that the presentations were very good and this particular selection had to do primarily with the fee schedule and the fact we have been working with Community Emergency Medical Services for the last 15 years.

Member Csordas asked if this complied with the request of Council to have a full time vehicle in the City. In Chief Lenaghan’s memo of January 3^rd , it was stated that

"specific unit coverage of one dedicated advance life support ambulance" and the information in the packet, page 3, Section 2, referred to a "non-dedicated resource." Also, the fee schedule on page 4 of the memo, "Charges for service shows that there is a $425 charge per run". Is this a truly dedicated 24-7 vehicle to the City of Novi? He thought there would be a fee per run with a dedicated vehicle with no annual retainer; is that correct? Chief Lenaghan said he was correct. Member Csordas stated with the $425 fee, and in another memo, January 4^th, it states "each year CEMS had averaged 100 hours of onsite ALS" is that 100 runs? If it is would that be $425,000? Chief Lenaghan stated they would continue to operate on a fee basis as they have done in the past. Member Csordas asked if there was any change with this agreement with a dedicated vehicle than there was prior to this agreement? Chief Lenaghan said in the past they took some non-emergency transfers and they will no longer do that and would just be assigned to the City of Novi. Member Csordas said if there were 1800 runs in the City last year that CEMS was involved with and would we multiply those by $425? Mayor Clark said you have to look under the "Charge for Service", you quoted $425, which is correct for advanced life support and then it dropped down to $280 if it is basic life support run. Member Csordas asked if the Chief had any idea what the ratio was? Chief Lenaghan didn’t know because in the fee schedule there was also cancellations, he didn’t know what the collection rate is since Medicare paid some. This is the current fee schedule and they have been using it for the last couple of years. Member Csordas asked what this would cost? Chief Lenaghan stated there is no charge to the general fund and the fees would only be charged to the end users of the service.

Mr. Helwig stated this is wonderful news. The top two bidders said they would station a vehicle 24-7 in our community and not charge us for that station. They want our business and will make it work based upon what they charge the user of the service, which has been occurring for years in Novi. This is why we would like Council to go with the firm that is charging the lowest amount, which happens to be CEMS. They also met the criteria for response time. Member Csordas stated his point was that this sounded too good to be true but it was.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Mr. Helwig if the RFP required a dedicated vehicle and he said it did. She asked if the responses were all the same? Mr. Helwig said the responses from two of three met the requirement. Looking at page 61 of the material provided, under Operational Base Locations, where six are listed and one stated W. 10 Mile at Novi and she wondered if that meant if needed, this vehicle could go wherever it is needed? It does not say it is dedicated. Mr. Helwig stated at that point, that indicated further backup support for multiple calls. The High Performance Deployment Plan page responds to our firm requirement we will be provided with a dedicated unit located in the vicinity of 10 Mile and Novi Road, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That comes first; the other is redundancy. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was concerned with what was meant by the term dedicated. Mr. Helwig said positioned geographically within the City limits of the City of Novi 24/7. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was a little concerned about something that sounded to good to be true. She commented she was looking for a volunteer from Council and one from administration to sit in on monthly meetings held to be assure that the services are provided to the members of the community who require emergency services. She was concerned about response and response time. Mayor Clark volunteered.

Mr. Fisher stated in addition to any reports that have been made, they have been attempting to coordinate revision of subdivision restrictions and a conservation easement and would like to add that to the list that this is subject to. The maker and seconder of the motion accepted this addition.

Arnie Serlin, developer, had a request related to subdivision north. He said they are required to put in a sidewalk for the frontage on South Lake Ct. and he knew it was part of the Master Plan to provide sidewalks along all road frontages. However, they have a situation on the South Lake Ct. frontage where this particular 1,000 foot sidewalk would go nowhere and serves no purpose. He asked Council to consider waiving this piece of sidewalk. In total, they are required to put in about a mile of bike path and/or sidewalk for these two developments for 52 lots. He said it was excessive and they have a huge amount of road frontage and they knew that going in. However, they had never planned to put in a sidewalk along the South Lake Ct. road frontage because it would serve no purpose.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Fisher if they were at that juncture? Mr. Fisher responded there was a process for specific review and approval of this sort of thing.

Mayor Clark stated at this time, Council was only dealing with the request for the preliminary plat.

Bristol Corners South Subdivision, SP 01-30, located in

John Chambers, President of Library Board, spoke to the discussion regarding televising Library Board meetings. They will discuss the idea of reviewing and investigating that process at their February board meeting and requested Council wait on this item until after that meeting.

Member DeRoche asked for Mr. Fisher’s opinion on whether he should abstain or not as this is his subdivision and impacted streets directly in front of his house? Mr. Fisher said there were various issues that arise that could be discretionary and have a direct financial impact and he recommended that the Council vote to allow Member DeRoche to abstain.

John Hawthorn’s Subdivision 1 & 2 and Supervisor’s Plat Number 2,

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said there is information in the packets for both items that is not known at this point and before these items come up at the public hearing, she believed that the information with regard to the unknown ROW and easement costs listed in both of these items should be estimated. These costs should be known before going too much further. Also, regarding Matters for Consideration #9, the JCK letter dated January 10^th addressed to Mr. Jerome, referred to the fact that we are talking about a direct discharge into Walled Lake. It mentioned two into the lagoon adjacent to Harbor Cove and she requested complete information be submitted to Council to show precisely how that was to be done. The letter also refers to "that in some areas of proposed improvements are following the existing road alignment, which does not correspond with the platted location, which has been conveyed to the residents. After your review, we recommend that the City Attorney’s office review the right of way issues to determine the appropriate course of action." If we are looking for releases and other considerations that allow the City to construct improvements on private property, she thought that they should have to be determined up front. She also wanted to know what the tree replacement costs for both projects would be and on the preliminary project cost estimate

there is a letter, Item E that referred to environmental services. She did not know if the "0 costs" meant that none were required or that none were understood to be required or estimated.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Fisher if that information could be available to Council by February 25^th? Mr. Fisher said the ROW issues would be initially engineering issues they would have to get. He would be happy to work with them on it and would defer to them regarding the how long it would take.

Doug Pakkala, JCK, said they reviewed this matter about a year ago and felt they could probably have the answers to Council by the end of the week. Mayor Clark said February 25^th would be fine.

Mr. Fisher said he would prefer waiting until all the costs were available. Asst. DPW Director Bruce Jerome indicated this is a unique project that would be built but not connected until the City completed their water main on West Park Drive and North Haven Woods Subdivision has their water line installed, which would be the source for the connection for this district. Mr. Jerome said they had met several times with the property owners in the proposed district and the issues go back to plats where there are private easements for roadway purposes. The citizens know if there are easement acquisition costs they would bear a portion of that. There would be no detriment to delaying this.

Mr. Fisher said if nothing else, we could have an estimate of value that would be included so that there are no surprises.

Member Lorenzo shared Mayor Pro Tem Bononi’s concerns. Also, regarding the proposed direct discharges, she would require them. She asked if the proposed one-way traffic patterns on some streets was within our jurisdiction and is it legal? We have two-way streets we are going to make one way and how would that affect traffic. Mr. Fisher stated these are City streets and Council can make those decisions. Member Lorenzo’s concern is that prior to the public hearing, we need to know about traffic patterns, etc. and whether it is desirable to do this in this area. Mr. Fisher noted certainly, if the improvements are directly related to the traffic patterns. If the improvements are "Step A" and determination of traffic patterns are "Step B" then the two could be separated. Member Lorenzo was concerned about the traffic pattern in that general vicinity. She wanted this answered before she would agree to go further. She thought the improvement and traffic pattern went hand in hand. Mr. Fisher said if the road improvements are being made only so that these traffic pattern modifications could be made, then certainly that is the case. However, if these roads need improvement regardless of the traffic pattern, they might be separated. She asked for further clarification on that when this comes back.

Mr. Jerome noted currently, there is discharge from the gravel roads uncontrolled into Walled Lake. There are five discharge points and they are proposing in the project to install gas and oil separators and catch basins with sumps to improve the water quality going into the lake. Dealing with the one-way traffic patterns, residents felt it was a desirable solution because of the uniqueness of the plats in that area. Member Lorenzo asked if there would be an impact on the surrounding community. Mr. Jerome said no. There are two streets into this residential area and there are no connectors to other subdivisions within the area so the areas proposed for one-way traffic patterns would only impact the residents and service vehicles providing

school busses, etc. She was concerned about buses, ambulances, emergency vehicles, etc. and felt there should be more thought given to this. Mr. Jerome commented there were already issues with traffic in those areas and they were trying to work within the dedicated areas for the roadway. Member Lorenzo was not convinced that this is the best thing to do. The homeowners might have to decide to give up more of their property in order to have the paving that they desire. Mr. Jerome said the problem with giving up more property was their garages and accessory buildings are basically up to the property lines. Member Lorenzo understood this is a challenging area.

Mr. Helwig said the information requested would be mapped and given to Council. He is familiar with the area and what Mr. Jerome is describing is very real. However, we need to give it to Council pictorially and with a lot more information justification so Council could make that decision.

Member Landry said regarding the JCK letter of January 9^th on Item #10, there is concern that streets that we pave are actually streets that are not on someone’s private property and Mr. Fisher is being called to review that, is that correct? Mr. Fisher said his review would come down the road a little bit. Member Landry said there is some concern that roads maintained by the City are not really public roadways and before paving anything we need to make sure it is really our road and not someone’s private road. Mr. Fisher said absolutely. Member Landry asked for history from Mr. Helwig about why the City would be maintaining as public roadways, private easements.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Fisher if he was saying that Items 9 and 10 should be held in abeyance until he has all of the requisite information instead of proceeding on February 25^th? Mr. Fisher replied that is correct but he hoped that the information would be ready and then a hearing could be scheduled.

John Hawthorn’s Subdivision 1 & 2 and Supervisor’s Plat Number 2,

Abstain: DeRoche

Council Member DeRoche re-entered the meeting.

This item postponed as a result of the motion to postpone on item #9.

Member DeRoche had very specific questions regarding this ordinance. He said this ordinance would prohibit all concealed weapons except those who have a license to carry a concealed weapon and would prohibit firearms from being in the City building and asked Chief Shaeffer if that was correct? Chief Shaeffer said yes. Member DeRoche asked if this was specifically geared toward guns or weapons in general. Chief Shaeffer said when initially discussed, it was primarily aimed at guns and firearms. However, it applies to all type of offensive weapons. Member DeRoche asked if he anything to do with the breaking out of the two? Chief Shaeffer said they agreed and supported it. The initial discussions were orientated toward guns but as that progressed we certainly wanted to progress with all offensive weapons. Member DeRoche said the language pertaining to weapons was startling and asked if it was consistent with the CCW laws or related laws in the State of Michigan. Mr. Fisher said it was.

Member DeRoche asked what is the purpose of passing this specific ordinance? Chief Shaeffer said the basic purpose was to increase the security in our community and with our appointed and elected officials. September 11^th polarized and sterilized this United States into a different way of thinking almost unanimously and made everyone review his or her own safety and security to such a degree that it was an overwhelming response. This is a step in that direction to insure that. Presently, we have no means of prohibiting weapons in this environment. Someone with a permit could carry his gun in full sight to a Council meeting and it would be legal and he could do the same thing at the malls, expo center, etc. and the State legislature has seen fit to allow that to happen. However, we believe that elected officials are one of the top targeted groups because of their visibility as well as other appointed officials and commission members. He wanted to advance the security they could provide and one of the ways to do that is to arm our officers with the tools to prevent that kind of thing from taking place. It would give them the tools to take enforcement action to remove that individual and the weapon from your environment should that occur.

Member DeRoche asked if there would be any penalties proposed for violators?

Mr. Fisher said this would become part of the ordinance code and would have penalties that go along with that code. However, the Chief’s idea in point is one of the most significant. Giving

someone a misdemeanor penalty is not as significant as being able to remove them from the environment.

Member DeRoche thought there had to be a purpose behind what they are doing otherwise it is just symbolism and he didn’t feel it accomplished much. A sign and an ordinance violation would not accomplish much. He thought the City should take a different approach and secure this building. Every entrance to this building should have pass codes; different authorizations for different areas and our employees should be secure. He wanted to see a proposal along those lines rather than just a symbolic gesture that potentially takes away the freedoms of folks that shouldn’t have their freedoms taken away from them. He would not support this.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said with regard to Part II, Chapter 22 Offenses, under A & C, wanted the language in A improved by adding after the phrase "Novi public meeting is being conducted, any weapon", she would propose to insert "licensed or unlicensed". In B, after the second line "any dangerous weapon," she wanted "licensed or unlicensed" inserted. Under C, fourth line says "or any person", she would like it to read "or any authorized person summoned by such officer."

Member Lorenzo accepted Mayor Pro Tem Bononi’s language changes to the original motion.

Mr. Fisher agreed the change in language would make this clearer. There is no doubt that by approving this measure, clarified in that manner, we might well be subjected to a challenge of our ability to regulate in that manner.

Member Landry said if someone comes into this building to speak their mind to whomever, they don’t need a gun. They can leave their guns at home. Guns have no place in this building and he would fully support this ordinance.

Mayor Clark agreed with Member Landry. We are facing a real crisis in this country and every step we can take to protect our citizens, we need to take, because the people that are opposing us and what we stand for are playing for keeps. There is no reason or excuse to bring any kind of weapon into this building to conduct public business. He will support this and Mr. Fisher if there is a challenge to this. Unfortunately, he thought in this country, we need less do gooders and more good doers and this is a step in the right direction.

Member Lorenzo asked if the language suggested by Mayor Pro Tem Bononi would pose a challenge or this piece of legislature in and of itself would. Mr. Fisher said the latter.

Nays: DeRoche

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

Member Lorenzo said the sewer extension is going to be along the frontage of some parcels and the Master Plan indicates that this district would ultimately be serviced by a 12-inch extension along the rear of the properties. Are these people going to pay this SAD for the frontage of their parcels when eventually there would be service at the rear of their parcels? If there is service at the rear of their parcels who would pay for those extensions?

Mr. Jerome replied these are existing single family parcels that front on Eleven Mile. Toll Brothers Development owns the property behind them in the area where the sewer she was talking about would provide service. This proposed route is the only practical approach for these parcels. There are woodlands behind the houses plus the physical length of the run, which would greatly increase the price to the property owners. Member Lorenzo said so then, there would never be an extension to the rear of their property even though it was on the Master Plan. Mr. Jerome said if the sewer is built along the frontage of their property to service the single family homes, as long as the property remains a single family home and is not incorporated into another development, the answer is yes, they would not have dual service. Member Lorenzo asked what happens if they sell their property to someone else and it is no long a single family residence? Mr. Jerome said if the developer behind them bought the property and chose to incorporate it into his residential development, he could bring the sewer from the back. However, the City would be reimbursed for the expense of the SAD up front.

1. Sewer Extension by Trane/Quadrants – Member Csordas

Member Csordas asked for clarification of the memo dated January 24^th from City regarding Quadrants, which is building a facility on Meadowbrook Road. There are statements that concern him such as "they began the construction without the required starting permits". The City stopped them. Then it looks as if they went to Oakland County for this force main sewer system connection, which looks like the City didn’t technically have an unqualified basis to prohibit this system, but it seems like we have a developer trying to get around the system.

The point is, are we on our way to litigation, are these people trying to work around the system and what is the current status of the project?

Mr. Pearson met with Mr. Minasian, Mr. Kham, Mr. Schultz and our engineering staff. The meeting with the Quadrants representatives would be Wednesday. Mr. Pearson said their goal was to have the sewer line extended. There was not a basis to prohibit the approach Quadrants took with the forced main, however, everyone agrees it is not the best solution and that is why they are talking. We are looking towards a private reimbursement agreement that

would be between the parties that essentially Trane/Quadrants would front the cost of the sewer extension and then be reimbursed by the other developers at the appropriate times.

He commented they had a positive reception from Singh and Minasian and the letters that Council referred to were at administration’s request and helped our cause to say to Trane/ Quadrants that there is no reason not to extend the sewer other than their desire to save some money.

Member Csordas hoped that more attention would be paid to this project than normal to be sure they stay on line with the approved plans. Mr. Pearson said they definitely worked within the rules to the letter. Mr. Schultz would be recommending additional ordinance language that would support us.

Member Csordas commented hopefully this wasn’t more litigation on the way. This is regarding the Consent Judgment on Wixom Road south of Grand River where we have a letter from Northern Equities attorneys where in the last paragraph it states that neither the Zoning Board of Appeals nor the Planning Commission has the authority to modify the Consent Judgment. Truer words were never spoken and his concern was that the Planning Commission was looking for a 6-foot wall on top of the berm due to the request of the adjacent property owner but it doesn’t comply with the Consent Judgment. He wanted to make sure that the City does comply with the Consent Judgment and that we don’t get ourselves in more legal trouble. He saw there is an attachment also from Mr. Schultz that said, "in fact there is no requirement for the wall in under the ordinance nor can we find any requirement under the ordinance for a berm that exceeds this." Member Csordas asked where are we at, are we staying within our rights and are we not on our way to more litigation?

Mr. Fisher said they are going to do everything they can to avoid further litigation. They have been discussing this and he talked on the phone with their legal counsel this afternoon in an effort to avoid litigation. Their hope is, if Council would support this, to move this immediately back to the Zoning Board of Appeals, with the view of having the ZBA rescind the action they took earlier, move forward and be governed by the Consent Judgment and the ordinance as it has to be interpreted. We would obviously want to give Mr. Wizinsky a full notice of any action of that nature.

Member Csordas said he would appreciate if that was done and the process was reversed and brought back to the form of the Consent Judgment so there was no trouble in the future. Also, since there are a number of new Planning Commissioners, they need to be reminded that they cannot vote with their heart but have to vote with their mind and possibly another training session could be held. Mr. Fisher said they would like to do another session with the Planning Commission and ZBA combined. Member Csordas hoped Mr. Schultz was advising them that this was not an appropriate direction. Mr. Fisher said yes.

Member Lorenzo asked what the process was to get this back to the ZBA? Mr. Fisher said he would like a vote of support from Council to move it back to the ZBA as quickly as possible. She thought, under the circumstances, that the City Attorney representing the City at that ZBA meeting perhaps could have been more assertive, clear and

concise in advising the ZBA as we are all lay people and some times don’t understand all the limitations of our decision making. Mr. Fisher said he knew that Mr. Schultz tried to get his point across and was concerned about some prior decisions made in interpreting the ordinance but this is very clear based on the Consent Judgment and the ordinance. Member Lorenzo said it didn’t appear that the Planning Commission really had any jurisdiction over this once they took their action. Mr. Fisher said in other words to receive jurisdiction back from the ZBA. She said yes. Mr. Fisher agreed. She thought the ZBA could have asked them to reconsider but even a re-consideration, in these circumstances, would have been inappropriate. Mr. Fisher agreed, in view of the consent judgment. Member Lorenzo said because we can’t reconsider something when

there had been action taken that could not be rescinded. Mr. Fisher said that is correct except by action of this Council. She asked if this would be sent back to the ZBA to

rescind or reconsider? Mr. Fisher said it would be to rescind the earlier action based on the Consent Judgment.

Member Landry remembered one issue he recalled from Mr. Wizinsky and Ms. Boynton’s letter in addition to the wall, which they desired on top of the berm was that there was a question in their mind as to where the base of the berm should be. That it should be at the first level of their of house and they perceive it as being lower. He asked if that had already been determined or is there still room for determination within the Consent Judgment and whose jurisdiction would it be to determine where at the base that six foot berm starts? Mr. Fisher said that is governed by the ordinance and the ordinance does not have any ambiguity. Member Landry said it has already been determined then. Mr. Fisher said yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked that Mr. Helwig place this issue on the next available agenda. Member DeRoche said they are ready and were just waiting for a good agenda. They agreed to put it on the February 25^th agenda.

Member Bononi knew there were members of Council interested in how we apply for grants and whether or not we want to apply for them. Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission dated December 13^th page 3, brought this to her attention. There was reference about a grant of $50,000 being prepared to look at a Greenways Grant application. On page 4 there was also a reference that Mr. Lewis stated "that the City of Novi would be partnering with Farmington Hills on the grant application." Her concern with this was, "do we all want this grant and are we going to be spending a lot of resources in house and otherwise for a grant that ultimately had to come to Council?" She did not want Council to be the Grant Administrator. However, she was looking for a policy where communication is made to Council even if on a Consent Agenda suggesting a grant application was being considered, time the grant must be submitted, total cost, what the local match is and whether the cost to administer the grant would be an in kind cost that the City would bear. Often there are differences on this Council regarding greenways, so whether or not we want to invest time and effort into a grant application before we even know about it at Council is problematical. Her concern absolutely excludes anything like the grants that Chief Shaeffer goes for that are often no match or minimal match and State and Federal Grants. She asked if Mr. Helwig could propose a policy on this? Mr. Helwig said he had no problem with that.

Member Lorenzo commented this was a follow up of a previous Council discussion where Mayor Clark offered an excellent resource suggesting utilizing the person that had already been hired for Novi productions from SWOCC. She understood there would be budgetary considerations because of overtime for night meetings. She asked that the Council and the Library Board consider bringing that information forward for discussion at budget time. She wanted to know if the Library Board concurred with this suggestion, how many meetings there would be and the cost of overtime for that person. Mayor Clark asked for consensus of Council.

Member DeRoche thought this was a good idea but he didn’t want to vote as a Councilperson until the library Board members came back with their ideas.

Mayor Clark said Council would not vote on this tonight as it was just a support of concept and ideas. He thought this would be a tremendous vehicle for the Library to get free publicity.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi commented the people who sit on the Library Board deserve the opportunity to discuss what they would like to do to best serve their interests. When they have spoken among themselves and decided what their interest was, she would be pleased to hear it and support it in anyway that she could.

John Chambers, 41655 Borchart, spoke regarding the CCW Ordinance and shared concerns raised about the safety and security of elected officials and employees of the City of Novi. He thought there was a medium someplace, which protected and preserved our human dignity and preserved us as individuals. Back in the early 80’s, a Council Member sat around the Council table and that person had behind her nameplate a slip that said, "You will die". So, we concern ourselves with what took place September 11^th but those threats are always out there and it is best that we protect ourselves as best we can while allowing accessibility to public officials. There are a lot of tradeoffs and planning that has to go into this and he asked Council to really take a look at it and said an ordinance might just be a stepping stone to that but there are things that could be done. It is scary to have someone point a gun at you and you are unarmed and that is something that Council needed to take into consideration. He thought there were some long term and short term plans that needed to be implemented.

Council Member Craig DeRoche commented that he sent home one of his neighbors from the Council meeting because he asked if the Council traditionally passed along SAD’s when it had large support and Member DeRoche had responded yes. Member DeRoche felt an obligation to his neighbor because he was probably at home very frustrated with the advice he had offered. Member DeRoche said, to Council, the issue he would have spoken to was that people who live on the dirt roads in this community are trying to work with the Council and the City to pave these. In this particular SAD, people are willing to pay for the entire job themselves, which includes an acknowledgement by engineering that it would take in excess of $100,000 just to get the roads back to the grade where they should be. That is the city’s responsibility and the residents will pay for it. It sounds good to say we want to impose, as a Council, things that tell these homeowners that we know what’s better for them than they do, but the bottom line is those are unfunded mandates. Just as the Federal government did it to the State, the State to the County, the County to the City and the City is telling people we are going to make something more expensive for you than you would make it for yourself and we are not going to pay for it. That is not appreciated in the subdivision of people on Item 9 and 10 tonight. These people want to have their roads paved this construction season and he hoped Council would consider allowing the residents to make decisions for themselves in the near future.

1. Letter from James E. Korte Re: Police Officer Response

2. Letter from Charles J. Bunge Re: Resignation from Construction Board of Appeals.

3. Letter from Charles M. DiMaggio, Burton-Katzman Development Co. on behalf of

Meadowbrook Road Investors, L.L. C. – Re: Proposed OST Zoning Ordinance Height

Restriction Amendment.

4. Letter from John D. Dinan, Re: Sanitary Easements on Meadowbrook Rd. –

Quadrants/Trane Project.

5. Letter from Ted C. Minasian Re: Quadrants/Trane Project – Meadowbrook Road,

Sanitary Sewer.

6. Letter from Amanda May Re: Opposition to transfer of liquor license-Novi Bistro/Agora.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m.

_______________________________ _____________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: __________________

Date approved: February 4, 2002