Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:37 PM.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Cub Scout Pack #50

ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, Mayor ProTem Lorenzo, Council Members Bononi, Crawford, Csordas, DeRoche and Kramer-Absent/excused

Mr. Kriewall added #14 under Matters for Council Action II to schedule an Executive Session immediately following the meeting regarding pending litigation, property acquisition and attorney’s opinion.

Mr. Klaver added #15 under Matters for Council Action II to amend the Executive Session scheduled for 2/14/2000 at 6:30 PM to add another item.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo added under Mayor and Council Issues:

#2 Follow up to Quail Ridge Drain Meeting – Next steps

#3 N.P.D.S. Permit – Public Education Plan

#4 Follow up to David Ingmire complaint

Mayor Clark read the Letter of Commendation for community service into the record. The Weiss family donated 18 acres to the City of Novi for the Novi Ice Arena and Recreational Facility.

Mr. Weiss accepted the letter of Commendation and stated that charitable causes for children has been important to him for years and he was glad for the opportunity to promote the welfare of the community and the kids by this project.

Mayor Clark presented Ms. Bartholomew with a plaque for her outstanding service to Novi from August 1995 to February 2000 as City Clerk.

Mr. Kriewall stated he met with Don Weaver after the City Council Meeting on the Quail Ridge Drain and the date that the Northville Township Board would prefer to meet would be Thursday, March 2^{nd at} 7:30 PM and Northville would host the meeting.

Mr. Kriewall said he and Ordinance Officer Cindy Uglow met with the President of the Lakes Area Homeowners Association and the clean up for northern Novi is scheduled for Saturday, April 29^th. He said dumpsters at Lake Shore Park and dump trucks would be provided.

Mr. Kriewall said the service cards were delivered and are on counters now.

Mr. Kriewall commented he went up to the Builders Show Saturday and Sunday to observe traffic and discussed the matter with Lieutenant Tim McNamara. The Event Manager System worked quite well and he was very pleased with the traffic throughout the weekend. He said they would not need to implement the detour on Novi Road in future years.

Mr. Kriewall said Dick O’Dows signed a letter of intent to stand in for Connor O’Neal’s Irish Pub on Main Street. Mr. O’Dows is a highly respected operation in the City of Birmingham.

Mr. Kriewall stated the restorer of the Novi Race Cars contacted him and he has restored one of the older Novi race cars. He asked if Novi was interested in purchasing the Car for $2 million. Mr. Kriewall advised him that Novi was not interested.

Mr. Davis said Suburban Management is doing a very good job. It is the middle of the peak season and is going extremely well. He said Suburban Management had reported that during the previous month there were minor routine maintenance items addressed in house such as scoreboard operations and replacement of control panels and heating and water issues. There were no problems to report and staffing was up to full capacity.

Ms. Smith-Roy agreed that Suburban Management had been doing a really good job. They have been very responsive regarding the types of reporting that has been requested, they seem to be meeting their projected revenues predicted last summer and the net cash provided from activities should begin paying the debt service starting with the June 1^st payment.

Mr. Watson discussed the issue of enhanced access, which was a statute that was adopted over two and a half years ago and is called the Enhanced Access to Public Records Act. It is a supplement to the Freedom of Information Act. The Enhanced Access Statute supplements the Freedom of Information Act by recognizing that public records consist of a lot more than simply documents. He said with advancing technologies such as computers, Internet and E-mail there are more desirable and efficient ways of transmitting information basically in digital forms. The Statute considers the fact that public entities are getting requests for information in those forms and there is a cost to buying the equipment infrastructure to do that. Money is invested in the equipment and manpower to get the information in digital form. Freedom of Information Requests, although they allow recovery of the cost of complying with the request, is really limited to the hourly rate of the lowest paid person who is capable of retrieving that information. This newer statute allows recovery of more than that and to recover over time the reasonable cost that had been invested in operating costs to make that information available. The catch is it required a policy to be in place to do that and at some point to establish a schedule of fees. In the last couple of years the City invested money in a G.I.S. System and there are more frequent requests for information from the G.I.S. or other information that is kept in these forms. He would like to work with one of the committees or the Council directly to put together a policy and eventually a fee schedule. He brought this to Council for some thoughts on how to do this. He said Ordinance Review dealt with similar issues although this probably would not entail the adoption of an ordinance but the committee is equipped to deal with that. There is also a Communications Committee that would deal with this or it could be brought back to Council as a whole. He said he was looking for direction on this.

There was consensus to send this to Ordinance Review Committee.

Pat Holt, 45409 Addington Lane, stated she was curious about what direction the Road Bond Issue was taking. She drove to Twelve Oaks Mall over the weekend and it was horrendous. She felt whatever decisions were made it would be very important to properly inform the citizens. However, in the last Road Bond election every postal customer in Novi received a mailing and after researching it she found that $7,500 of road money was spent to put the mailing out to the public. She got a lot of negative feedback regarding the mailing. Ms. Holt felt that in the future everyone should get together and find creative ways to educate the people rather than spend road money without Council approval.

Matt Quinn, Meridian, stated he was a 22 year resident and could not let the evening go by without mentioning that this is Mr. Kriewall’s last meeting and Thursday night at the Double Tree at 6:30 PM is his retirement party and tickets are $30.00 each. Mr. Quinn said if looking around the City and at where we are and why, it is all because of Mr. Kriewall and the direction he has given the City Councils over all these years. He did not think there was anyone who loved the City of Novi and the residents more than Ed Kriewall. The hours he has put in and the hours he will worry about the City after he leaves is something that cannot be replaced no matter who a successor might be. Mr. Quinn also wished Ms. Bartholomew well as she leaves Novi to work for the City of Troy.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo removed Item C.

To approve Items A, B and D through K.

Approve Minutes of:

January 15, 2000 Special Meeting

January 24, 2000 Regular Meeting

January 31, 2000 Special Meeting

Schedule an Executive Session of Council to immediately follow the Regular Council Meeting of February 14, 2000 for the purpose of Union Negotiations.

D. Introduction of Resolution vacating the Ivy Leaf Walkway and scheduling a Public Hearing for

February 28, 2000

E. Award bid for one (1) Garden Tractor for the Police Department to New Hudson Power in the

amount of $6,200.

F. Approval to purchase one (1) Chevrolet Malibu for the Building Department from Buff Whelan

Chevrolet in the amount of $13,303.91.

G. Approval to purchase one (1) Chevrolet Impala for the Building Department from Joe Panian

Chevrolet in the amount of $16,777.11

H. Approval to purchase 17 Ultra Vue Facepieces from Apollo Fire Equipment for the Fire

Department in the amount of $4,080.

I. Award Long Distance Phone Contract to Qwest.

J. Award bid for In-Field Groomer, to Bannerman, in the amount of $6,898.94

K. Approve Claims and Accounts:

Warrant No 564

Mr. Nowicki said he had received a letter from Mr. Tyree, Project Leader for Orchard Hills Baptist Church, and they are requesting a waiver or review of the availability fee for the water system. The water system was put in a number of years ago and as part of that water improvement a new ordinance was adopted that provided for the repayment of the capital costs associated with the construction of that water main. That capital cost is called the availability fee. The availability fee was based on acreage and front footage and was an ordinance that was approved by the City Council. They tried to come up with a method by which all of the property owners would pay a fair and equitable rate for the capital costs associated with the main. The church is requesting a review of that and he concurred the availability fee as structured now appeared to fit well with properties that could be developed. The church does not fit in that category nor does it fit in typical residential setting where there would be a $22.50 per front foot availability fee or equivalent fee. Mr. Nowicki recommended that Council refer this back to the City Administration and City Attorney to sit down with the church to come up with an equivalent usage rate and make a determination on what would be the appropriate availability fee for a use of that nature.

Jerry Straight, Pastor of Orchard Hills Baptist Church, said they appreciated the help they had been given so far. He said they had a bad well and the City allowed them to hook up. He said the church had not been able to hook up for years because of the cost and by re-evaluating the cost and getting it down to where they could afford it, they would want to hook up rather than re-drill wells. He concurred with what had been said.

Mayor Clark said the recommendation from Mr. Nowicki was that his Department and Mr. Watson review this situation once again.

Member DeRoche said an equitable solution was needed. He said the best intentions were probably there when this was put through and he knew they had to weigh what was done for this church with what other people have had to pay. He certainly had confidence in Mr. Nowicki and his ability to strike a balance between those things.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if the construction costs had already been incurred? Mr.

Nowicki said they had. She asked if there were any other institutional uses that were treated

differently?

Mr. Nowicki said they all pay their proportionate share based on the usage. This Novi Road

water main was a little different because it took into consideration front footage and acreage instead of just the cost of the usage and the factors in accordance with the appropriate distribution of usage.

The Novi Road water main was a little different because of the way it was structured in the ordinance and the payback for it and that is what they would take a look at.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said then this particular project was different. Mr. Nowicki said that is correct, and she said she would like more information on that. Her initial reaction to this is that everyone needed to be treated equitably across the board. Her concern would be that they would treat anyone differently in terms of calculations particularly since this is an issue that had already been decided and this is after the fact. She wanted information on why this Novi Road project was so different from any other typical project.

Mr. Nowicki said it was done about eight years ago, and it was calculated differently than it is calculated now.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said his letter indicated that a 60" main was installed but they were only charged for an 8" main.

Mr. Nowicki said for residential uses they typically charge for an 8" main.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if that was what was done in this case?

Mr. Nowicki said no because there is a different ordinance. The payback on that ordinance is based on front footage plus acreage.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked when it changed over. Mr. Nowicki said he did not know. She asked Mr. Watson.

Mr. Watson said he did not know. He said it was done differently now, over the course of the last 15 to 20 years the City had established a number of different ordinances to in effect get the capital cost of constructing different segments of both the water system infrastructures and sewer system infrastructure. In each instance a Resolution of the Council was adopted as an attempt to come to an equitable way to spread it over the people who are benefited. Sometimes front footage has been a method employed, sometimes acreage and other times on a tap basis computing tap factors based on what the usage is.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said so it has been arbitrary.

Mr. Watson said no. It has been the opposite of arbitrary; rather then simply doing it a particular way, they have attempted to come to a method that best allocated those costs in accordance with the benefit that the consumer is getting. The Council chose to do this particular one by a combination method, which was partly based on front footage, and partly based on acreage. They thought this best allocated it across those property owners.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if the property owners involved have an opportunity to come forward and challenge that?

Mr. Watson said they did and there was a lot of input through the whole process. He said there were several public meetings on it.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked how it was different now?

Mr. Watson said there is an ordinance in place for infrastructure that does not have a specific charge. Usually when these ordinances are adopted it is spurred by either someone building the infrastructure like a developer who needs it half a mile away and seeking a payback for a share of those costs or an S.A.D. Mr. Watson said the $22.50 Mr. Nowicki referred to is for those instances where the City had built segments of infrastructure on its own; usually to make connections to loop the system.

He said a lot of times the City will build a 16" main or larger that the individual property owner that fronts on it would ever need to be serviced. He thought the $22.50 was an amount that they came to if an 8" main was done which would be the kind that typically served in front of a parcel of land. It is for those instances that are not covered by more specific ordinances.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said Mr. Jerome did not share Mr. Watson’s opinion and asked how he would respond to Mr. Jerome’s memo. She asked if it was true that if Council decided to do this another way, 100% of the cost would not be recovered? She asked if Council deviated from the strict application, would money be owed to parcels that have already connected to the system?

Mr. Nowicki said it was possible, however, if they went through the process as he requested he and the attorneys would sit down and redraft the ordinance to make sure all the capital costs were covered. They would also recalculate the cost associated with each parcel and if they are due a refund then they are due a refund.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said typically ordinances are dealt with from here on out not here on back. She said an ordinance change could be looked at for the future but she was not sure it would be equitable to look for an ordinance change for the past.

Mr. Nowicki said they do this. When recalculating S.A.D.’s they are based on estimates as opposed to the actual costs and the petitioners come back and request that the roll be re-evaluated. Then if there is a cost differential it is taken care of.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo felt that might be a little different. We are talking about estimates.

Mr. Nowicki said it is still basically the same thing.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked Mr. Watson what he thought?

Mr. Watson said he had concerns. This is a piece of infrastructure built in the early 90’s and most of the properties that are going to benefit from that water main have already hooked up. If another method of calculating is applied money would not be collected from people that have already connected. Whether refunds are owed to people or not is another concern. If that is the case then it is less likely all the money would be collected that was allocated to serve that stretch of people. He said they would look at this before recommending anything to City Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said the motion on the floor is just to look at the ordinance.

Mayor Clark said and also to see if the application of the formula in this particular instance was correct.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said she would support the motion to look at the ordinance again but she would not support refunds or adjustments to the rate.

Member DeRoche commented his motion was to send this back to the administration or the City Attorney. He had confidence in their ability to look for an equitable solution and thought they did not want to take this on without direction of Council. He said the motion is to authorize them to see if there is a solution and if there is he expected their report to say such. The citizens, whether businesses, schools, churches or residents, are owed a certain amount of customer service and response from our City when they are looking for solutions.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked an equitable solution to what? To what people pay in the future? We have a specific request from a specific party on the table. She said unfortunately since this was done in the past and there is a present policy in place she could not support the request. She would support looking at an ordinance or process to see if in the future it should be done in a different way.

Member DeRoche said the motion was to authorize the administration to look for an equitable solution based on the information submitted tonight. The request was for authorization to do more work and he thought it was a service owed to the people.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said the motion is not merely asking to look again at the ordinance; it is looking at a particular situation and that is her concern.

Member Bononi said she saw this as a result of land use decisions. Anytime a site is chosen that is on a high profile road that is going to have development pressures on it we can presume at some point we are probably going to have tax bills at our door. She did not know the circumstances under which this congregation ended up at that location but it is what it is. The number of dollars it took to put that infrastructure in place is what it is. So, it is all well and good for anyone to question the manner in which the infrastructure rates are calculated but that does not change what the bottom line is with regard to the total number of dollars and the fact that someone has to pick up those total dollars. These formulas are not perfect and do not address every particular unique situation. She did not think it was equitable for the City to pick up that funding.

She thought the formula should be looked at again as a result of the request. This can be paid in increments if there is a hardship. She said to Mr. Watson that if Council is going to allow this debt not to be paid then there should be an adaptive reuse proposed that when the property is sold the bill is due.

Member Csordas asked Mr. Nowicki when something like this happened was there a contract between the property owners and the City to do the improvement?

Mr. Nowicki said there is not. An Ordinance was passed specifying the rate of repayment and the percentages and funding distributions for that.

Member Csordas asked if the dollar amount is $21,421 total? Mr. Nowicki said yes, it is the availability fee or the capital charge.

Member Csordas said in Mr. Jerome’s memo dated February 3^rd he stated that no property owner had taken advantage of the provision, which is the City would have the first lien right. Also, tying into that is a letter from Mr. Tyree dated July 19^th that said, "this is not applicable to a religious organization and is not likely that it would be appropriate for the City of Novi to become a lien holder on any property owned by a religious organization as the requirement stipulates." Member Csordas asked why not?

Mr. Watson did not know why Mr. Tyree thought that was inappropriate. He was probably referring to the provision in the Ordinance that specifically allows a delay in the payment of the charges until property is resold. He thought Mr. Tyree anticipated that if property was being used for churches it might not sell for a long time.

Member Csordas said Mr. Jerome’s letter of February 3^rd also stated "Mr. Tyree is asking on behalf of the church and the other existing properties along Novi Road." Member Csordas asked what that was about?

Mr. Nowicki said some of the properties along Novi Road are requesting a reconsideration of that ordinance as well. He stated the property owners had not contacted him nor had he discussed this matter with Mr. Tyree. He received some of the information just last week and began looking into the matter and that is why he requested the authorization to review the ordinance and payback requirements.

Member Csordas commented he was sure the committee would do a good job and asked that they pay attention to setting a precedent on other people coming forward. He could not support this because he thought it would be setting a bad precedent. He said the City provided a big favor and provided the product. Everyone understood the price going in but now when it is time to pay the price, relief is being sought. He said he would not support that.

Mr. Kriewall said according to the Bonding Attorney this could be passed this evening. This starts the referendum period on the Special Assessment Bonds and Mr. Nieman recommended this be passed.

Mayor Clark thought they had received a request from one of the property owners.

Mr. Kriewall said he was protesting passing Resolution #7 on the S.A.D. and that is different. The Notice of Intent Resolution is different than Resolution #7.

Member Lorenzo felt this should be held over until the Public Hearing.

Member Crawford said he did not know what bearing this had or if postponing the Notice of Intent for three weeks was detrimental to the process.

Mr. Ward understood that this was a process that had to happen and was not tied into the final passage of Resolution 7. To not start the clock now three weeks are lost on an extremely tight schedule, which would be discussed with Council on the 28^th. He asked that Council consider this Resolution, which is independent of anything else Council had done and had no impact on what Council might or might not do on the 28^th with respect to Resolution 7. There are no obligations, duties or liabilities on the City by passing this Resolution. The Bond Counsel supported this and recommended approval.

Mr. Watson said this Resolution is to do the official Notice of Intent to sell bonds. That starts the clock running for voters in the City to either protest or start a petition drive to force it to go on the ballot. If the Resolution is adopted a notice is published in the newspaper and there is 45 days to petition for a ballot question or not. The clock is independent of what Council is doing with Resolution 7. Council might establish the S.A.D. independently of that. The impact it would have is everything else falls into place based upon that. Assuming the S.A.D. is established and bonds are sold a contract for construction would probably not be awarded until the bonds were sold. Everything else that happens with the rest of this project would probably be pushed back by the same three weeks.

Mr. Ward said as he understood it the bonds could not be sold until the end of the 45-day period. Mr. Watson said that was correct. Mr. Ward said they are the only property or party involved in the S.A.D. so there is no other public that is exposed to any liability under this S.A.D. and the total bill was theirs and they were asking that the intent be advertised. He said they would not come out and oppose their own S.A.D. and since they are paying 100% of the cost he doubted any one else would have any objections. He asked that the clock begin with Council’s support this evening.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo believed when they talked about "Whereas the City Council of the City intends to authorize the issuance of Special Assessment Bonds", she did not think Council had decided that until Resolution 7 had been decided.

Mr. Watson said by adopting this there is no bond to approve Resolution 7.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked who would be awarding the contract for the construction?

Mr. Watson said it would be the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if this was a City construction project?

Mr. Watson said it was. If a Special Assessment is adopted the City would construct the road.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said Council needed to talk about that.

Member DeRoche said the purpose of this being a requirement in the process is to have a certain amount of protocol and for the public and City Council to have a certain amount of days when action is taken to respond to those things. He thought getting this clock going in advance of a decision being made would short circuit the intent of having these different layers in place and different requirements. He wants the road to be done but did not want the City Council or residents to have this done without the appropriate protocol being followed so he would vote for the postponement.

Member Csordas said he would not support the motion to postpone because he thought that public notice was critical and timely. It is clear that this issue is totally separate from Resolution 7 and does not have any bearing on that since it does not obligate the City for any thing.

Mayor Clark said the Bonding Attorney was suggesting this be done and that it is part of the process. Mr. Watson said there is no obligation to approve the S.A.D. or to sell bonds. Mayor Clark said it seemed more practical to send out the notice first that there is intent and whether the intent is exercised or not would be decided on February 28^th.

Member Bononi disagreed and said this project is not just any project. The citizens are watching what happens here and they need to know that the way Council does business is the way they want business done. They told Council in November, on this particular subject, how they wished us to do business. The way the matter is brought forward makes every difference to the people who are watching tonight. She felt no harm would be done to postpone this and have the package dealt with all at one time. Also, to have everyone who wished to participate in the Public Hearing process to see this happening the way it should be. She would support a postponement.

Mayor Clark stated this matter would be brought up again on February 28, 2000

Mayor Clark asked if Mr. Storm received the notice? He was informed that the notice was mailed. Mayor Clark asked given the problem with the two addresses and the two parcels was it sent to the right address. He asked if Council would like to postpone this.

Member DeRoche said in a little over a week Mr. Storm got this on the agenda and hoped Council would offer him the same courtesy if he wanted Council to reconsider.

Mr. Watson saw that in reviewing the packet. He discussed it with Mr. Babinchak and with the Assessing Department. The way the Assessing Department finds out about a transfer of property is through the Property Transfer Affidavit, which is notice to change the name on the roll. When property is purchased the buyer is obligated to provide the affidavit to the local assessing/collecting unit. In this case, apparently, the affidavit only referred to one parcel and not both so that is why the notice on the other one went to the prior property owner.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if providing the correct affidavit was the legal responsibility of the owner?

Mr. Watson said yes, it is.

Mayor Clark said that would be the property owner’s obligation assuming he knew that his property was on two separate sidwells. If he never knew, he could not have it on the affidavit and that was the concern that he had when he came in.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Watson to look at the language.

Danny Johnson and Steve Wadle, applicants, were present for questions.

Member Bononi asked what would be changed with regard to the exterior of the facility?

Mr. Johnson said nothing immediately. Basically, they would work on the inside bathrooms, menu and then renovate the outside with a deck, volley ball court, etc. during the summer.

Mr. Wadle said they are just going to clean things up and do some gardening. Eventually they would improve the outside of the building as well as the sign. However, all has to be submitted to Council for approval before any of it can be done.

Member Bononi asked if the hours of operation would be the same and Mr. Wadle said they would. She asked if there would be any exterior lighting in the sports area that exists now? He said on the volley ball court.

Member Bononi asked Ms. Hannan at the time that these exterior improvements are proposed are we talking about a site plan approval?

Ms. Hannan said it would be an administrative façade revision unless they were not able to comply with the ordinance requirements for their façade at which time they would have to go before the Planning Commission for the Site Plan process.

Member Bononi asked if she would see the intensification of the use as a result of this additional sports field requiring that?

Ms. Hannan said it would not be a change in the footprint of the facility so that typically would not be a site plan requirement.

Member Bononi said as a planner you do not interpret an intensification of a use? Ms. Hannan said according to the ordinance it is not required.

Member Bononi stated she would have real concerns about that both from the standpoint of the hours of operation, lighting, noise, etc.

Ms. Hannan said if there was increased seating associated with the deck they would be subject to the site plan review process just to look at the parking issues, etc. Member Bononi asked Ms. Hannan to keep an eye on that. She agreed.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said in terms of any additions into the recreational facilities, extending them or increasing them would there be any wetland/woodland issues?

Mr. Johnson said there would not. The wetlands are further beyond the current softball diamond and they would not be going behind there. She asked if they intended on adding lightening? He said it would be nice to add lightening to the softball area in the future. Mr. Wadle said before it could be done they would have to submit for approval to the Planning Commission. He said it would also be costly. They would do it to support the area and would want to add new benches so in the same time frame they would want to increase the ability to play longer. This would all have to be submitted to the Planning Commission.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked Ms. Hannan if those issues were raised, would there be any Site Plan Review?

Ms. Hannan said there would.

Mr. Quinn, representing the Linder Company, was present to review the process as to the location of the park. Ralph Nunez, landscape architect would review the fountain designs and Heidi Hannan would review the City’s method of payment.

Mr. Quinn said currently a contract is in place and the status of that contract is that it is sitting at the Aetna’s Vice Presidents office now waiting for the final approval of Mervyn’s of California. He said Mervyn’s is a landowner in the Novi Town Center and they have rights of veto over any new buildings.

The current contract states that "Aetna will develop the Novi Plaza on the corner that the City of Novi owns". The agreement provides that Aetna would provide all of the landscaping within the City of Novi property and spend up to $400,000 to develop the park setting. Out of the $400,000 Aetna is committing to set aside $35,000 towards the contribution of the fountain. If they spend less than the $400,000, minus the fountain, anything left would be contributed towards the fountain. The contract said in exchange for that there would be an easement for the building along Novi Road that went to the city property. A portion of this outdoor seating area is within the city property and would be granted to Aetna along with the agreement. The contract says within six months of the last signature easements would be transferred.

Mr. Quinn said the $50,000 figure in Ms. Hannan’s memo is a misstatement. Originally, Aetna thought that the City was holding $50,000 in an escrow account for the final development of this park. It took the City and Aetna many months to figure out what that figure was and it turned out to be about $14,000 and it is specified in the contract now. The City would hold the money until the project was complete and then release it back to Aetna or as a practical matter it would become part of Aetna’s contribution towards their requirements for the development of the park.

Mr. Nunez presented the design that was refined by the Ad Hoc Committee and himself, which is currently in working drawings and being sent out for bid at this time. Mr. Nunez explained the original design and the differences from the final design.

Ms. Hannan said the Ad Hoc Committee and local community groups looked at three designs and there was support from the different groups for the 40-foot fountain. They commented they would like to see something special in that area and indicated they would be interested in participating. The Committee suggested funding the 40 foot fountain with a brick paver program. The paver program offered 4" by 8" and an 8" by 8" personalized brick that could be purchased by individuals to raise money for the fountain. The 4" by 8" bricks would sell for $100 and have three lines of text with about ten letters per line. The 8" by 8" bricks would be sold for $250.00 and would have six lines of text with about 10 letters per line. The pavers would be placed in six different areas around the fountain. There is a set up fee for the pavers and for engraving them. That fee would be taken care of by collecting money for the project section by section. She said a section would be identified with a certain number of bricks and once those bricks were sold the brick company would install them. So until the $40,000 to $50,000 worth of bricks are paid for there would be no money toward the fountain.

Ms. Hannan advised Council that she had provided information from other cities on how they are doing this. Troy has been doing this for six months and have done it in house. They have their Community Information Department selling bricks and have sold 100 to date and have gained about $10,000. They are collecting the money from the bricks for a community foundation that would put it into a recreation program or other things the community desired. They have a group of people who are appointed to the foundation and are basically going to help with the allocation of the money and not so much with the administration of the brick sales.

She said Ypsilanti’s Depot Town has been successful with their paver program and sold between two and three hundred bricks a year and have put together a plaza, historic timelines, a clock, etc. They collect money and annually decide what it would go toward.

South Haven has a project called Friend of Ratcliff Field and there are about 15 volunteers in the program helping them to sell pavers and they were actually able to float a school board bond to help them get going. They received a lot of larger contributions, $1,500 to $5,000, from businesses pledged over a two to three year period.

Ms. Hannan said there are opportunities to do things like that with our program whether it is the sale of benches, there are 8, or a timeline or a memorial area in the plaza.

Ms. Hannan said with the direction of Council, an informational meeting could be arranged to determine if there would be enough interest to organize a brick paver committee to administer this fund raising effort. There are 130 people who have expressed an interest in purchasing bricks.

Member Csordas asked if he was clear that the Linder Company would provide $400,000 to develop that corner which would include a fountain?

Mr. Quinn said that was correct. A great majority of that money would be going toward the hardscape and the landscape as well as the soft costs. Their original estimate was going to be in that $400,000 range. Some of those things are going out to bid now so they will have a little better handle on that when they come back. It includes a minimum of $35,000 towards the fountain and if they spend less than $400,000 the difference would also go toward the fountain. Also, one of the other contracts not yet submitted to Council would say when it went out for bids, since this involved City property, that the City Council and staff would be provided the opportunity to review all of the bids that come in for this job.

Member Csordas said he thought the $400,000 included a cookie cutter type $35,000 to $50,000 fountain on that corner. Mr. Quinn said that was the very first plan. Member Csordas asked if they could go back to that and Mr. Quinn said that was up to Council.

Mr. Quinn said it did not affect Linder because with the contract that is already there Linder received permission for the building pad to the east, north and the easements that are within the park. Their obligation is to construct the rest of the park. The City can do what it wants with the fountain and they would still guarantee a minimum of $35,000 towards the fountain.

Member Csordas asked if a fountain could be built for $35,000?

Mr. Nunez said the first plan was within the $35,000 budget.

Member Csordas said it looked like the Linder Company/Town Center, could develop the whole corner including the fountain.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo did not think the City was in a position to spend $350,000 to build a fountain. She said there is a $700,000 loan to the General Fund from the Ice Arena and the Contingency Fund is insufficient to meet the current obligations according to the Finance Director. Given that, she would revert back to the Linder original proposal.

Member Crawford stated he was absolutely shocked at the direction of the motion. This project has been evolving for well over a year. A Committee brought this to Council and had prior Council’s approval to proceed in this direction. There are numerous people who want these brick pavers and who would like to contribute to make this a showpiece corner. The $35,000 fountain did not do the job and that is why months have been spent trying to come up with a solution. He had concerns too on how it would be funded but felt it could be worked out some how possibly by selling the pavers first but he did not want to go back to the $35,000 fountain which would detract from what was intended to go in that corner. Member Crawford stated he would not support the motion, he thought this was an excellent project and that it would be a showpiece to the City and the Town Center. He said citizens, businesses and anyone that wanted to get involved could purchase the bricks and he thought it would be a great thing for the City. He would not support the motion.

Member DeRoche asked Mr. Quinn if there was any difference in the infrastructure to be put in place as far as water supply?

Mr. Quinn said certainly, it was the size of the plumbing and the electrical service to it. The issue is the approximate cost between the larger fountain infrastructure versus the original design.

Mr. Nunez said it was basically a pre-engineered kit that came assembled and is brought to the site and installed. The original one is the pump system and everything is housed together. The larger fountain, Hobbs fountain, they have been working on the mechanicals, engineering, plumbing, lighting and all the other buttons and bells to the larger concept and that plan has been done. He did not have the breakdown of that cost.

Mr. Nunez said there was another option. He said the original concept; 16 foot diameter fountain is relatively small. He said in that scale fountain area it would be miniscule. The 40 foot fountain is much more expensive, is larger and does have a cost. He stated he would hate for Council to vote to build the 16 foot fountain because the funds were not available and be stuck with it. He said he would opt, with Linders permission, to not build the fountain, have it landscaped and let the fountain connections come in as far as proposed and look at the funds as the pavers sell. He said his firm was interested in contributing and many other consulting firms that work in Novi would contribute as well.

Member DeRoche said he agreed. He would like to see the option to take the money, $35,000 plus, and put it in escrow and if the citizens opted to raise more money and have a bigger fountain they would have that option. He would support the motion but would like a provision that would allow the money to be put in escrow rather than build a substandard fountain.

Mayor Clark asked if Mr. Nunez would still spend $400,000 to landscape the corner if the fountain were added later. Mr. Nunez said he would.

Mayor Clark asked what the fountain on Crescent Drive was? Mr. Quinn said he did not know.

Mayor Clark would hate to see Council act in haste and repent over it later. He would prefer to see the site landscaped and developed with underground plumbing and if it took two years to get the funds to put up the fountain then fine. If there is no fountain there would still be a beautifully landscaped corner and ultimately a small fountain could be put in. He would be in favor of benefactors contributing to the project.

Member Crawford concurred.

Member Bononi asked if the contract alluded to is in place and finalized?

Mr. Watson said the contract is finalized and approved by City Council and executed on behalf of the City. Aetna has approved it and it is a matter of waiting for Mervyn’s to execute it and return it to the City, which is expected at anytime.

Member Bononi thought a certain segment for outdoor dining would be on City property and asked if that was correct?

Mr. Watson said it was possible a portion of it would be. Part of the whole arrangement was assuming one of the businesses would be a restaurant and they would be able to use a portion of the plaza space.

Member Bononi asked who would insure the risk for those people?

Mr. Watson said they would by formal agreement.

Member Bononi said her problem was they are looking at this corner as if it was in a vacuum but this corner and landscaping is a result of the building plans that are included in this information. It seemed that the Town Center originally was strip oriented and without much City landscaping and now they want to bring buildings closer to the street and that is good. If there are fine development proposals everybody wins. However, when talking about spending City resources that are not there to accomplish grandiose fountain plans it is ostentatious. She asked if the site would be maintained by Linder/Aetna and billed to the City of Novi?

Mr. Watson said Linder/Aetna would maintain it and the City would only be charged with electrical costs for lighting and water bills.

Member Bononi said she had spoken to a lot of people in the community and not a single person had agreed this grand fountain is what is in the cards for Novi now. She stated she would absolutely support the motion.

Member Crawford encouraged Council to defeat this motion. To build the original design is not living up to the potential of that corner. He concurred with the Mayor’s statements that the City not front the money but give the City and the citizens of this committee the chance to purchase these bricks and make that a truly beautiful corner.

Member Csordas said he had seconded the motion but also supported Member Crawford’s train of thought.

Ms. Hannan said she hoped they could get some direction from Council as to whether another Ad Hoc Committee would be put together or perhaps they could appeal to local community groups.

Mr. Quinn said the only concern they would have is there was mention of putting whatever money was left over after development of the park into an escrow account. He was sure Aetna would want to know how long the money would be there. Mayor Clark said that could be addressed and time constraints dealt with.

There was consensus of Council to form a committee. Member Crawford suggested contacting the community groups for involvement and a representative from a community service organization and the Chamber of Commerce.

Member DeRoche recommended putting Member Kramer back on the committee.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo felt this should be a community outreach funding effort and not a Council ownership of it.

Ms. Hannan said the Homeowners Associations have also expressed interest and she would contact them.

Michael Meyer, wanted to thank Mr. Kriewall for 30 years of dedicated service to the City. He believed he had conducted himself with a single-minded devotion on behalf of the citizens of Novi during the past three decades. Mr. Meyer wished him well and many happy years in retirement.

Asa Smith asked all those involved in the fountain project to look closely at the project and its design. There are a lot of people who feel that a fountain is not needed at that location and that some other appropriate monument could be designed and put there as a permanent memorial base for our City.

Mr. Smith said traffic is not going to be able to view a major large fountain complex. The road projects that are to be developed and designed would change the whole intersection with road improvements. He thought the fountain would not be seen because of traffic and felt Council should reconsider.

Mr. Smith asked if the engraved paver bricks covered with dirt, cigarette butts and bubble gum would be artistically and architecturally sound for what we are trying to accomplish? They are going to create a major maintenance problem to keep them up. He asked Council to reconsider these pavers as a permanent imprint for our City for the future.

Mr. Quinn said this is the park on Haggerty Road just south of I-96. They have received Preliminary Site Plan approval and the necessary Zoning Board of Appeals variances. They are present because they have been trying to work with the City on the City’s Regional Detention Basin, which was just to the north. The future Regional Detention Basin is on the north end of the property and the City has applications for permits in to the M.D.E.Q. to construct this basin. Also, Council had agreed in principle, for his clients to construct this basin for the City in conjunction with the construction of their industrial condominium. He said they are ready to go and can not draw building permits until there is a plan approved for detention. They are requesting to be granted a temporary variance to build a temporary detention basin to the requirements of the City. This would take a ten year storm. This would be totally at their own cost. When the City detention basin is ready they plan to flow directly from the condominium subdivision into the Regional Detention Basin but since they are farther ahead than the City they need to build a temporary basin so they can start construction on the buildings within their subdivision. They already have tenants lined up and they need to start. All the staff and consultants have issued approval letters for this temporary detention basin construction.

Mr. Potter, J.C.K., in 1982 in the City of Novi Storm Water Management Plan a need was identified for two basins to be constructed. They were the Haggerty Basin at Haggerty south of I-696 and also Ingersoll Basin south of Twelve Mile west of M-5. The significance of these basins was confirmed in a report the City had prepared called the Frances Drain Study and this report was reviewed in 1992 when he was with the Oakland County Drain Office. It identified downstream of this Haggerty area a lot of residential homes and part of Bishop Creek there was a concern about flooding that was attributed to the 100 year storms. The need was identified for detention in this area. There is a county drain called the Town Line Drain, which drains parts of Farmington Hills and Novi and discharges at Haggerty and Ingersoll Creed and basically drains the whole area.

In the study there were about 6 or 8 sites identified throughout the City. Most were in industrial areas and these were identified as feasible and confirmed what was in the Storm Water Master Plan. The City was able to acquire this parcel from M.D.O.T. for $12,000. They are also coordinating with M.D.O.T. about a parcel and the City has requested that M.D.O.T. consider construction of the Ingersoll Basin along with their project associated with the I-96/Beck and Wixom Interchange regarding a 20 acre wetland mitigation project. We have the opportunity to go forward with two of these basins that would greatly reduce the type of 100 year flows that are going down stream along Ingersoll Creek to Meadowbrook Lake.

Mr. Potter said they recommend the pursuit of this basin. They have applied to the State of Michigan for a permit for construction of the Haggerty Basin and have received verbal confirmation that they would grant the M.D.E.Q. Wetlands Permit and they expect it by the end of March. Once the permit is acquired it sets off a chain reaction of other permits that are effected such as Woodlands, M.D.O.T. Easement and Oakland County Drain Commissioner Permit. They anticipated that would be done by the end of March. Once the permits are acquired they would estimate the project and coordinate with the City Attorney so that the Partnering Agreement between the City of Novi and this property owner could be developed and then they could move forward with the construction of that Regional Basin.

Mr. Potter said until the Regional Basin is constructed the variance requested is so that the property just to the south can be constructed and that basin is to be designed for a ten year storm in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards. At a future date when the proper agreement could be executed and approved by Council they would be able to go forward with the construction of the Regional Basin.

Mr. Potter said the basin on the developers property is proposed to be filled when this basin comes on line. All of their storm water discharge would be directed into the first flush basin and filtered and discharged into the County Drain. That is sized for the first flush and anything that is higher than that including the 100 year storms with an overflow and also discharging come down from Ingersoll Creek into the 100 year basin. He said the flows can be cut from about 400 cubic feet per second to about 200 cubic feet per second and that is the first stage of constructing these two basins.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said regarding the impact to the 3.3 acres of wetland and the 3.6 acres of woodlands Doug Pakkala indicated in his February 15^th letter that approximately 2.1 acres of additional wetland would be created. Why only 2.1 acres if it is impacting approximately 3.3?

Mr. Potter said it was one of the issues they were waiting to hear back from the M.D.E.Q. on.

Once they get word from M.D.E.Q. they could finalize the grading plan for how many wetlands would be mitigated. It is proposed to mitigate them on site up in this area and once the grading plans are complete for wetland mitigation then they would know the impact to the woodlands.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if they would request additional mitigation?

Mr. Potter said they have been meeting with them and have received verbal confirmation that they would grant that permit and it would be based on the two multiplier for the forested wetlands.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if it would comply with Novi’s Wetland Ordinance? Mr. Potter said it would but the M.D.E.Q. might be stricter or they may not be.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if there was a plan in terms of replacement trees for the 3.6 acres of woodland.

Mr. Potter said there is a plan and there is a preliminary count of 250 trees but once the final delineation and mitigation are set forth by M.D.E.Q. it would provide a final tree count to the City Forester.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked where they would be replaced? Mr. Potter said it was up to the City staff and basically the project is assessed forestry fees, which go into the forestry account, and then the trees are planted.

She said it is going into the tree fund then and there is no plan. Mr. Potter said yes. She asked if there was a plan for wetland mitigation? Mr. Potter said that plan has been submitted to M.D.E.Q. She asked where the new wetlands would be created? Mr. Potter said in the northern part of the property. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked what kind of wetland would be created?

Mr. Potter said they would try to replace what has been lost. The final plans have not been finalized because in order to do that they have to do the final grading and start bench cutting the wetland so that the trees survive during hard flows.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if the trees would survive in the buffer strip of wooded area around the basin?

Mr. Potter said they believed they would. She asked if it would be a 100 year basin? Mr. Potter said they were trying to get a 100 year but it depended on the final count from M.D.E.Q. as far as wetlands. It might restrict the level but it is always a 100 year under the Storm Water Master Plan. He was hoping that M.D.O.T. would come through for the City and include the Ingersoll Regional Basin with the construction of their wetland mitigation. On occasion they would adjust the flow coming out of one basin or another to achieve the goal it could be at either location depending on the final size of the basins. Even after they are constructed if we get an opportunity to go back and meter those flows they might go back and do adjustments to the outlets for that reason.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if he was including water quality treatments?

Mr. Potter said they were and when the basin is completed coming off the development from the south going to the first flush basin anything higher than that first flush flow would go into a conjunction chamber and overflow into the 100 year regional basin. Regarding the flows coming down from M.D.O.T. there is a series of ponds that M.D.O.T. has created for water quality purposes and they are encouraging M.D.O.T. to build its Regional Basin at Ingersoll in addition to about 20 new wetland acres which provides a lot of water quality benefits to the City.

Mr. Davis commented Lee Mamola was present who was representing Mr. Graham Clements, the owner of the property that is directly north of Rotary Park. Mr. Clements, through Mr. Mamola, has been before the Parks and Recreation Commission. They have asked for their recommendation and advice to send this information onto Council to review and authorize City staff and consultants to review the request to allow the construction of certain improvements on a portion of Rotary Park. Basically, he wants to build two industrial pad sites on his property and because of the size of the property he was looking to provide and utilize Rotary Park property for an onsite retention basin and landscaping.

Mr. Mamola said Mr. Clements developed Novi Industrial Sub. When the subdivision was platted it was in a flood plain area and the City was going through major improvements to their Storm Water Master Plan. There was an agreement between the City and Mr. Clements that if he platted the property the City would take certain spoils of dirt from the construction of ponds and bring his platted subdivision out of the flood plain area which they did. The problem with that was that with much of that property the soil was not compacted properly. The result of that is Mr. Clements has not been able to sell the last part of his property since the mid 80’s primarily due to soil conditions. It is possible to build buildings on this property but it is not possible to build them of conventional footing designs. In order to compensate for the extra costs that go into footing issues to make these projects economical that the footprint of the building be maximized on these industrial sites. They are fortunate because these buildings do not back up to any ones backyards. There is a buffer, which is a portion of Rotary Park which is about 150 feet deep measuring from Mr. Clements property south to Ashbury Drive. In order to develop the footprints to a maximum detention offsite makes sense and that involves Rotary Park. Mr. Clements is proposing to take the dirt from his site and put it onto that portion of Rotary's site. He would fill it to engineering standards, seed it and plant the trees that are required as part of the Site Plan process and as part of the screening process between the park and his properties.

Mr. Mamola said if they knew what the City intended to use the property for they could work in conjunction with the City to put the trees in a manner that would both provide screening and maybe a back drop for a ball field, play field, etc. They are looking for a good cohesive working relationship with the City.

It was his understanding that Parks and Recreation had no resources and no immediate inclination to develop this part of Rotary Park in the foreseeable future. Mr. Clements said he would build his buildings if City Council decided that they did not wish to proceed. He said they would be smaller projects, about 15,000 square feet a building smaller, the detention basin and trees would be on his property. They have Preliminary Site Plan approval and a certain amount of zoning variances because there are peculiar instances due to the Park and soil conditions. He thought it would be a wonderful opportunity for the City to get a reasonably good stable tax base without effecting any adjacent homeowner, a chance to increase the inventory of usable land area for the park if this land is brought up, leveled and seeded. Mr. Davis had indicated that a soccer field would be a good addition to this area.

The Rotary Club of Novi has their name attached to this, a presentation was made to them and they would like to see this part of Rotary Park devoted to an active/passive area and he thought this would be a wonderful opportunity for that to occur. He felt this was a win win situation for the private sector, the City and the City Parks and Recreation Department. He wanted to get into these matters in a higher level of detail and would come back to Council with that agreement when it was ready to be presented.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked Mr. Davis if he had a Master Plan for this area yet?

Mr. Davis said when the east side of Rotary Park was Master Planned it included the tennis court development, play area, picnic shelter and walking nature trails throughout the balance of the property on the Rouge River side. At that time there were no plans developed on the west side. There was nothing developed as a part of the Master Plan process.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if there was a reason for that?

Mr. Davis said when they were working with the Rotary Club and the funding of the development they concentrated their efforts on the east side.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if this area lends itself to a passive use or an active use?

Mr. Davis said these areas are basically open fields without trees and to the west it abuts the CSX Railroad and is probably more suited for active development and utilization.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if it was a designated flood plain?

Mr. Davis said he did not know and would find that out when working with consultants.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked where the stream ran through the property?

Mr. Davis explained the site and where the stream meandered behind River Bridge Subdivision to the south and into Chase Farms. It makes different connections of the fingers of the different branches.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo was concerned that if the area were utilized for a private property owner’s detention basin it would preclude any other use. She asked if there was no public restroom at this park? Mr. Davis said part of the budget process this year would be a public restroom facility on the east side of Ashbury Drive.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo was concerned that it would preclude any public park use of that property. Secondly, she was concerned about utilizing it as a retention basin. She was also concerned about liability. She said it would be on City owned property and any body of water attracts nuisances, liability issues and danger issues and it is in close proximity to the park where children of all ages would be. She said this is a public park and felt the public deserved to be included in what was done with the park. She would not be in support of moving forward with this.

Member Crawford asked what the City would get in return for allowing the use of that corner of the park?

Mr. Mamola said if the City ever decided to improve that portion of the park they would have to build a detention pond to handle parking and related storm run off and that portion where the detention pond is located is the right spot for the detention pond.

Member Crawford said if a parking lot is put in a detention pond would be necessary. Mr. Mamola said yes.

Mr. Mamola said the second major benefit to the City is if the City decided to improve this at today’s prices it would probably be in the neighborhood of $50,000 to $100,000 to fill and level that site. There is a significant cost to put dirt on that property, land balance it and seed it and he felt it was a very significant issue and trade off.

Mr. Mamola said if the detention basin was not built on that site it would be immediately north on the other side of the property line and it would be the same size.

Member Crawford asked if the basin would be fenced?

Mr. Mamola said the detention basin is about five feet deep and was not intended to have a lot of standing water very often. He said the ordinance stated that it "shall not be fenced".

Member Crawford said the trade off would be that that piece of property would be land balanced and there would be a detention basin that we could use because one would be needed at some point in time.

Member Bononi had concerns with the conceptual designs and the process. She asked at whose direction this whole thing came together?

Mr. Davis said Mr. Clements through Mr. Mamola had discussions administratively with himself about a year ago and then there was no discussion for six or seven months. Recently, they reinitiated those discussions and they took it to the Parks Commission meeting in December. It was reviewed as an advisory question to the Parks and Recreation Commission to offer up their thoughts and recommendation whether it should be considered as a recommendation to this body and that is where it is at today.

Member Bononi asked if he was saying he took direction onto himself to proceed with this?

Mr. Davis said the information that is reflected is discussions that have been ongoing with Mr. Clements, Mr. Mamola and the City through himself.

Member Bononi said the City Administration should always be providing helpful information and answers to questions but she believed that Mr. Davis had greatly exceeded his bounds. From the standpoint of using the City’s resources to get to this point, bringing this matter before a City Commission and bringing this conceptual idea to City Council is entirely too much activity going on in the background. She said as far as she was concerned showing developments that are primarily for the benefit of a private landowner being referred to our engineering experts and she believed there had been much to much done here in the manner of scope then he could justify. Having said that she also has very real concerns about the applicant’s architect stating initially that building these two buildings would maximize the site. She thought from the standpoint of the flood plain issue not being determined and the fact that this matter has come to this point without knowing that answer is beyond her. From the standpoint of this applicant proposing to build on his own land relative to the ability to get permits to do so that is fine. From the standpoint of thinking that it is an equitable thing to take the marginal problems that this applicant has and put it on City property she did not know how that could be defended; unless it was a unique situation where there was some great benefit to the City. She did not see that.

She also did not see any overriding concern for all of the converging streams here and particularly Bishop Creek which has been designated by the Rouge Program as a stream worth preserving. We are talking about an awful lot of activity in a small geographic area and she would not support any such deal between this landowner and the City of Novi. She did not think the City would benefit from it and resented the time and resources of our City that have been spent bringing this project to this point.

Member Crawford said, as one Council Member, he did not resent what Mr. Davis had done. The process was followed just fine and Mr. Davis had done what he should have done. Member Crawford did not think it was appropriate for Mr. Davis to be chastised in public when he had done his job. He said he appreciated the process he had gone through.

Mayor Clark said he could not support the proposal because there was a private landowner with an obvious problem mitigating his problem by dumping it on a City park that a community organization donated. He said there was mention that the City might want to put in a parking lot and would need a detention basin. However, we might not ever want to put a parking lot in at this park and if we did it might not be blacktop or one that would require a detention basin.

To deny the request for authorization to authorize City Consultants

Member Crawford said he did not see it as the petitioner dumping their problems on our property. It was stated they could build two much smaller buildings and put the detention basin on their own land. He thought they were just giving this option to the City where they could build a couple of larger buildings and the City could land balance a piece of the park, put the detention basin on Novi property and they would do some landscaping. It is not like they are an adversary here it was just an option that was presented. Some Council Members were getting on not only staff but the petitioner for how dare they think of doing this to our property. It was just an option that was offered to us and we do not have to accept it. Member Crawford said he would probably vote for the motion he did not care either way. He could still build his buildings and put his basin in. The Parks and Recreation Commission seemed to want to proceed with this and get discussion to see if Council might think it was a good option to develop this piece of the park and get some benefits out of it. There is always an adversarial posture here and it bothered him to see it happening all the time.

Mr. Watson said this is an attempt to clarify this ordinance provision. Normally when a business has a wall sign on the building the wall sign is supposed to be on that part of the building where the entrance is. In most instances the entrance faces a thoroughfare and makes sense to have a wall sign. There is currently a provision in the ordinance that says if the entrance to the business does not face a thoroughfare where the frontage is it can be put on another wall. A property like this would be the Peach Tree Shopping Center on Meadowbrook Road south of Ten Mile. In theory, the way it is written now, all the businesses that are in that center would put their signs on the wall that faces Meadowbrook. This is to make it clear that the only one being talked about is the business that is closest to the thoroughfare. It is really just trying to restrict it to the one particular sign as opposed to having all of the signs on that wall.

Mr. Watson said right now the Woodlands Ordinance allowed an exception to the permitting process if getting rid of diseased or damaged trees or that sort of thing. The purpose of this is to provide some definitions to diseased tree, dead tree, damaged tree so that somebody might not take advantage of that and damage a tree and then remove it by use of that exception. It is just an attempt to try to avoid a loophole in the Woodlands Ordinance.

Greg Capote, Economic Development Coordinator for the City of Novi, had been working with numerous corporations that have been pursuing Novi as a potential location for a new corporate world headquarters. These companies are also attempting to utilize the Michigan Economic Growth Authority also known as MEGA. This is a fund that the State uses to maintain and attract high paying jobs to the State of Michigan. When a company is pursuing MEGA funds it requires local participation and typically that participation is done in the form of a tax abatement. The question to Mr. Capote has been what is the City of Novi’s policy on tax abatement? He said the City has no policy and has only done tax abatement one other time in the past. He thought it important to put this item before the Council and give them the opportunity to discuss this topic, learn about tax abatement in general, PA198 which is now PA140, in addition to the MEGA and its statute and policies and procedures

Mr. Capote stated he would be attending a MEGA Board meeting at the State as an observer as are several companies he mentioned, who wish to remain anonymous, would soon be pursuing this MEGA mechanism at the State level. He thought the MEGA Board might ask where Novi is on this issue. He would like to set a meeting date, provide all the necessary documents, statutes, etc. and also bring the members from the MEGA Board in addition to other staff members that support MEGA to the Council to discuss this topic.

Mayor Clark asked if he proposed February 17^th or 23^rd . Mr. Capote said the 17^th was no longer available. Mr. Crawford had a conflict with the 23^rd. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo suggested the 24^th after Ordinance Review at 7:00 PM.

Member DeRoche could not attend, as he would be in California. He said he had some very strong beliefs when it came to tax abatement but would keep a very open mind. He would do as much research as possible and add any commentary he had in advance.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo thought this was a very timely discussion. She would prefer that whatever the policy might be that it be proactive as opposed to reactive. She thought it would behoove Council while scheduling this meeting for the 24^th to also prepare a press release to be submitted to all of the local newspapers, the Detroit News, Free Press, Novi News, Northville Record and Oakland Press. Also, that it be shown on cable, that the school board is notified and that public input is solicited now as opposed to waiting until the meeting. She felt it was a good idea to engage the public in this discussion because this could have City wide implications in terms of the General Fund in the future.

To schedule a special meeting to discuss the possibilities of a

Member Csordas thought this would be a very timely discussion. Troy City Council was dealing with this as they spoke and it was a considerable embarrassment to them and they might have reversed their decision tonight. He cautioned Council not to put into policy something that would be restrictive but possibly a statement of the City’s position on abatements and deal with them on a case by case basis so we do not lock ourselves into a corner or lock someone else into a corner.

Lorenzo

Mr. Kapelczak said Lyon Township have sent out RFP’s for engineers. He said in the past they had not answered any RFP’s of any bordering cities because of possible conflicts of interests. However, as you can see with Detroit Water and Sewer issues they do get into a lot of conflicts if serving as the engineer on both sides of the border. He said Lyon Township does not have any Detroit Utilities and the road that separates the community is an Oakland County Road and the only issue he saw where there would be a conflict would probably be in the Novi/Lyon Drain if at all. The obvious is if the Council desired he not answer the RFP he would not. He has worked for the City of Novi for the past 23 years. He said it is clearly up to the Council and if they felt there would be any type of a conflict he would not answer the RFP.

Member DeRoche did not feel it was Council’s place to tell Mr. Kapelczak where he could and could not do business and that it had to be his decision. However, his personal opinion was that he did not like the idea of sharing him with an adjoining community or people that Novi did business with. It would definitely be something that he would take into account in the future considerations of who we chose to do business with.

Mr. Kapelczak said he had always discussed these things with Council and appreciated Member DeRoche’s candidness.

Member DeRoche stated he appreciated what Mr. Kapelczak did for the City especially the intensity and volume at which he provided service. He said his opinion might be different if his level of service to the community was an ancillary service similar to other venders but there is dependence on J.C.K. that is not an ancillary service.

Member Crawford felt there was a potential for conflict as a full time consultant for both communities.

Mr. Kapelczak said there did not need to be any action on this item at all. He would accept the comments made.

Klaver as Acting City Manager.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked, regarding this item and the next item regarding the Deputy Clerk, if there would be a compensation adjustment since these individuals would be working in a higher capacity. She felt Council needed to consider this.

Mr. Watson said the motion should be explicit either way. He said the intention of this was that these were going to be acting positions that would be done on an interim basis for a very limited period of time. He thought when the administration forwarded this to the Council it was with the anticipation that there was not going to be any raises associated with that interim position.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if it was possible to have a raise from the point of beginning to the point of another person taking the position?

Mr. Watson said he did not know.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said if Council is asking a person to do a job then it is only fair that they be paid.

Member Crawford felt it would be inappropriate. He understood they would have added responsibility but did not think it was appropriate to pro-rate everytime a Deputy Clerk or Assistant City Manager performs a duty of the manager or the clerk.

Member Bononi not only thought it was appropriate that a person acting in a position, has the title of Acting City Manager or Acting City Clerk it is also entirely appropriate that person receive the remuneration that they deserve under that title. She said it is done in cities everywhere. From the standpoint of the people who are putting them in that position and having enough confidence to put them there and expect them to execute those duties she thought they should be paid for that. She would support those persons who are willing to serve and committing to pick up the leadership role to not only have the title but to be paid for it. She thought it was only fair.

Member DeRoche said the job description of the Deputy City Clerk requires her to act as the City Clerk in the absence of the City Clerk. He asked if it was in the Assistant City Manager’s job description as well? Mr. Klaver said it was. He felt Council might want to consider this at a later date.

Member Bononi said most of us go in for our superior if they are ill, called away or attending meetings for them. There is a difference between doing that and doing it in regard to a vacancy and the fact that the job positions responsibility is now resting with that Assistant City Manager or that City Clerk.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said if it is already in their job description and Council did not have to take action on it these two resolutions would not be before us.

Mayor Clark said it has to be done this way because the City Charter requires it.

Member Bononi asked why this is being scheduled and stated Council already had one Executive Session preceding this regularly scheduled meeting. She thought this was over kill unless it is an emergency then that would be another matter but if it is not then she objects.

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

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo removed this item. She said she pulled this because she wanted to be sure this was not going to be an automatic approval as soon as the Signalization Warrants were met. She wanted this to come back to the Council. She felt another Public Hearing should be held.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said at the request of the Mayor, on January 26^th she attended the second meeting with regard to the north/south State Trunkline that is being proposed. In the packet there was an RFP for Council review. She asked if Council to give their comments to Ms. Bartholomew to fax to R.C.O.C. in the morning. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo would be attending another meeting on Wednesday. At this meeting there will be discussion on a possible mission statement for the north/south Trunkline. She asked Council if there was any Council majority or consensus of opinion on what that mission statement should be?

Member DeRoche thought mission statements should be broad and thoughtful. He said he recognized a need for this and hoped that it would impact Novi. Novi has a substantial stake in where this would be built. He did not think that Novi was the place where it should be built initially. He thought further west of Novi made more sense because it would allow people as development comes to the west to not use our north/south roads to travel through. He said it would not require us to widen the roads and would protect some of the environment. He was confident she would represent the best interests of the City.

Mayor Clark concurred with the comments made by Member DeRoche.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said part 1 of this had been discussed and they are meeting again in March. She said Member Bononi contacted the Rouge Program Office this week and found out there might be money available in terms of a grant funding.

Member Bononi said the information she got would apply to any project similar to this one but not specifically with regard to this one. She said there is residual money left in the Special Needs Funding Category. The remediations of existing problematical storm water situations are prime candidates for receipt of these funds. Generally the funds are awarded to projects that the Storm Water Advisory Group in conjunction with Wayne County Department of Environment felt were good projects that would be a benefit to the community and could be used as educational tools and demonstration projects. The amount of money available is undetermined at this time but she did talk to a R.P.O. representative with regard to bringing a like proposal forward. Whether it would be with each of the municipalities or in a sort of partnership she did not know nor did she know how much money would be available but Council would be talking about those funds in a 50% local match which she felt was attractive. She said because Novi is a Rouge River community and so is the other entity it would be a good fit.

Member Bononi said how these things come apart is that municipalities bring before the Sub-Watershed Advisory Groups a proposal. She did not know how much information existed so that the proposal could come forward as soon as possible or even if that is Councils and the other entities wish to do that. It might be a cost effective way to proceed. She did not know what the total cost of the project would be. The Sub-Watershed Advisory Groups meet once a month, which is usually the third Thursday of the month. If either or both wanted to bring forth a proposal they could do so at that meeting.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said Member Bononi shared information with her that she received at the last meeting she attended regarding this Watershed Group with regard to our NPDS Permit activities. She asked Mr. Nowicki why the Council had not been apprised of this tentative schedule and had not been asked for their input on the public education part of this?

Mr. Nowicki said they had been pursuing the perimeters and all the permit requirements through his department along with the engineers and David Maurice the Data Management Specialist. Mr. Maurice has been putting this together and working with the various Rouge entities.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said Council had never seen this document. Mr. Nowicki said that is correct. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said it has news articles Council was not even aware of. This is our permit and Council needs to have this information. She said in February she did not see enough that was being done and asked what about the Parks & Rec. newsletter, Novi Library newsletter, cable TV and the Web Site. Mr. Nowicki said they were working on all those issues as well as the kiosk. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said it was not listed as one of the items that would be included. Also regarding household hazardous waste, we have September but she understood that Novi was participating in the spring with another community?

Mr. Nowicki said we routinely participate with other communities. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said that should be down here in terms of whenever that month is. Mr. Nowicki said he did not think it had and he had just firmed up the date.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo thought all of Council should be given the document and she would appreciate a presentation at the February 28^th meeting.

Mayor Clark said Mr. Ingmire had made a number of complaints to the City and Mr. Watson had not been notified to investigate this.

Mr. Watson said normally whether it is the Police Department or the Ordinance Officers in the Building Department they do not come to the Attorneys unless they have a particular case where they have a particular concern as to whether something violated the ordinance or not. The only time they talk with the attorneys is when they have specific questions. It is not unusual that he would not have investigated. The Building Department has reviewed this matter over a period of time and had made certain judgements on how they decided to proceed. He requested direction as to once that evaluation is made what the Council wants done.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo thought the first step was to evaluate complaints in terms of whether there is evidence and then go from there. She was concerned with not only how the Building Department handled this but also with the responses from Linda Lemke and J.C.K. Particularly after having received the attorney’s opinion. If there are woodland/wetland provisions that prohibit any dumping activities in these areas then that is what should have been told to the homeowners. She felt the responses from the consultants was weak and should have been forthright. They should have said it was not allowed in the ordinance and should not be done.

Member Crawford thought the situation was resolved.

Mr. Watson said the Department had discussed it with the people who had committed the violations, the homeowners association and advised the people who allegedly committed the violations that they are not to be dumping there anymore. The homeowners association in response to contact by the Building Department has also informed all the homeowners. The Department and the homeowners association hoped that would resolve the situation.

Member Crawford said it sounded like it had been resolved and asked why it was being pursued any further. What would be the purpose of an investigation and what would be done after that?

Mayor Clark said nothing would be done. They were just asking them to review the situation.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said whether there was sufficient evidence to do anything at the time.

Member Crawford asked to who? Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said to the alleged offenders. He asked if this was a major issue. Somebody raked some leaves into some woodland. Are you suggesting possible prosecution of the residents for doing this? He asked if that was the intent of her inquiry?

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said to see if there was sufficient evidence at the time.

Member Crawford said if there was sufficient evidence at the time do we take to court some residents for raking leaves in the woodlands or what.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said it would be decided when it came to that. Her purpose was to find out and the Building Department should have been handling it.

Member Crawford said it sounded like the situation had been resolved and he did not understand the point of continuing it particularly if the intent is to prosecute some residents. That does not make any sense. It sounds like a minor problem that has been resolved. People understand how to handle it in the future and he did not see any need to continue anything else on it.

Member Bononi said the ultimate lesson learned in this situation is that selective enforcement of ordinances never works and no one is ever happy with it. She said interpretations vary from person to person when there isn’t a forthright interpretation of what the ordinance said. She felt these two ordinances are clear and felt it might be time to shine a spotlight on that. Also to look at how these things are done, verify and emphasize that our laws are our laws and if not in compliance expect to have sure and swift notification. If that is what comes out of this then it is a good thing.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said there are two letters sent to these homeowners from our consultants that basically condone what was being done. She wants letters sent to those homeowners telling them that there are woodland/wetland regulations that prohibit dumping and that the previous information was incorrect.

Member Crawford stated he did not see a need to continue.

Member DeRoche asked if she just wanted Mr. Watson to give them the raw analysis as our representative that does our legal interpretations. He did not see any harm in that.

________________________________ ______________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Nancy Reutter, Deputy City Clerk

Transcribed by: ___________________

Charlene Mc Lean

Date approved: February 28, 2000