ROLL CALL: Mayor Gatt, Mayor Pro Tem Staudt, Council Members Casey, Fischer, Margolis, Mutch, Wrobel

ALSO PRESENT: Clay Pearson, City Manager

Victor Cardenas, Assistant City Manager

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

1. Recycling Polystyrene Foam (Styrofoam) in the City of Novi – Yash Sathe, Asawari Kanitkar, Dhivya Sridar, Shashank Chitta, Novi High School Students

The Novi High School students spoke about EPS or Expanded Polystyrene Foam recycling. They were there to ask Council to consider their proposals to recycle EPS and to encourage and promote EPS recycling in Novi. They explained this effort would provide environmental benefits and would make waste collection more efficient. It would lower the waste collection costs in the long run. EPS is also called Styrofoam although it refers to just a few polystyrene branded products. Based on observations the amount of EPS foam recycled in our community is very low. Roughly one fifth of all school trays are recycled and one percent of all EPS foam consumed in our community is recycled. Since there are several EPS recycling curbside companies that do not pick up EPS foam, almost all of Novi’s 55,000 residents do not know where to recycle their EPS foam and do not know EPS recycling is possible. They asked for Council’s assistance to help notify residents more effectively. They had hoped their presentation will help show the magnitude of the problem. A single Styrofoam cup can take up to 500 years to degrade in a landfill. For information about EPS foam recycling, they visited Dart Container a food service packaging company located in Mason, Michigan. It is the only nearby facility that recycles and produces Styrofoam products. The Environmental Services Specialist at Dart Container explained to them that polystyrene sitting in landfills emit carcinogens into the environment. General Manager of the Resource Recovery and Recycling Authority of Southwest Oakland County (RRRASOC) gave a tour of the recycling facility. They learned why Styrofoam materials have to be separated from general assortment materials. Styrofoam was collected and stored separately. The Students acquired Henry Ford Director of Food Services opinion on EPS foam recycling. Even though he was against EPS foam usage and the Henry Ford facility had changed over to natural alternatives, he gave them suggestions on how to generate EPS foam awareness in our community. Despite the fact that polystyrene takes up only 2.5 percent of landfills, it is 95% air. The high volume of polystyrene in landfills can capture water seeping in the soil and mix with garbage to become a dirty soup like material. Rainfall can cause this liquid to move to nearby soil or ground water further contaminating the environment. When not subject to water, small broken pieces of Styrofoam can scatter or be carried away by the wind. These pieces can end up in a nearby environment where they can either seep chemicals into the soil or be mistaken by animals as a food source that will cause them to chock and die. After acquiring the knowledge of EPS foam recycling, it was surprising to the students that Novi High School, with over 2,000 students, did not recycle the thousand plus Styrofoam trays generated daily by the students who buy lunch. Other facilities across Novi do not recycle EPS foam. People from around Michigan said they would recycle after learning about the negatives of EPS foam if it was accessible in their community. The students said they are trying to instill a recycle program at Novi High School. For Novi as a whole, they hoped to increase the recycle rate of EPS foam consumption to 25%. They hoped to do this by talking to citizens about the negatives of EPS foam and telling them about how to recycle it. Encouraging recycling in Novi would have many benefits. The primary would be environmental. A tangible benefit would be monetary savings. Per Michigan Dumpsters Company, it is approx. $255 for a weekly pickup of a dumpster. EPS foam takes up a certain percentage of a dumpster. Dumpster pickup could be decreased if EPS foam was recycled and ultimately reducing cost. Especially in schools where about 50% of the dumpsters are Styrofoam lunch trays. They plan to present the School Board with the proposals. In the Novi Community School District several of the schools have recycle programs in place but some do not. They suggested a policy mandating all schools adopt the polystyrene recycling program be passed. As learning environments, the schools should employ procedures to support lessons taught in Science classes to instill leadership and responsibility among their students. Communities that recycle polystyrene will also increase the amount of other recyclables. Many communities across the United States have taken on Pay as You Throw or PAYT programs. It is also known as unit pricing or variable pricing. In this program, communities charge for each unit of trash they collect. The programs encourage residents with economic motivation to reduce the amount of trash and recycle more. Traditionally, residents are charged a tax or fixed fee for trash pickup. Since Novi has several curbside trash pickup companies that service the community it would be beneficial to make all these companies establish this PAYT program. An advantage to the PAYT program would be an increase of income from a higher percentage of recyclables. To promote the collection of polystyrene in our community they proposed to have a brief message on the electronic billboard of the Novi Civic Center. They would also like to add polystyrene recycling bins next to the paper recycling bins outside each school. Presently, residents pay approx. $200 a year for unlimited curbside trash pickup but only one recycling bin. They proposed a dual purpose recycle bin. It would create a more cost effective recycling and trash pickup system. In addition, Dart Recycling Facility has a program that leases densifiers to communities across the United States. The densifiers, which cost about $295 per month, compact clean food service and packaging polystyrene into forty pound blocks which are shipped off to companies who use this foam as a commodity. They summarized by saying they hope Council would consider their proposals. The Mayor urged them to work with the City and School Administration to get the proposals enacted.

2. 2012 Mayor’s Business Ambassador of the Year Award – Fil Superfisky

Mayor Gatt elaborated on how Novi was in the 70’s. He noted how Mr. Superfisky is a large part of Novi’s history. Mr. Superfisky has bought and sold homes for people coming into the City since the 70’s. He has been a long time cheerleader and businessman for the City of Novi. The Mayor presented the 2012 Mayor’s Business Ambassador of the Year Award to Fil Superfisky.

1. Lawrence Kilgore – Library Board – Mr. Kilgore noted he’s been a library board member for the past 6 years now. He was proud of the library leadership and of the partnership with the City and wished to continue. Members Margolis, Fischer, Wrobel, Casey and Mayor Pro Tem Staudt were aware of his experience and familiar with his work and had no questions. Member Mutch asked about the next challenge he is focusing on in the next term. Mr. Kilgore’s response was to focus on the 5 year strategic plan.

2. William J. Lawler – Building Authority, HCD – He has been a Novi resident for 25 years and retired from IRS a few years ago. He has been a member of the Village Oaks Homeowner’s Association for several years. He’s had extensive experience with analysis and in charge of $60 million annual budget and would bring some good experience to either of these committees. Member Fischer asked if he had a preference for either committee. Mr. Lawler favored applying for the HCD because of the grants that come in and of how to best to utilize them. He cited the Building Authority’s work on the Library Board. Member Mutch asked about past experience in Novi that might be helpful. Mr. Lawler noted he served two terms on the Village Oaks Homeowners Association. He noted he had to make decisions on expenses. His experience beyond Novi would prepare him best. Mayor Pro Tem Staudt had no questions. Member Wrobel thanked him for coming forward and had no questions. Member Casey asked if he were appointed, would there be a particular objective to accomplish in his role. Mr. Lawler noted he did not have an objective other than to continue the appropriate funding and looking to the future. Member Margolis and Mayor Gatt had no questions and thanked him for volunteering to serve.

3. Lee Mamola – Construction Board of Appeals – Mr. Mamola has been a resident since 1978 and has had a business in Novi since 1986. He also served on Planning Board, Historic District Study Committee and past president of Novi Rotary and Chamber of Commerce. Member Mutch, Mayor Pro Tem Staudt, Members Wrobel, Casey, Margolis, and Fischer knew of his service to the City and thanked him for his service and willingness to serve. Mayor Gatt thanked him for offering to serve and noted his support for reappointment.

4. David Margolis – Library Board – Mr. Margolis has been a resident of Novi for 17 years, currently chairs the Finance Committee and serves as Treasurer of the Novi Public Library. He was proud of the Library Director and staff accomplishments. He had hoped to see the fruition of their goals and initiatives that they have established going forward. Mayor Pro Tem Staudt and Member Wrobel were familiar with his work and thanked him for coming forward. Member Casey appreciated the things he taught her about finance and appreciated the detail of the reports. Members Margolis, Fischer and Mutch thanked him for continuing to serve the community. Member Mutch asked about financial challenges and steps the library board has taken to date to address revenue shortfall with declining property tax revenues. Mr. Margolis stated their primary role is resource allocation to empower the Director and staff to accomplish all of their goals to provide a level of service owed to the patrons of the library. No certainty so therefore cost containment related to employment and benefits. There was a focus on cost containment. Future revenues look a little stronger. The staff has taken a leadership role of the fundraising. Planning in advance is vital. Mayor Gatt thanked Mr. Margolis for coming forward and had no questions.

5. Samuel Ray – Beautification Commission – Mr. Ray noted he’s lived in Novi for 2 years. He’s had great attendance and participated in development and maintenance of the rain gardens, perennial plant sale, rain barrel sale and Beautification Council of Southeastern Michigan quarterly meeting. He arranged to have a meeting during the growing season to be held at Fox Run. Member Wrobel was glad he was stepping forward. He urged him to apply for the Zoning Board of Appeals when there is an opening. Member Casey was impressed with his commitment to the City after only 2 years. She asked about future goals. Mr. Ray spoke about the possibility of landscaping the welcome signs to the City. They were also looking into a possible beautification award. Member Margolis asked what City Council could do to support the goals. Mr. Ray noted some things will require funding. They might need to purchase plantings. They would volunteer the labor. They need assistance in recruiting more members. Member Fischer asked what can be done to harness the talent at Fox Run. Mr. Ray noted he was elected to the resident advisory council. They’ve been discussing ways to encourage their residents to serve as there are many engineers, accountants, teachers and other professionals. Member Mutch mentioned the new park being developed at the lake and asked if he had any ideas that would make the park more attractive. Mr. Ray noted in addition to landscaping, they have about 50 garden plots at Fox Run. He suggested the possibility of a Victory garden and noted they have a very active gardening club as well. Mayor Pro Tem Staudt asked Mr. Ray to assist with getting additional volunteers from Fox Run. Mayor Gatt appreciated his willingness to serve and noted Fox Run community is a wealth of knowledge and the City needed more involvement.

6. Brandon Stewart – Library Board; HCD; Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services – Mr. Stewart moved to Novi 6 years ago. His background is in finance and the building industry. He felt the need to serve his community. Member Casey asked about a particular goal for the Library. He wondered what the plan was for the Library going forward and would like to see that through. Member Margolis asked other areas he was most interested in. Mr. Stewart was also interested in Parks and Recreation. Member Fischer asked what most suited him or would he draw from most. Mr. Stewart noted facility operation, management and planning. Member Mutch appreciated his willingness to serve and had no questions. Mayor Pro Tem Staudt asked if he’s been involved in the programs at the library. Mr. Stewart takes his children to the reading program. Member Wrobel asked about any particular item of interest for the library. Mr. Stewart said he knew that there is additional planning with a new building. Mayor Gatt had no questions.

7. Mark Sturing – Building Authority – Mr. Sturing lived in Novi 23 years and reapplied for the Building Authority. He is able to utilize his background to give back to the city and he noted he receives from other talented professionals on the committee. Member Margolis commended Mr. Sturing on the projects he’s been involved with including Meadowbrook Commons and the new Library. Member Fischer noted the community has benefited from Mr. Sturing’s expertise. Member Mutch noted the growth in population going forward and asked if there would be another facility needed in the future. Mr. Sturing noted a need for a survey of growing needs and occupancy rates of the current facility would be necessary. There may very well be a need for Meadowbrook Commons II. Member Mutch felt this item warranted additional exploration. Mayor Pro Tem Staudt thanked him for continued service and asked what the Building Authority does between projects. Mr. Sturing noted they are involved when the opportunity is right for refinancing. We are in a period of low interest rates. If the bonds for the ice arena or Meadowbrook Commons permit prepayment and the interest rate is such to benefit lowering the finance, we may meet. Member Wrobel wished we had a multitude of residents who dedicate as much time to the city. Member Casey and Mayor Gatt thanked Mr. Sturing for his service.

1. MANAGER/STAFF - None

2. ATTORNEY - None

AUDIENCE COMMENT – Pauline Holeton, Shelby Township delegate, spoke about a 2005 Senate Energy Bill that was passed and it talked about meters. The Bill stated it was a pilot program and there was no mandate for it. The Conservation Energy Act and The American Recovery Act also discuss meters and are not mandated. She passed out literature on the subject. Currently, there are people in Novi that have them. She went to DTE presentations on the meters. They have 4 areas of concern: 1) cost for the levels the way electricity is paid for with peak hours, etc. and tier pricing which will cost more 2) radio frequencies with gas, electric and water will be causing problems with EMF. There are many physicians talking all over the country about side effects. 3) privacy issues due to the chip in the meters a meters can pick up what you do in your homes. 4) safety – these meters are so advanced, the technology could catch our homes on fire. There have been fires all over the Country. They’ve been to many cities and asked if they would join other cities for a moratorium for Novi (Livonia said in error).

John Holeton, noted that they’ve been to many different communities regarding the smart meters. They were working to come into as many communities as possible to get the message across. Smart meters are not mandatory in Michigan. Michigan Public Service Commission does not regulate smart meters. They were able to get the question answered that smart meters are not mandatory. DTE is saying there is no opt out. It is not true. DTE is mandating it and saying it’s their product. He referred to the documentation from DTE on the smart meters. He noted that DTE has only given half-truths and asked for the cooperation of the Council for a resolution and/a moratorium.

Don Fleming, spoke to Council January 9^th, about 3 issues and noted he sent a letter to Council and a report stated these meters do not have a safety factor. Mr. Fleming spoke about the smart meters and his response from the City of Novi. He also spoke about the right to carry. He wants a document from Novi to carry, an unequivocal right to carry. He also wanted to put up a political sign on his yard and he received what the ordinance states. He spoke about his health concerns and noted he had 11 TIA’s and wants something from Novi to tell DTE that he wants his smart meter removed.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. January 23, 2012 – Regular meeting

B. Approval of a Storm Drainage Facility Maintenance Easement Agreement from Novi Mile, LLC, for the USA2Go development located at 47300 Citygate Drive, east of Beck Road and north of Grand River Avenue (parcel 22-16-176-035).

C. Acceptance of a sidewalk easement from Westmarket Financial, LLC, as part of the Comerica Bank site located at 47440 Grand River Avenue in the Westmarket Square development at the northwest corner of Beck Road and Grand River Avenue (parcel 22-17-226-022).

D. Approval of the final pay estimate to Sinatech Construction Company, for the 2010 Pressure Reducing Valve Replacements project (Ten Mile Road near CSX Railroad and Grand River Avenue near Main Street) in the amount of $6,219.50.

E. Approval to award an amendment to the engineering services agreement to Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment for additional construction inspection services related to the 2010 Pressure Reducing Valve Replacements project (Ten Mile Road near CSX Railroad and Grand River Avenue near Main Street) in the amount of $8,610 (which is offset by the charges to the construction contractor for exceeding the number of crew days that were in the construction contract).

F. Approval of Resolution Amending Annual Assessment Amount for Special Assessment District 108c Town Center Street Lighting.

G. Approval of Resolution Amending Annual Assessment for Special Assessment District 81-01 and 81-02 West Lake Drive Street Lighting.

H. Approval of Resolution Amending Annual Assessment for Special Assessment District 109-C West Oaks Area Street Lighting.

I. Approval of Resolution Amending Annual Assessment for Special Assessment District 143-C Providence Street Lighting.

J. Resolution to approve Cafeteria Plan (Section 125) and Flexible Spending Plan as amended.

K. Approval of the transfer of ownership of escrowed 2011 Resort Class C license, issued under MCL 436.1531(3), minimum seating 100, located at 45017 W. Pontiac Trail, Novi, MI 48377, Oakland County from Pacific Starts LLC to W & H Fullhouse, Inc.

L. Acceptance of a sidewalk easement from City Center Plaza Limited Partnership, as part of the City Center Plaza Phases 3 and 4 located at 43443 and 43535 Grand River Avenue near the southwest corner of Novi Road and Grand River Avenue (parcel 22-22-227-029).

M. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 861

1. Approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 18.254, to amend Ordinance No.97-18 as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, as follows:

•  Delete Article 23, OS-2, Planned Office Service District to eliminate an unused district;

• Amend Article 12, OSC, Office Service Commercial District to add permitted uses previously referenced In Article 23;

• Amend Article 23A, OST, Planned Office Service Technology District to add uses and conditions previously referenced In Article 23, add minor changes to provide clarity, and add Principal Permitted Uses Subject to Special Conditions to provide for a set of Retail Service Overlay provisions for those areas identified in the Master Plan for Land Use;

• Amend Article 24, Schedule of Regulations to remove references to the OS-2 District; and

• Amend Article 2, Construction of Language and Definitions, Zoning Districts and Maps, to correct listed districts. Second Reading

John Bowen, representing Novi Mile, LLC, spoke to Council about the work of the PRO agreement. The PRO agreement was the work of hundreds of hours with City staff, City Attorney and members of the community. It was started in 2009 when they proposed a rezoning of the corner of Beck and Grand River. The City asked for a PRO agreement for the development of the site. There were several reasons why they entered into the agreement. One was for traffic circulation in that corridor and also help determine what uses would be permitted in that area. At the time the City was in the process of doing a Master Plan. They participated in that for over two years. Part of the participation was built in the consensus on what uses would be appropriate for the Master Plan and could be incorporated into an ultimate PRO with agreement. The language in the first reading was what they expected to see for retail uses in the overlay district. That was the language incorporated in the Master Plan and approved by the Planning Commission and by Council. When they executed the PRO agreement, the Master Plan was not completed yet. It wasn’t included in the PRO agreement. They said it would be consistent with the uses in the Master Plan. The draft that was sent shows some significant revisions to the retail uses that would be permitted and the process they would have to go through to get some of those uses included. It would require changes from Novi Mile, LLC. He said the second amendment would diminish their rights under the PRO agreement.

City Manager Pearson said the staff and Planning Commission have worked through the issues with the various property owners in mind. It is a limited area of Beck and Grand River for this retail component option in addition to the underlying office uses. With the first reading, there was a desire by Council members to limiting the types of retail options. Barb McBeth, Deputy Community Development Director followed up with a memorandum with the revisions to take out drive-thru, but there is no obligation for Council to follow all the items in the first reading.

Mayor Pro Tem Staudt said he felt the letter of the law supports the City, but they see the intent might be different. He asked the City Attorney Schultz to give his perspective on the discussions.

City Attorney Schultz said it was a well-documented public meeting of what the retail overlay was going to be as part of this agreement. The important meetings are March 22, 2010 and April, 2010 when Council approved the agreement. One of the requests from the property owner, which was a reasonable request, was a provision that Council agree to adopt the retail overlay zoning. We gave the opinion that we can’t do that. We can’t agree in a contract to an act of a piece of legislation. We brought to Council on March 22, 2010 a compromise. If the City doesn’t adopt this retail overlay in 18 months, they still have to give the ROW but they don’t have to build the road. The motion was the price for the rezoning. The public benefit was the whole road for the rezoning of the gas station whether we do the retail overlay or not. That was the message we took to the meeting and that is the change we made to the agreement. In the April letter we gave to Council with the final version, there was no obligation to the retail overlay. By the time the agreement was signed, the Master Plan was done and the Retail Service Overlay was included in it. It was referred to. It is consistent with the Master Plan that calls for retail overlay, but no obligation in the agreement to actually adopt an ordinance.

Mayor Pro Tem Staudt didn’t believe he was looking for an extensive removal of the provisions of the retail overlay as they received. He wouldn’t support what they had currently. Hopefully, we can work on some kind of compromise amongst Council members with something in between.

Member Mutch felt that what came back to Council was a compromise. He felt that many of the uses that are still included were not ones we necessarily wanted to see in that area. He felt that what came back is something he could live with because it is a framework they can utilize for other OST areas of the City and the mix of uses proposed here would also be workable for those other locations creating the consistency he thought would be appropriate for the OST district. In terms of what was discussed at the Master Plan level versus what came to Council, the key discussion points at that meeting when the PRO was approved was the fact that we didn’t want language in the agreement that would tie the hands of Council at the time we discussed the retail service overlay. The record laid out that was the case. Former Mayor Landry made that point several times in the meeting that that language should not be included and that decision should not be made that evening. It was the prerogative of Council to decide at the point when the retail service overlay came forward. He pointed out while the Master plan suggested some uses; these are uses Council could approve if they chose to adopt the retail service overlay. It wasn’t dictated that these are the uses that must go in at that location. Some of the requirements have changed. One of the requirements that is not included in the language that came to Council, that was recommended by the Master Plan, was a minimum 25% of the site be landscaped. That requirement was reduced to 15%. It downgraded those uses to what they could have been. He thought what came forward was a reasonable compromise. He didn’t want a duplicate of what is at Wixom and Grand River. The range of uses recommended by staff was in line with what he could support.

Member Wrobel’s concern was the SE corner of Beck and Grand River; he did not want fast food restaurants there and asked if it could be separated from the north of Grand River piece. City Manager Pearson asked City Attorney Shultz if it could be feasible. City Attorney Shultz said there probably would be a way that could be written, but he couldn’t craft it right then. He agreed with Member Mutch. While sitting on the Planning Commission for a number of years, we tried to have a certain level to maintain the City’s value. He didn’t feel there would be a benefit for those types of venues. He was willing to assume any compromises.

Member Fischer agreed with Member Mutch. He viewed it as a compromise, also. They didn’t want the more intense uses and the staff brought forth this second reading. He said it provides uses for someone looking to develop the area or for patronizing the area would be able to use. There were other uses that could still be taken out but is willing to compromise. This was about as far as he was willing to go in the compromise.

Member Margolis questioned a public comment impacting their PRO, she wanted to clarify that the PRO stands no matter how we zone the rest. City Attorney Shultz answered that the PRO was the agreement that accomplished the rezoning of the gas station piece and part of the benefit was the roadway with a legal description all the way to Grand River. It is recorded against the property. Member Margolis mentioned she made the original motion which took a while to get a second and there were a lot of comments about intense use. What came back was a compromise on some of the comments that were made. The other concern was the southeast corner separation. She would not support it. They need to consider it a policy to consider it as one piece.

Mayor Gatt commented that he cannot support the motion because he believed the land, especially on the North side of the road, is not the entrance way to our City but a freeway exit and entrance, therefore, the uses in the original proposal were all appropriate. If we look at the NW corner we have a beautiful shopping mall and on the SW corner we have Providence Hospital so it cannot possibly become like the Wixom and Grand River Road area. As far as separating the North side from the South side of Grand River and Beck, he thought it was an appropriate idea. The North side abuts to the freeway, as Member Wrobel pointed out; driving east or west on Grand River you really don’t see the gas station there now. The property to develop is abutting the freeway. For those reason he will not support the motion.

Member Mutch commented that the SE corner was already zoned B-3. If the concern was the uses that are going in there, the way to address it was to go through the OST, Retail Service Overlay application at the area. If they exclude that, it would open the door for those uses to go in there. Having the overlay zoning gives us the opportunity to address that corner that they could not address. It would make sense to leave it in the motion.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M.

________________________________ ________________________________

Robert J. Gatt, Mayor                        Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

________________________________ Date approved: February 21, 2012

Transcribed by Jane Keller