REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI

 MONDAY, JULY 10, 2000, AT 7:30 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBERS – NOVI CIVIC CENTER – 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

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

ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, Mayor ProTem Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo, Council Members Bononi, absent/excused, Crawford, Csordas, DeRoche and Kramer

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo requested a verbal report regarding the CVS/Arbor situation under Department Reports or Mayor and Council Issues.

Mark Sturing, Building Authority, updated Council on the status of the Novi Senior Citizens Housing Development. Rodney Lockwood Construction was selected as the general contractor. Because of cost savings and their lower bid the original cost projection was reduced by about one million dollars. $15,300,000 in bonds were issued last summer and site improvements began in the fall of 1999. The development will consist of 175 units with 115 units in a central building and 60 units in ranch type buildings around the perimeter and a large meeting room for senior activities. The construction is progressing well and methane gas testing and extra excavations have been taken to assure a safe site. Extensive cooperation has been received from Singh Development regarding the extension of the sanitary sewer line, which would allow an earlier and less expensive connection to that sewer line. Their target is the first ranch units by the end of the year and the main building in the summer of 2001.

Preliminary site work and the pond is complete, foundations are in for the main building, framing is in process on the ranch units, the underground utilities are in and at the building locations, the first coat of the road is in and the curbs are in. The interior decorator, Innerspace Designs, provided a wonderful color scheme, which is on display along with elevation of the building and the logo.

Proposed policies and guidelines for operation and tenant selection are near completion. They are going to solicit input from the management company and their recommendations would be before Council later this evening.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked what the serious issues mentioned by Mr. Klaver in the minutes of June 29^th, were and if they had been resolved?

Mr. Klaver said they were issues that dealt with the management company and would be before Council tonight. Those issues dealt with a payment request for the additional excavation that Mr. Sturing mentioned and they were resolved.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if there was someone overseeing the construction on a regular basis?

Mr. Klaver commented he had been monitoring the construction and perusing the request for payments. There will be a project manager, building inspectors and the architect’s contract required them to monitor the construction.

Mayor Clark noted the appointments to various Boards and Commissions would be on July 24^th.

James Korte, Shawood Lake, stated this had been before Council several times. He spoke regarding the question of the buildable lot, the driveway, utilities and where the house would be put. Since the developer of the property had not advised where the house would be built he asked Council to postpone any major decision until the necessary information was submitted.

Charles Thorpe was present to represent the owner of the property, Mr. Baldridge. Mr. Thorpe rendered drawings revealing the building site would be 20 feet beyond the wires, the roadway would be 20 feet on South Lake. It ran on an angle, which constituted an 18-foot wide continuous easement. It was more than adequate for a 12-foot wide driveway. The proposed elevations of the building site would be 3 feet above the 100-year flood plain and had been looked at by J.C.K. in the past. He advised Council of the property in question and its location and where the utility lines were.

Sara Gray, 133 Maudlin, said vacation would have to be pursued through the Circuit Court under the Subdivision Control Act and requested this be a condition of any vacation at this time. She asked that due diligence be taken regarding elevation to avoid flooding of other properties and if power lines are moved that it be done at the property owners request.

Chris Charnecke stated she lives next to the proposed building site and submitted to Council pictures of what the property looked like after the most recent rain.

This S.A.D. would affect Pleasant Cove and Crown Drive.

Angie Bruder, 195 Pleasant Cove, was at the end of the sewer line and asked if they had to be included? Mr. Nowicki responded the project was in close proximity of the property and it would be included in the district. Ms. Bruder stated her home is seven years old and she did not want this added expense. She asked if there was more than one cost estimate and if it would be added on to their mortgage. Mr. Nowicki advised her the cost would be added on through their tax bill. The cost was typically determined on a tap basis or front footage. This one was on a per tap basis. The entire cost of the project was determined and then it was split up per benefiting property. The City would competitively bid it and the low qualified bidder would be taken. Ms. Bruder asked if they had to accept this? Mr. Nowicki replied the project could be shortened and the parcel excluded. However, from an environmental aspect it would not be the best way to go. Environmentally the S.A.D. is the sound and safest thing to do but it would be Council’s decision whether to shorten the project or not.

Mayor Clark noted this would have to be done eventually and would be more expensive in the future and being tied into City water and sewer would enhance the value of their property substantially.

Lavern Reinke, 165 Pleasant Cove Drive, felt the area should be covered all at one time.

Mr. Nowicki advised this was the final public hearing for S.A.D. 155. It included the Fountain Walk development project, widening 12 Mile from Husky through MacDonalds to a four lane boulevard section, widening along Novi Road, perimeter roadways adjacent to West Oaks Mall, new exit ramp lane off of I-96 to Novi Road and various other improvements. It would also provide SCATS traffic signals, decorative mast arm traffic signal supports and underground utilities at the intersection of 12 Mile and Novi Road. Upon adoption of Resolution #7, this becomes a project and staff and consultants are ready to proceed.

This project would be a direct benefit to Buffington Drive, Pembine and Henning.

Leslie Withrow, 1207 Pembine, supported the project.

Peggy Walk, 210 Buffington, expressed concern about the cost and asked Council to find out the exact cost before deciding this issue. Mr. Nowicki advised they would not have to tie in now and there were financing mechanisms available for hardship cases through the Assessing Department and Bruce Jerome in Water and Sewer. There will be public informational meetings to explain costs, how they are assessed and the S.A.D. process. The exact final cost would be available at a later date. It would be on the tax bill and could be paid up front or proportionally.

This project would benefit North Haven, Amos, Rexton, Faywood, Lebenta, Ludlow and West Lake Drive.

Mayor Clark received letters from residents. He noted David Boyer, Ronald Johnson, Timothy Richardson, Raymond C. Ott, Tom and Pat Harvey, and Bruce Simon indicated support of the S.A.D. John Harvey was present and also supported S.A.D. 159 and S.A.D. 160.

Marie Maloney, Ms. Reynolds, Herman and Darlene Noble and Donna Oliver did not support the S.A.D. as it would be an extreme financial hardship, felt it was not needed, the information given was not correct, concerned about speeding, environmental issues on the lake and losing property to the roads. There was also concern that residents would be driven out to make room for larger homes.

Mayor Clark noted that if a majority of the residents were opposed, Council would stop the process.

Ray Smith, 140 North Haven, asked what stage this project was in? Mr. Nowicki responded it was Resolution #3 of seven. Mr. Smith asked how the assessment would be broken out and was the assessment linked to the property or could it be passed on to subsequent owners of the property? Mr. Watson said when an S.A.D. was created a lien was put on the property. Typically, when the property sold the new owner refinanced and the lending institution would require that the S.A.D. be paid off and rolled into the amount of the loan. Mr. Smith asked if there were any City funds available? Mr. Helwig said there were no funds available now. Member DeRoche noted there were Council members interested in possibly including this in the road bond.

Mark Myer, 216 Faywood, expressed concern about actual costs of installing the water main and requested homeowners are notified about the cost of hooking up from the street to the home. He was also concerned about the need to use copper to bring the water lines to the home. Mr. Nowicki replied they could provide costs at the next information meeting.

Douglas Calvert, 180 North Haven, asked why the City was not willing to share in the expense and if unused road funds could be used? Mayor Clark reminded all concerned that this would not be binding on anyone until Resolution #7 was approved. Mr. Nowicki said this is a resident driven project and required 51% of the SEV in the district. Mr. Watson said the 51% was the number of petitioners it took to get the process started. Ultimately, it was up to Council whether the last Resolution establishing the S.A.D. would be adopted. It required a vote of five Council Members. Mr. Calvert felt Council should heavily consider the wants of those in the community. The petition was not signed for or against the S.A.D. but only to solicit costs. Mayor Clark noted this is the part of the process where costs are determined. Mr. Calvert asked how it would affect their assessments and was advised by Mr. Nowicki that assessments were based on sales of property in the area.

Member Crawford felt the process itself needed to be included in notifications to the residents. If there is such a document, it needed to be out in Council Chambers and mailed to residents.

Mike Monpetit, 131 Rexton, was in favor of improving water and roads because it would add value to the neighborhood. He asked if the total was equally divided among the homes? Mr. Watson stated the basis for apportioning a Special Assessment was supposed to be by the same proportion as the properties are benefited from the improvements. Water and Sewer improvements are usually done on a tap basis, which is per lot or per house on an equal basis. The road might be more complicated but was something that would be determined several resolutions down the road when the City Assessor got the final plans and final cost. He would make an evaluation as to how to spread the roll and then it would be brought back to City Council.

William Curtis, 1320 W. Lake Drive, felt the homes were too close together and their most important need was fire protection.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo felt these concerns should prompt an informational meeting sooner than later.

Member Crawford suggested Council pull this off the agenda and ask that staff survey that area to obtain a true feeling of whether people want to go forward or not. The residents initiated this but if the majority did not want it Council would not proceed any further.

Member DeRoche noted there were people who were in favor of this and Council needed to re-assess who was for and who was against this. It should have been worked out as a neighborhood before Council took action. At the next informational meeting green and red cards should be handed out and when everyone was clear on the information given they would return the green (GO) or red (STOP) cards with their name to denote where they stand on the project.

Michael Vogt, 120 Rexton, did not know if he was for or against the project but supported the investigation stage and felt it was important to find out what the engineering and cost was.

Larry Luchi, 1501 West Lake Dr., stated the notice solicited objections and felt it should be changed to hear comments and objections. He felt more information was needed.

Member Csordas concurred that the notice had to be changed immediately.

John Harvey who started the petitions and the process did it to get questions and concerns answered. He asked that their concerns not be taken lightly and he apologized if he was misleading in any way.

Ernie Schlager, 1419 West Lake Drive, asked if the City was two years away from the Master Plan of getting water and sewer to oldest neighborhood paying taxes? Member Kramer responded that city infrastructure was put in and maintained by the developer in the newer homes. They would have to, as a community, come together and put in the basic infrastructure and the city would maintain it.

This proposed S.A.D. involved the construction of about 6,500 feet of residential streets. It contains North Haven, Amos, Rexton, Faywood, Lebenta, Ludlow and West Lake Drive.

Herman and Darlene M. Noble, 149 North Haven, opposed the S.A.D. and felt the information given was not correct and this was not needed.

Brian Kocian, 1523 West Lake Drive, said he moved onto a gravel road in 1997 and his taxes were $1,123 and now, living on the same gravel road, his taxes are $5,177. He asked that his road be included on the upcoming road bond issue whether the water issue went through or not. He asked how to get it on the road bond issue and how it worked with the November election and the Resolution period timing?

Mr. Helwig responded they have been trying to convene a number of neighborhood focus groups for their input during June and July to get community input as to what the priorities are for road improvements in Novi. This information would then be shared with Council and if possible have them make a decision to have it certified properly before August 29^th for placement on the November 7^th ballot. Tonight, Council would be asked to set a work session to discuss this. In those discussions they would decide how far reaching the road improvements would be and whether they would improve unpaved streets or maintain what had already been paved.

The S.A.D. process for road paving would go well past November before it would reach any type of conclusion and could be ended along the way. Mr. Kocian asked how they should let Council know they would like to see the paving of these roads on that road bond issue? Mr. Helwig said they were doing it tonight, contact staff and Council and send in information any way they saw fit.

Mr. Kocian supported the project and the improvements proposed today. However, it is important to utilize road bonds for not only assisting a for profit developer who comes and goes but for the residents who are here for the long haul.

Marie Watkins, 330 Ludlow, felt the water should be put in before the roads.

Mark Myer questioned why it had to be a 24-foot wide road as he recently saw a subdivision that had a paved width of 19 feet? Mr. Nowicki advised it was preliminary and engineers did not know how big the right of way was. In this area there have been discussions about narrowing the road and going to one way segments to minimize impacts on surrounding properties. This information would come out during the design process that could be approved under Resolution #3 as well as the public informational meetings. Mr. Myer asked if the road was 19 feet wide would it mandate one way traffic? Mr. Nowicki said not necessarily.

Lori Mc Lean, 1307 West Lake Drive, questioned the design issue regarding drainage where the road has a higher elevation than properties and asked if this would include storm drains? Mr. Nowicki said yes, when the engineers are asked to look at a road project they look at the entire right of way as well as adjacent properties. They would look at enclosed systems or swales. If Council authorized Resolution #3, the engineers would do their detailed survey work and come up with a design. A public informational meeting would be held after that with the residents to seek their input before it went back to Council.

Chuck Blythe, 115 North Haven, requested Council approve Resolution #3 so the informational meetings could be held to find out more about these projects.

Mr. Helwig said there were specified hours of operation associated with this development and if there was to be a change in those hours they must submit for a revised special land use approval. Mr. Saven is eager to enforce that direction and had set up a meeting next week in the neighborhood with Ms. Mitts and her husband. This is the policy that will be enforced.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo received an e-mail on July 8^th and there are some serious issues and serious enforcement is needed. If it means shutting them down then shut them down. Mr. Watson said they could be issued a ticket for violation of their site plan approval. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if they could be shut down? Mr. Watson responded not by going to court. Mr. Helwig wanted to make a personal intervention with the company with Mr. Saven, Mr. Watson, and Ms. Mitts. If that failed, then proceed expeditiously with whatever legal process necessary. Council consensus was noted.

Mr. Helwig introduced Cindy Uglow who has been promoted to Neighborhood Services Coordinator. This new position strengthens our commitment to Novi’s neighborhoods. She will oversee and enhance Code Enforcement efforts, mediate problems and will work with the Neighborhood Services Committee to receive input and solve problems.

Ms. Uglow thanked Council for her new position and advised that at the Council meeting of July 24^th, from 6:30 to 7:30 PM she would be available in the atrium with the Ordinances, business cards of the departments heads, etc. and would answer questions.

Mr. Helwig announced that Craig Klaver would be the new Chief Operating Officer. He would devote his full time to knitting the departments together and helping to raise the responsiveness and performance level of this government in accordance with Council’s policy direction and the needs of the community.

Mr. Klaver stated being the Assistant Manager/ Human Resource Director for 19 years at Novi had been a marvelous career opportunity. However, he was enthusiastic about this new opportunity and thanked Mr. Helwig for his appointment and pledged he would address this with every bit of his abilities and enthusiasm.

Mayor Clark noted he felt very fortunate to have Mr. Klaver on the team with Mr. Helwig.

Mr. Nowicki updated Council on the East Lake Dr. paving and water main extension projects. Before Council was a recommendation for award to the low bidder. If approved they could move the project forward with an anticipated start date approximately the end of July or beginning of August with a completion date of November 15^th for the entire project. The project consists of two ten-foot wide lanes with two six-foot wide bike lanes on each side complete with reflectorized markers. They were investigating colorizing the pavement to provide more of a traffic calming affect and further identify the bike lane. The water main is 12 inches between Thirteen and Fourteen Mile Roads and would provide an added measure of safety and provide access to area residents to water. There have been positive and supportive comments from the residents on this project.

The Neighborhood Street Repair Program has been expanded by approximately $1.3 to $1.4 million. The bids have been awarded and the anticipated completion date is August 30^th. It would include Meadowbrook Glens, Westridge Lane, Country Place, Willowbrook #2, Village Wood Dr., Cranbrooke Drive, along with Nine Mile Road intersection improvements, Vincenti, Timber Ridge, Civic Center bike path and work at the Fire Station. They have discussed schedules with all of the residents of these areas, provided them with contact persons and introduced them to the head inspectors of the project.

Cindy Gronachon, 21668 Garfield Rd., regarding final plat of Park Place Subdivision, noted residents were opposed connecting to Deer Run. It is a cul-de-sac and a through street was proposed but was changed to emergency access only. Because this was going for final plat approval she was present to make sure everyone was on the same page with a breakaway gate and with grass pavers. She distributed pictures regarding this item and noted that traffic has been driving through even though the gate was installed. Her concern was if this was not addressed and included in the final plat approval it would be overlooked and the grass pavers and breakaway gate would not be installed. Presently there is gravel there and a gate, which is not what the residents agreed to. She would appreciate any assistance from Council.

Nancy Mitts and Lareta Roder, noted the situation regarding CVS has gone on for 5 years. Arbor cooperated but CVS has not and has stated they could do whatever they want; she asked Council to show them they can’t. CVS fans are still being turned on at 5:00 a.m. and off at 4:00 p.m. Phase I has intake fans running at low speed and no noise. Phase II was supposed to be the same and all mechanical was to be on the roof. CVS has installed 15 71/2 horsepower fans, 6 foot by 6 foot on the back of the building that exhausted into the neighborhood. All 15 fans run at top speed constantly. The Planning Commission tried to stop the noise intrusion and Mr. Watson had requested limiting their hours of operation. The building code stated there was to be nothing on the back of the building abutting residential. The level of noise is equivalent to being in a room with a vacuum cleaner running non-stop for twelve hours. There is a diesel smell coming from the trucks and they are just bad neighbors. Three neighbors have moved out and they asked Council for a permanent solution as soon as possible.

Paul Sherbeck, Simmons Orchard Subdivision, applauded Mayor Clarks Audience Participation policy. He felt local government was poised to give a tax abatement to the Novi Expo Center and it would mean a defacto tax increase to the residents. He suggested striking the letter "L" from the tax abatement policy. It required that an abatement candidate must be a good neighbor and Novi Expo would not be a good neighbor because they threatened to leave Novi if abatement was not granted. He asked Council to rescind the tax abatement policy and replace it with a policy of reducing local taxes and regulations. He requested Council initiate a joint resolution with Troy and Farmington Hills and others rejecting tax abatements as a means for economic development.

Lisa Blasiola, 22747 Clearwater Ct., President Novi Jaycees noted their Meet the Candidates Night took an award for #2 in the country for a government involved project. She Invited citizens to membership meetings at 7:00 p.m. on second Monday of each month. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo was asked to write an article for their newsletter about city government working with community groups. Ms. Blasiola asked that the City of Novi allow a haunted house this year and requested a location and donations for it. Their Distinguished Service Awards would be presented September 23, 2000 probably at Vic’s Market.

Ginger Barrons, 24425 Glenda, reported she had asked for help two months ago with the process of getting rid of a white house across from her rental. It is now in the process of being torn down and she was very pleased and thanked the Building Department for persuading the owner to tear it down. She was concerned that there was no process in the ordinance regarding this.

As the owner of Red Carpet Kiem, she stated, regarding the S.A.D.’s, she hoped the residents would not overlook the fact that it was early in the process and Council would listen and stop the process if necessary. Also, as a resident in a homestead situation, regarding water and paved streets there is a cap and it would not increase their taxes because the new sales would take a period of time to happen before those values climbed.

Regarding how this would be handled, when the home was sold the homeowner would disclose their taxes and that it included an S.A.D. that would be passed onto the buyer. The new mortgage company would not require it to be paid off as it would just be part of the tax bill. The City still takes the SEV of the properties as the weight of the vote of the homeowner. She felt there should be a parcel vote rather than the weight of the new homes because they are newer and have a higher SEV. It happened to newer homes and sometimes prevented older homes from getting those services.

Jim Sproule, Karen Cortes and Linda Wash opposed Rezoning Map Amendment 18.600 and were pleased to see the Planning Commission recommended R-2. Concerns regarded any change in density levels for R-2, potential flooding, flooding of wetlands, loss of trees, drainage, traffic gridlock and property values if R-4 was allowed. There was also concern regarding the number of subdivisions connected to Haverhill Subdivision. A request was made that the property along 18.600 be purchased by the City and if the developer had a plan for controlling flood waters that there be indemnification for any cost incurred if it did not happen. There were 148 objections received by the City and only two responses in favor.

Jim Utley, President Walton Woods, spoke again about trees planted with root balls and excess water problems. He requested a report on how this issue would be addressed.

Peggy Walk and Mark Barckholtz opposed South Lake Drive closure. Concerns were that It was not well publicized, access for emergency vehicles, did not want to drive around the lake to get out or use West Park Drive and installation of new fence in Mr. Barckholtz’s driveway. Also, the traffic light at South Lake and West Lake Drive needed to be there but requested, during off peak hours, right turns on red be allowed and on the weekends it be a blinker so left hand turns could be made.

Rick Grassel, representing Lakeview Market and Kassab Investment Company, was present to address the Erma Street vacation. They felt it was important to update Council on their efforts since June 5^th when the vacation was approved. The concerns expressed then are the same as now, ingress, egress and parking to provide access to delivery trucks. He had been working with Mr. Watson and Mr. Nowicki to see if other solutions could be reached. They discussed exploring an issue regarding licensed parking within the right-of-way so parking could continue and for commercial delivery during certain times of day. In exchange the Kassab’s would pave the right of way at their expense to show good faith. Other options included having a Civil Engineer, at their expense, review half the right of way, which would be deeded to them if the area was vacated and to explore whether that would provide sufficient space to allow commercial ingress/egress and parking. Member Csordas had proposed they wait until July 24^th to make a decision on this issue. Unfortunately, the final resolution may take a little longer than two weeks and he hoped they could get something in place by July 24^th. They supported a delay in this matter until at least July 24^th and if Council was so inclined maybe for 4-6 weeks.

Jim Korte, regarding Erma St., stated Council was petitioned two weeks ago that the owners could purchase or negotiate land for the improvement of the site. He discussed this with George Jacob and no one had been in touch with him and Mr. Jacob said the land was not for sale. Mr. Korte talked with the owner of 170 Erma and no one had contacted him either and he also stated the property was not for sale. Mr. Korte said the 12 feet on the north side of the building could be used as a one way and there was 23 feet on the south side of the building that could be used for ingress or egress. If the postponement was for negotiations and land, someone was not telling the truth because they had not contacted anyone. He asked that Erma be vacated and requested a change in temperature in the Council Chambers.

Sarah Gray, spoke with Mr. Jacob and noted no one had contacted him to buy property. She asked that they use the back of their property legally. She hoped that when the East Lake Drive construction was redone traffic would be encouraged to use Decker/Novi instead of South Lake Drive. The lights should be changed during off-peak hours.

Valerie Duarard spoke about the ABC Cab request for an increase in fares due to increase in gas prices, tires, insurance, dumpsters, help wanted ads, etc. The last rate increase was in 1995. Royal Oak Cab was voted a rate increase of $1.00 flag throw and $2.50 a mile and Southfield received $1.90 flag throw and $1.90 a mile. They were asking for a $2.00 flag throw and $2.00 a mile.

Jim Pfitzen, Andrwczak-Pfitzen Construction, was concerned about two of the bids deemed non-responsive at the time he was low bidder. They spoke with JCK about budget restraints and discussed cost saving ideas to recycle materials. They saved half million dollars in Dexter by recycling materials. They found out that the city decided to allow the non-responsive bids and didn’t think it was fair that this happened and they spoke with Mr. Watson and they have no legal rights to respond to this bidding process. Tonight it is on the agenda to award it to VIL. He recommended in the future that JCK allow the possibility of submitting alternative ways of saving money. He felt the bids should be thrown out and it should be re-bid.

Dennis Watson explained that the engineers conducted a pre-bid meeting to distribute proposal forms to submit. In this instance, there were photocopy errors in a number of the packets given out to the bidders. VIL was given a packet missing two pages and they submitted their proposal with those two pages missing and because of that it was initially felt that their bid was unresponsive. After inquiry it was determined the two pages were missing was because they were given a bad packet. The ad included a provision that stated the city reserved the right to reject any and all proposals and waive any informalities or irregularities in any proposal. JCK contacted the bidders asking them if they wanted to correct the bids by adding the missing pages. They did and they were the low bidder.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo pulled Item #10 and asked that it be postponed until July 24^th.

Member Crawford pulled Item #16.

Absent: Bononi

1. Approve Minutes of:

a. June 12, 2000, Regular Meeting

b. June 19, 2000, Regular Meeting

2. Approval of Conservation Easement for Island Lake of Novi RUD

3. Approval of Resolution No. 3 – Special Assessment District #159, Lake Wall, John Hawthorn’s Subdivision 1 & 2 and Supervisor’s Plat No. 2 Water Main Extension

4. Approval of Resolution No. 3 – Special Assessment District #160, Lake Wall, John Hawthorn’s Subdivision 1 & 2 and Supervisor’s Plat No. 2 Street Paving

5. Adoption of Ordinance 2000-23.18-An ordinance to amend Section 22-36 of the Novi Code of Ordinances, to revise the penalties for excessive false alarms – 1^st Reading

6. Adoption of Ordinance 2000-100.28-An ordinance to amend the definitions of "Business Sign", "Entranceway Sign" and "Identification Sign" within Section 28-1 of the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, and to amend Subpart 28-6(3) k of said Code of Ordinances, to revise the requirements for business, entranceway and identification signs within the City of Novi – 1^st Reading

7. Approval of Zoning Text Amendment 18.161, an Ordinance to amend Subpart 2503.2E(2) of Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to revise the height limitations pertaining to roof top appurtenances – 2^nd Reading & Adoption

8. Approval of Final Pay Estimate and Change Order, in the amount of $43,398.34, to T & M Asphalt, for the Civic Center parking Lot Improvement project

9. Approval of Resolution for the Reprogramming of Community Development Block Grant Funds

11. Adoption of Authorizing Resolution: Music and Motor Festival Car Cruise.

12. Approval of Traffic Control Orders 00-49 through 00-70; Chase Farms Subdivision.

13. Acceptance of various Driveway Grading Permits for the East Lake Drive Paving and Water Main Extension Projects.

14. Award bid for water service materials to S.L.C. Meter Service, low bidder, in the amount of $63,353.50.

15. Award bid for soft K copper water tubing to Etna Supply, low bidder, in the amount of $24,600.

17. Approval of E-Mail/Internet Policy

18. Approval to enlist the services of the Par Group to conduct a candidate search for a Department of Public Works Superintendent and for a Planning Official.

19. Approval of Budget Amendment 2001-01 Police Computers and Administrative Salaries

20. Approval of Claims and Accounts: Warrant No. 575

Member Kramer asked what happened on the 24^th. Mr. Watson said it would go into effect.

Member Kramer questioned whether the bids would be good for a project in 2001.

Mr. Helwig said bids would not be taken until next spring.

Member Kramer wondered if it would be reasonable to support an increase but have it reviewed periodically or make it proportional to the gas prices.

Mr. Klaver said not many cities had regulations and not all licensed cabs. They found two other communities and only one who had recently changed rates. Member Kramer would support a level of increase due to economics but would not support $2.00/$2.00 tonight.

Member DeRoche would support the increase but did not think it was the proper role of government to regulate the fares and wanted the administration to recommend Council not do this.

Member Kramer supported Ordinance Review looking at this.

Nays: Kramer, Crawford

Bob Laketon, Planner and Landscape Architect from Ann Arbor, noted changes in development over the last few years. He felt it was a transitional site and an argument could be made for higher than R-4 Zoning. Display maps were shown. The property is only 345 feet wide and R-2 lots are 110’ by 164’ and lots could not be put on both sides of the road. Therefore, it would not be economically feasible. R-3 zoning would work from a dimensional standing because the lots are 134 foot deep with no curve in the road. The next display showed the lot depth of 125 feet and would allow a curve in the road, allow for flexibility and depth and still connect through to the adjacent property. They were not asking for increased density.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo spoke with Mr. Arroyo and asked if this parcel would meet the criteria of the Preservation Option. Similarly, Haverhill was either developed under Preservation Option or adjusted lot size. It was rezoned from RA to R-1 and received credits to move up to R-2 or R-3.

Mr. Arroyo noted questions were raised at the Planning Commission meeting about exactly how much of this property was regulated woodlands. They found that when the City G.I.S. Department converted over the woodlands map it did not transfer through correctly. He said the G.I.S. map showed approximately 40% woodlands on the site. Ms. Lemke felt that number was probably less and a lot of the area shown might not qualify as woodlands. There is a chance it could be up to 20%, which would allow a 20% reduction in lot area under a Preservation Option. R-A would bring them down to 34,848 and R-2 would take them from 18,000 to 14,400, which is somewhere between R-2 and R-3.

Member Kramer noted they needed to continue looking for more innovative proposals.

Member Kramer stated he understood the concerns of the Haverhill residents and felt they were site plan concerns; he encouraged them to stay in touch with the Planning Department and stay connected with the process and express their concerns.

Chief Shaeffer brought forward for Council consideration a set of proposals that would further the cause and for Council consideration of the labor agreement that had been tentatively worked out. It is a five-year contract. The wages are 3% retroactive the first year, 3% the second and third year, 3.25% the fourth year and 3.5% in the final year of the contract. It eliminated longevity for all new hires and the first step of the five-step raise process would be eliminated raising the starting pay to the second level in the five-step process. This would give them the opportunity to compete for qualified applicants more effectively.

The contract included a restrictive duty policy that had been ratified with the other employee groups. It included a drug testing policy and a benefit increase to the retirement system, which employees would fund. Tuition reimbursement would be increased to $750.00 annually. It would increase vacation time and bring it up to the same level as the Command Officers have and was comparable to surrounding communities. The residency requirement would be increased to allow officers to live up to 30 miles away from the city.

Badges and firearms would be awarded to officers when they retired. The probation period for new employees would be extended to 12 months from the time they complete all of their training.

Detectives would receive two hours comp time when on call. The Union agreed that the detectives would no longer be on a promotion basis but would be an assignment made by the Chief of Police. Temporary assignments have been limited to two years and are now three years with an extension for an additional year.

Finally, there will be twelve-hour shifts, which will run from 7 AM to 7 PM and 7 PM to 7 AM. The twelve-hour shift would be on a rotating basis and would allow for some weekend end time off. There would also be an evaluation system in place for the twelve-hour shifts. The productivity items such as citations written, number of calls responded to, arrests made, sick leave used, etc. would be counted, monitored and compared with the eight-hour shift standard.

Mr. Klaver noted that on page 15 of the contract, Section 16.3, both effective dates should be June 30, 2004.

Member Kramer was pleased with the contract. Mayor Clark asked that his middle initial be changed to J on the signature page.

Member Csordas’ major concern had been the fatigue of the officers during the original 12 hours shift. However, with the time off this agreement allowed the fatigue factor would be reduced and he was pleased that all of the officers would have the opportunity to have weekends off to spend with their families. He felt this was a tremendous accomplishment, would address the public safety of the city, provide the manpower needed and help the moral of the department.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo would not support the motion, as she was concerned that the proposed company had been in business for only one year and did not want an ice arena situation. She suggested going with the second company that was considered, PM1. They have more experience and are economically in the ballpark. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo made a motion to amend the main motion to prepare a Contract with PM1. There was no support.

Member Crawford felt it was unfair to compare this process and company with the ice arena situation. Comparisons to the ice arena and SandStone have to stop because they are totally unfounded and unfair. The Senior Housing Committee has been working on this since the 1980’s. They are a very dedicated, responsible and knowledgeable committee that reviewed these people and together recommended Premier Management. He felt Council should unanimously accept this recommendation and get on with the senior housing project.

Member Csordas was concerned about the salaries of these companies and asked how many people they were for and if they were annual salaries. He asked if the manager of the facility would have a base salary of $26,800 plus whatever benefits were offered?

Mark Sturing said they were not proposing that this action would determine the salary of the manager of the complex. This was a proposed budget the various companies put in and how much they thought it would cost. It is not indicative of the salary and there would be a budget process that would go forward in terms of the operation, their proposed budget, etc. They thought they could get a manager for $26,000.

Member Csordas asked if he thought they could get a good quality manager for that amount and Mr. Sturing said yes, Premier was made up of a series of individuals who have been in the property management business for 15-20 years. This specific company is relatively new and manages nine properties. They are new but the individuals that are a part of it have been in the management business for 20-25 years.

Mr. Sturing said in their review of references, particularly of Premier, they seem to have a niche of managing for other communities. There is a difference between managing for a private owner and managing for municipalities. Municipalities look for more feedback. Premier received glowing recommendations from Shelby and Clinton Townships where they had previous problems in their housing operations and Premier turned it around. They received better recommendations from their owners than the other companies. Any one of the companies was qualified but Premier offered to do it for $15.00 per unit per month, which was lower than anyone else.

Member Csordas asked what the size of the facilities in Clinton and Shelby Townships were?

Mr. Sturing thought they were about the same general size.

Member Csordas noted he would go along with the motion but thought it would be very hard to find someone for $28,000 to professionally manage the facility. Mr. Sturing advised that some managers would be willing to work for less because they were given a housing unit on site at no cost. Member Csordas asked if they had talked about background checks for the managers and people who would work at the facility? Mr. Sturing said they all do background checks on their employees.

Member Kramer supported the concerns of Member Csordas. He was concerned that there was no maintenance or janitorial shown and asked how they would assure such service? He requested Mr. Sturing bring back information on what their approach would be to these services.

Mr. Sturing said the summary sheet listed five items and Council should have additional information providing their proposed budget in about 35 different categories.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if he would, as legal counsel for the Beztak Corp., make them the same recommendation. Mr. Sturing said he would recommend Premier without reservation.

They looked for the lowest bid and would not accept the lowest bid from someone they thought unqualified. Secondly, Premire managed nine companies and the others manage 30-40; perhaps when managing nine or ten more attention would be given to each property.

Mayor Clark noted he had serious concerns about this proposal. He did not think quality could be bought for $28,000. He said Ms. Smith-Roy felt it was a risk because it was a new company. He would not support the motion until more questions were answered.

Member Csordas was concerned that the numbers didn’t match and concurred with Mayor Clark.

Member DeRoche was persuaded this should go back to the committee.

Member Crawford was unbelievably and extremely disappointed about the direction Council had taken. The committee had worked countless hours and numerous days to make a recommendation. If Council decided to table, postpone or delay this he suggested they disband the committee and consider it a Committee of the Whole. If Council did not want to take the recommendation of a committee that had worked diligently on this then why have the committee in the first place. The concerns brought up tonight could come back and were probably in their report. This committee has worked for many, many years to bring this to fruition.

Mayor Clark agreed with Member Crawford’s comments and said it was not a reflection on the committee. However, it was Council’s responsibility to make the final judgement and to postpone this for two weeks would not make or break the project. The project is under construction and if Premier wanted the contract they would be more than amenable to expeditiously give Council all the information they wanted.

Member Crawford stated Council was not approving Premier tonight; they were approving them to come back with a contract and at that time they could bring back all the other information.

Member DeRoche noted they were not rejecting the recommendation by postponing it.

Member Kramer concurred with Mayor Clark and hoped the committee would not take this as a rejection of their work but as a need for some clarifying information.

Nays: Crawford

Absent: Bononi

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo noted this should be re-bid and would not support the motion.

Mayor Clark said the error was not generated by the applicant but by the City and was a clerical error. He concurred with Mr. Watson’s assessment of how it was handled.

Absent: Bononi

Member Kramer noted this would put into gear a significant improvement of City infrastructure funded by the developer.

Member DeRoche said this was an $18, 435,000 project being funded by a private development. It is almost one year’s budget for the City of Novi, it would pay for two ice arenas in cash, it is approximately $35,000 of the Sand Stone judgement and 65% of the last road bond that some say was voted down because it was too big. To put it in perspective if paying $1,000 a month in tax to the city as a resident or business it would take 18,435 months to make that large of a contribution to the City.

Member Kramer noted DTE Energy was a Marketing Company and was prevented from digging in the right of way; whereas, Detroit Edison was responsible for installing and maintaining infrastructure. Mr. Watson agreed.

Mr. Watson pointed out on page 3, paragraph 10, second sentence should read "the City of Novi

may assign its rights under this agreement to DWSD" period (.) and the rest should be deleted.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo noted Walled Lake was being given a connection and asked what Novi’s cost was? Mr. Nowicki said they would probably connect at a small stub in a valve at the cross at Pontiac Trail.

Dave Potter, JCK, said the cost would be about $7,000; a 16 inch valve would be about $3,000 and a small stub would be about $4,000.

Mr. Helwig noted he was meeting with the City Manager of Walled Lake. They were concerned that Novi uncoupled the senior transportation van component of this. They would proceed with transportation van discussions this Friday and asked Council to bear in mind that this agreement had been modified to exclude any reference to the transportation van issue. This was not the same agreement adopted this spring by Walled Lake.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo felt Council should not be in the business of running van service for the City of Walled Lake.

Member Crawford commented the van program needed to be discussed in a positive sprit; it would be a win/win program for both cities. It would benefit the City of Novi and the City of Walled Lake at a very cost-effective delivery.

Mr. Helwig noted he needed to learn more about their proposal as it was discussed prior to his employment with Novi. Novi had an obligation to review it and he would bring back whatever he found out. Walled Lake would have to take a different action to modify their agreement.

Member Crawford felt it was proper to separate the van from this but hoped Council would be willing to enter into the spirit of the van program.

Members Kramer and DeRoche were unavailable.

Mayor Clark noted they were getting down to the wire with the two counties getting their executives together and doing things their way, which might not be beneficial to either community.

Member Csordas was still opposed to this and did not want Council to write any kind of money to Northville Township for a problem that was clearly not an issue with the City of Novi. $400,000 would be better spent within the City of Novi.

Mayor Clark responded if the two counties put their heads together and Novi does nothing Council would be mandated by the county to spend a lot more money and would have no control over it. By continuing discussions and coming to a conclusion that worked for both cities, with a 40% or 50% grant, the amount Novi contributed would be substantially less than what the two counties mandate as payment.

Member DeRoche concurred and felt that some Council Members had kicked a sleeping dog on and initiated a process they should not have initiated. This Council had not asked the City of Northville to get out of the Chapter 21 process and it was a very large exposure to Novi. Presently, Novi’s empowered by State laws and the City Charter. Council would be conceding power to two counties by entering into this Chapter 21 process and would be outside of an arena where Novi’s legal rights were maximized. It would be unfortunate to pursue paying another City upwards of $400,000 when our own experts advised nothing was owed. A different position should be taken. Council had discussed not getting along with a city that had been trying to get along with us for senior busing and redundant water loops that are to our benefit for $7,000; then on the other hand Council was discussing giving $400,000 to an entity they did not represent. Council and Administration should oppose the Chapter 21 process.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo commented the City of Northville had the right to and did petition for a Chapter 21 Drain. Council has no control over that situation; it is between Northville and Oakland and Wayne County. The drain was established and would have been regardless of her initiating dialogue with the City or Township of Northville. She concurred with Mayor Clark’s comments that they could be at the mercy of both counties if they did not reach a conclusion.

Member DeRoche responded that it was his job to represent the best interests of the citizens of Novi. He could care less about other areas of Oakland County, Wayne County’s government or Northville Township’s government. He addressed the citizens of Novi and said the Chapter 21 process should be opposed because it was not in their best interest. Citizens should be aware of Council’s reluctance to oppose it and that members elected to represent them are selling their interests short.

Mayor Clark noted the two counties had initiated the process and Council had no control over it already.

Member DeRoche said there was a motion at the last Council meeting that specifically said Council wanted to put them on notice the Novi City Council was against the Chapter 21 process and it was voted down. The opportunity was present to go on the record as being against it and Council failed to do it.

Mayor Clark said at the last meeting in Northville Township those concerns were placed on the record and are in their minutes. They know Novi has no burning desire for a Chapter 21 but it is out of our control.

Mr. Helwig requested this meeting be held in July in order to get Council’s direction and keep their options open for a possible fall ballot issue. Legislation needed to be adopted by August 14^th.

Mayor Clark commented the meeting would be in Council Chambers and on cable.

To schedule a Special Meeting to discuss Road Bond Issues on July

Member Crawford felt this was extremely restrictive. It seemed that a consultant, such as a City Attorney, could not hire their son, daughter, mother or father. The Parks and Recreation Department could not hire sons, daughters, etc. for score keepers or referees. A good example would be Ms. Wickert who runs the theatre group might not be able to hire her daughter to direct a play. He assumed that a committee or other body appointed by the Mayor or Council would be a City consultant.

Mr. Watson said consultants themselves would not be a body appointed by City Council. Member Crawford asked if a consultant was a public official? Mr. Watson said the City Attorney certainly was but the other consultants would not be because the City Attorney was one of the Charter provisions along with the finance director, assessor, etc. Mr. Watson offered to return with comments regarding this.

Letter from Bruce A. Simon, dated June 19, 2000, Re: SAD Resolution #2-Lake Wall, John Hawthorne’s Subdivision 1 & 2 and Supervisor’s Plat #2 Street Paving-SAD #160 & Water Main Extension-SAD #159

Letter from Dennis Watson, City Attorney, Re: Report on CVS violations

E-mail regarding South Lake Drive Cul-de-sac

Letter of Thanks to DPS Nowicki from Chase Farms Homeowners Association 6-23-00

Letter from Mayor Clark opposing Public Access-Walled Lake

Letter from Jim Korte – Closing of South Lake Drive

Letter from Jim Korte – Vacation of Erma – Commercial Portion

Letter from Raymond and Martha Hoyer-S. Lake Dr.

Memo from Rod Arroyo Re: South Lake Drive (community meeting held 6/27/00)

___________________________________ ________________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: ______________________________

Charlene Mc Lean

Date approved: July 24, 2000