REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI  
 MONDAY, JULY 15, 2002 AT 7:30 PM
NOVI CIVIC CENTER – COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 45175 W. TEN MILE RD.

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

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

Mr. Klaver requested that Authorization of the Woodson settlement be added to Matters for Council Action as Item #11A.

Member Lorenzo added "Reschedule Clerk and Manager evaluations" to Mayor and Council Issues.

Member Capello added Pioneer Meadows SAD to Mayor and Council Issues.

Mayor Clark presented a proclamation to Bob McCann and Jane Thomas for their dedication and service to the Music & Motor Fest. Mr. McCann thanked the Council and the nine other volunteers who worked very hard on this event all year long.

2. 2002 as the Year of the Rose

Mayor Clark presented a proclamation to Pat Hibbard proclaiming the Year of the Rose. Ms. Hibbard presented the Mayor and Council with a certificate from the American Rose Society and a bouquet of roses.

Mayor Clark commented that communications were received from William Abraham, 25438 Birchwood indicating their objections, Paul and Diane Flavin, 25126 Birchwoods Drive indicating support and from Georgianne Crist and Walter Damanski, 25489 Birchwoods indicating their objections.

Robert Reav, 25516 Birchwoods Drive, said he was opposed to the special assessment. While watching another meeting where City Council was talking about a special assessment, one Council member said they would represent the citizens if there was 51% of the people living in the subdivision. Mr. Reav said it is 51% of the assessed value not 51% of the citizens.

would be for just the water and it was half of what the numbers were that were given to her

three weeks ago.

Effie Waldo, 24895 Dinser Drive, said they sent a letter to all the Council members at last

months meeting stating they objected to and didn’t want to be a part of this assessment and

that they were not a part of Birchwoods Subdivision. She wanted to know what to do to get

their name removed from the list.

Tim Sullivan, 25412 Birchwoods Dr., said he was in favor of the SAD as the water quality from the wells is terrible and he thought to keep pace with the development around them, City water would be advantageous if they sold their home in the future.

The Public Hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m.

Member Csordas said there was a memo in the packets regarding the fire station that is being built. He stopped by to see what was going on and it’s really a mess. He wanted to know what was going on and requested a report at every meeting on its status and progress because there is a big security issue there, it has been too long and progress needed to be made.

He said he had asked for the summary plan descriptions of the health care plans and their premiums a couple months ago and would like that information by the next meeting.

Mr. McCusker noted there has been a drought situation for some time and Detroit did not step up to the plate until July 11^th at 4:30 p.m. when a fax was received saying they would finally support a moratorium on water use during certain times of day. We have had two down days in the lower southwest part of town where it got into the 20 psi range. Pressures have been going back up at night and we really haven’t had problems

yet. The moratorium is from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and Detroit requested no water use during those hours. The odd and even day watering would continue but was now mandatory instead of voluntary.

Mr. Fisher said they had made, relatively early, a positive move and advancement in connection with the implementation of the Sandstone settlement. As the Council and the public was aware, there was an opportunity in that case of taking a very big step towards saving the additional acres of property by securing $7.75 million to pay Sandstone as a full and final resolution of the insurance claims. That also would relieve the City of further obligation to pursue those claims, which could be somewhat costly. He said they believe, subject to the finalization of paperwork, that they do have a resolution of that matter, whereby, $7.75 million would be put together to pay out on those insurance claims. Until he had the paperwork he would not go into great detail but mentioned that in the interest of taking that large step towards saving the 20 acres, the contribution of the City would be made in the amount of $105,000 of the total of the $7.75 million. He anticipated that that money would be paid forthwith from the Judgment Trust Fund and the amount in there was basically the balance from what was saved in connection with the bid with Waterland Trucking on the remediation project.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi referred to an e-mail Council received from Scott Hallaron, 30361 Balfour Drive that suggested that the City has allowed Northern Equities to remove wetlands and trees because the area was being farmed and no crops had been planted. Mr. Fisher asked to have this situation verified and indicated that he was going further to pursue the matter. She hoped that the Council would look into the matter and find out the circumstances with which the permit was issued and also look into the validity of the claim that the land was being used for farming. Trees and wetland, according to the e-mail, are being removed. Mr. Fisher said they are investigating it and have done a preliminary legal analysis on it. They asked the property owner for additional factual information, that has been provided and now they need to verify it. Then it needs to fit within the structure of the law to determine whether or not the activity is entirely exempt and if not entirely exempt, to the extent it might or might not be exempt. Mr. Fisher said there would be a follow up at the next meeting.

Jim Korte, Shawood Lake, referred to the $8,000 worth of cement put on two properties and 2030 was the property where the cement angled into the garage. Half of that slab was removed and put in and now it goes to the landscape flowerbed area and is totally unacceptable for the second time. One quadrant doesn’t get any water because it is not draining correctly. The City wanted him to do raised flowerbeds to correct their problem. He said that was unacceptable through a letter. The City came out again and suggested he look at the City sidewalks that have a metal banding situation, which worked for the City but was unacceptable for his property. Today he was told that 95% of the water flows correctly, which is bogus. He said he would not accept the slab of cement at 2030 Austin. The step down is not acceptable. This started May 8^th and it is still not down. At 2026 Austin, they did come out and cut out the front and tilt it down. He still was not happy, but the tilt down was acceptable. He said he would accept it if they got the slag that was dumped on the new concrete the second time. It has all been sandblasted which had to be another $1,200 that was put into this project. He was told to wash 2026 down and it is cracking already. No one has parked on the property.

Mr. Korte said the dumpster at Lakeview Market is out of the corral again, which is against all City ordinances and he told the City this was a problem. He understood now that it had to go to site plan review. He said he was looking at a dumpster and this City refused to do anything to deal with the commercial aspects at the north end in a reasonable manner. He asked how long this would go on before this City decided there was a problem and go in the direction of solving the problem.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Klaver for a report on both these problems by the next meeting.

William Roskelly, 16211 Ryland, Redford, said he was present on July 1^st and Council approved a tentative preliminary plat on Avalon Subdivision with 25 lots. On the night the item was tabled he was concerned about this new Interim Interpretation of Storm Water. He has been in the mill for a year and he believed it would be a tremendous hardship if he had to go from the design of a 10-year storm to 100-year storm. He went to the Clerk and said he wanted to bring documents to the Council and in order to do that he was told he would have to get on Communications, which he did. Now, he realized it is on page 4 and he hoped it could come up now on Item 2 of Matters for Council Action. If it doesn’t it is an appeal with dates as to why it has taken him so long. He asked that this be considered in their decision. Mayor Clark said it would be considered with other properties that might be affected.

Robert Reav, 25516 Birchwoods Drive, said his concern was that the Mayor, Council, City Manager and City Attorneys were supposed to be working for the people and were accountable for the action they take. We are talking about $72 million with the Sandstone situation and he had not heard of anyone being held accountable for that situation. There is blame to place on someone. There was a situation where the attorney for the builder and the Judge were law partners and that smacks of impropriety to him and with three attorneys sitting on Council he hoped that would raise some sort of ire. He thought the people had a right to know who was responsible for $72 million. He didn’t care who it was, the people demand an answer. Mr. Reav said for $72 million dollars someone should have gone to jail. He addressed the Mayor and asked if he was planning on taking any action to let the people know who was responsible for this? Mayor Clark said first they would finalize the settlement so there was no impact on any citizen. Mr. Reav said it had already impacted the residents as it has cost them $5,000 per 15,000 households plus parkland. He asked if residents would know who was responsible after this is settled. Mayor Clark commented he was sure it would be addressed.

Joe Sutschek, Chairperson of the Novi Chamber of Commerce E.D.C., commended the City for recognizing changes in the proposed Storm Water Management Ordinance from a 10 year storm to a 100 year storm was a very significant change in the regulations. It was worthy of some interim regulations to recognize the huge difference in what the potential requirements could be. Mr. Sutschek thought it would be appropriate to allow all plans currently filed appropriately with the City to be reviewed under the old ordinance regulations. He also thought it would be appropriate to allow a reasonable length of time beyond that for other projects that are getting very close to being finalized and brought to the City for review to also be reviewed under the old regulations. Real estate development today is extremely

complicated and takes a great deal of time to put the business portion of a real estate development project together. There is also a lot of money involved in engineering, site plans, architectural plans, building elevations and landscaping plans to meet all the requirements of the City of Novi to get a project submitted and properly reviewed. He thought it would be reasonable to provide a time for those projects that are getting close to being finalized to be submitted. It didn’t appear that there was an emergency situation to deal with the storm water management so he thought reasonable measures like these would be appropriate. It would give those people much further away time to re-evaluate their proposal, make the appropriate modifications or baling out of the deal if it turned out that the change made the economics of their projects unworkable.

Jonathan Brateman, 40015 Grand River, supported and echoed the remarks of Mr. Sutschek. Basically it is a question of fair play. When the rules change so dramatically he hoped there would be a mechanism to recognize that when a great deal of work had been done in engineering and architectural work, etc. which determines everything from the beginning, that this new storm water ordinance would allow some mechanism of timing to recognize plans that had already been developed and submitted and not penalize the developer midstream.

John Bowen, 43700 Expo Center Drive, represented Tbon LLC and the Novi Expo Center, with respect to their relocation project and the impact that the storm water management ordinance might have on their project. He said they had met with the City over 50 times to talk about the project and their preliminary site plan with all the engineering, landscape plans, elevations and architectural plans were submitted assuming a 10 year storm event. He said this was dramatic to them and the first time they recognized the potential change was in the comment letters they received back from the Planning Department. To go back at this stage, re-engineer the site and try to accommodate the architectural plans and the engineering to work within this ordinance would be a major hardship on the development and a major hardship on the economics of the project. Mr. Bowen said they had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at this point on these things and a good deal of that would probably be down the drain if forced to comply. He asked Council to accommodate such projects under the old ordinance.

Mark Guidobono, Cambridge Homes, was also a developer who had a site plan in with the City, which is Tuscany Reserve on Eight Mile Road that will be a premier single-family development. They were also concerned with changes in the Storm Water Retention Ordinance. Everything is in, money had been spent on engineering and review fees and he thought it would be fair to take that into consideration when deciding on this issue.

Robert Carson, 300 E. Maple, Birmingham, MI, was present on behalf of Scenic Pines Development, which is also facing the potential change in the storm water detention and its applicability to it. It has been in the planning process for two years and in meeting with his client tonight, it occurred to him that their interests might be better served by allowing one of the principles of his client to speak to this issue. He introduced Marvin Daitch who he thought would explain more clearly what he had gone through these last two years and the difficulties he had faced.

Marvin Daitch, 26600 Telegraph Rd., #190, Southfield, said he had worked with the City since 1980 when he built a shopping center in Novi and he still owned it and the relationship between him and the City had been very good. On July 25, 2000 he started work on Scenic

Pines Estates and has had approximately 13 meetings with the City and consultants. They had tried to do things the right way and had met with staff and consultants at great costs and delays and they were told everything was OK. They tried to accommodate the City’s desire to preserve trees and therefore purchased two houses in front of their site at a cost of $450,000, which were probably worth $225,000, so that the retention pond could be moved to that site and mature trees in the back could be saved. They were never informed of this 100-year detention system and as of June 20, 2002 they were told everything was all right. In fact, when they bought these houses they met with the City and Planning who were very happy they were accommodating the City and working to preserve the woodland area. On June 20^th they found out about the detention change and they are scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on July 24^th and obviously, if this 100 year flood plain is in place, they would lose approximately one third of the proposed units to accommodate this change, which would make this project almost economically unfeasible. This would be a great hardship and an unfair and undue burden would be placed on this project and the long time it had taken to reach this point was not really a practical way of doing business. He hoped the City would consider giving them a grandfathered position in reference to having their site plan in and operating in good faith with the City.

Robert Bondy, candidate for Judge in the 52^nd District Court, addressed the Council regarding election signs. He has signs up in Novi that are 4 x 4 in size or 16 sq. ft. In reading the ordinance, the language was unclear so he met with Mr. Helwig. Mr. Helwig asked for time to discuss this with the City Attorney and then he called Mr. Bondy back and indicated that it would be brought to Council tonight. The ordinance said the signs were not to be more than 6 sq. ft. or not exceed 5 ft. in height. He said his signs were not outside the bounds of the ordinance and noted that when Council discussed this, they might want to think about revising the ordinance. Mr. Bondy said the ordinance allowed placement of the little "banded signs" on public property or anywhere and what you end up with is that you see these everywhere. He suggested looking at that provision because it encouraged candidates to put out blankets of small signs all over the place, which litter the landscape and lose their effectiveness. He said if the Council wanted his signs down, he would do so.

Carol Crawford, 22135 Beck Road, reminded the candidate that his signs were all over the place. They might be larger but she thought a lot of the other candidates in Novi would be offended that the small signs were littering every corner. She felt his signs were littering the entire town. She was offended that he felt his signs were OK because of their size and other candidates were not OK because they were smaller and on corners.

Member Csordas removed Item I.

To approve Consent Agenda Items A-H and J and K.

A. Approve Minutes of July 1, 2002

B. Acceptance of Drainage Easements and two Temporary Construction Easements from Novi Group No. 2, L.L.C. for the South Lake Court Drainage Improvements and West  Park Drive Water Main Extension projects: Parcel No. 50-22-03-154-003.

C. Approval of Agreement with Jeffrey Jenkins and Kimberly Jenkins for construction of a temporary private sanitary sewer line to serve his future residence at 22875 Vasilios Court.

D. Approval of Outdoor Gathering Permit for Ribcracker’s Model Airplane Club to  hold a model radio controlled aircraft show on vacant property west of Wixom  Road and north of Ten Mile Road on July 27 & 28, 2002.

E. Award bid for the Assessment and Transition Plan for the Americans with Disabilities Act, in the amount of $9,234.50, to Access Recreation Group.

F. Approval of Road Commission for Oakland County Winter Maintenance Agreement  2002-2003.

G. Adoption of Resolution No. 1 for Connemara Hills (Kilrush Drive) Subdivision No. 1 Water Main Extension – Special Assessment District No. 165.

H. Adoption of Resolution No. 3 for Birchwoods Subdivision and Delmont Drive Water Main Extension - Special Assessment District No. 164.

J. Approval of Authorizing Resolution for the Music & Motor Festival Car Cruise on  July 28, 2002.

K. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No 627.

Member Capello asked if there was a limitation on the amount of special assessment bonds that could be issued during any calendar year. Mr. Neiman, Bond Attorney, said there was a limit of 3% of the evaluation, which in this case would be about $75 million in theory. He said he had never, in any year, issued close to 3%. There is a limit on these types of bonds of 5% subject to a 10% debt limit. The City has a debt limit of approximately $290 million in theory and this would have to fit within that and it easily does. Member Capello asked how much reserve was left. Mr. Neiman said it was about $216 million. Member Capello asked what was the purpose of this bond. Mr. Neiman said it was to pay a portion of the judgment for Sandstone and it is to defease a portion of the 1993 B bonds that were issued. Member Capello asked if this was going to pay off part of the park bond? Mr. Neiman said yes, it is effectively under Federal R refunding. Member Capello said it would pay off a portion of the park bond and it would be reduced. Mr. Neiman said that’s correct. As of October 1 they would retire $2,295,000 of the park bonds. Mr. Fisher said the net effect on the taxpayers of this bond issue is either advantageous or neutral.

Management Ordinance.

Mayor Clark said this would affect about 50 projects. There are 10 projects that the preliminary plans/plats have been submitted and a site plan has been assigned, there are 8 preliminary plans/plats that have been approved, 24 final plans/plats that were submitted or approved and 1 preliminary plan/plat approved and 6 final plans or plats that were submitted and/or approved.

Member Csordas supported the ordinance, however after voting in support of it, he had become very concerned about the public taking of land retroactively by increasing the need for projects that are in the system. He considered all 50 projects in the system if they spent one meeting or one dollar and felt Council had changed the rules in the middle of these projects. He thought all 50 projects should be waived from the ordinance and any project that has not come in yet would be subject to the ordinance. He commended whoever put together the projects maps as supporting evidence and hoped they were available to the public. He didn’t want to see all 50 of these projects turn into legal actions. He thought, because of the volume of work projects and tremendous growth the City would experience until build out, they were very slow. Slow to respond to the needs of people who would like to develop in the City, Council seemed to put up extremely expensive barriers and he noted the City administration was trying to reduce those costs. He thought the history that was put together was very good and was supported by the map. Member Csordas requested that Council consider his comments and all others. He said the City Attorney’s correspondence had addressed scenarios of legal action. He restated his position regarding excluding all 50 projects from this ordinance.

Member Lorenzo stated the ordinance was adopted to enhance water quality, prevention of pollution and flooding and to comply with Federal mandates that are coming soon. She supported the interim interpretation of this ordinance. She disagreed with most of what the previous speaker had to say except for the two cases that were brought to Council’s attention. There appeared to be a lot of time lag in Planning and she was concerned with what was happening in that department. She said regarding the Avalon subdivision, the plans were submitted on April 1, 2002 and the reviews weren’t completed until May 28^th, almost a month later. She thought the policy was 25 working days and had the project been reviewed in 25 days it would have made the Planning Commission’s agenda earlier and would have been to Council prior to the

adoption of the ordinance. She thought this applicant should be reviewed as someone who had already had preliminary plan approval. Scenic Pines also caused concern regarding time lag in Planning. Council only has the petitioner’s time line so this time line needed to be verified by the Planning staff. According to this the preliminary site plan was re-submitted on April 22^nd and they still hadn’t received City review letters and she found this to be a problem. Member Lorenzo was concerned with what had been done with the planning process. When Mr. Helwig arrived, he suggested looking at in

house staff, which is good except when someone leaves and the City is without a planner. She felt that was a part of the issue. She said apparently the Planning Department changed the review time from 25 to 30 days, which could mean the difference between receiving preliminary and not receiving preliminary. She wouldn’t be opposed to reviewing appeals on a case by case basis but would only be willing to grant the appeals to those who could demonstrate that there was a significant undue lag in our planning process that caused the petitioner to not have the opportunity to receive, at least, preliminary site plan approval prior to the date the ordinance was adopted by Council. Also noted with regard to Novi Expo, she hasn’t received a second review letter from Mr. Arroyo and that made her think the applicant hadn’t responded to all of the items in Mr. Arroyo’s first letter. In circumstances where it is the developer who is causing the time lag, then the onus is on the developer and the applicant. If the City’s at fault, she would be willing to look at it and if there had been a time lag by the City, she would evaluate that project accordingly.

Member Lorenzo said regarding the Expo Center, she was concerned about what that project would have on storm water quality and flooding. A prime example of how things flood was the Miron property, the pipe was too small and the City paid to replace the pipe and she didn’t want to get in that situation again. The ordinance was adopted for important reasons, but if something the City did caused an undue and unjust time lag, and it could be demonstrated, she would consider it. She was willing to let Avalon and Scenic Pines slide as preliminary site plan. She would not consider anyone who had submitted once but had not resubmitted after initial letters.

Member Landry said the change was made to increase the requirements on development in the City and was inherent in the change. Council voted the ordinance in to increase the standards of storm water and it was understood by all that it would be more expensive. Therefore, the claim that this would make the development more expensive doesn’t sway him. However, if there had been detrimental reliance, if there has been true reliance by a developer that has been attempting to work with the City such that it would require a change in the fundamental character of the development, that should be considered. The difficult part would be where to draw the line. He suggested the following changes to the resolution.

Member Landry said then basically if a developer had submitted for preliminary site plan approval, then the ordinance would apply if in the opinion of the City engineer, they wouldn’t have to redesign it but allow them an appeal. If they don’t like the opinion of the City engineer, they could appeal to Council and it would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Member Capello asked if the Storm Water Committee was created for the sole purpose of looking into and possibly adopting a new ordinance?

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated the Storm Water Committee was established for many reasons, not the least of which was the fact that the City of Novi, citywide, has many unresolved drainage issues. Also, regarding the current ordinance, flow is addressed, quantity is addressed but quality is not. Secondarily, the Storm Water Committee was formed in fulfillment of one of the objectives that the City could bring forward as part of the phase 2-storm water permit. It was a multi faceted reason and there was interest in this ordinance and several others but the committee was not established in order to produce this ordinance. Member Capello asked when they began work on it? Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said the first thing the committee did was make themselves familiar and study the Storm Water Master Plan. They investigated the Storm Water Master Plan, the Master Plan of Development and the existing ordinances that related to storm water. From that point they investigated alternatives to the existing regulations.

Mr. Maurice said the first meeting was in April 2001. One of the main functions of the Committee was input to Council on the ordinance drafted by Mr. Fisher. They were to provide input while the ordinance was drafted so they could provide direction to Council and give resident input, as there were seven residents on the Committee.

Member Capello said fairness was on the top of his list and thought detrimental reliance came back to the term of fairness. If someone relied upon an ordinance on the books and expends money, time and effort, then in fairness, Council should not change the ordinance on them during the process unless there’s a compelling reason. As a government, we move slower then we should. He didn’t think administration made the developers aware of upcoming changes to the ordinance or gave them any idea that the Storm Water Ordinance would be changed to the extent that it has requiring a 100-year storm water detention. If developers had known, some might have waited to see what the changes would be. He felt he needed to weigh the fairness factor compared to the effect on the City if these projects were allowed to go forward under the old ordinance. The Miron property wasn’t a good example as it was a lowland area that collected water anyway and putting a house on the property would not stop the water from flowing onto that property. He didn’t see any great detriment to the City if Council allowed any plans submitted for preliminary site plan approval to go under the old ordinance prior to the date the ordinance was adopted, which was May 20^th. Member Capello seconded the motion but said he had a problem with the language of the motion. He didn’t think that a developer that had expended a lot of time and money should be subject by a subjective

decision by the City engineer. He thought putting that type of responsibility on a City employee was unfair to the employee and the process. If he accepted the language at all, he wanted to see "City administration" instead of "City engineer" so that at least management would be making that decision as a whole as opposed to an employee being burdened with that. He was not in favor of giving that subjective decision to City management either but if Council did it as a whole, he was glad that an appeal process was in there. It would be much cleaner if Council took the date, May 20^th, and any plans submitted prior to May 20th would be under the old ordinance and after under the new ordinance. We have to have a cutoff date and the fairness of the cutoff date is the submission date.

He asked Mayor Pro Tem Bononi what the impact was of the water quality portion of the ordinance? He thought that might be something that would be manageable to put into effect now as opposed to having them redesign and re-engineer the actual retention basin. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said when talking about the 100-year storm event, they were talking about an increased size and configuration of the detention pond itself. You would also be talking about water quality treatment in advance of determining what the size of the detention basin would be and that is using the hierarchy of water quality principles. You try to retain as much water on site through running water through swales and vegetated strips and accounting for that in the calculations for the storm water runoff, which was what the engineers would review. Once you have used that hierarchy of best management practices, whatever was left to hold on that site with regard to storm water quantity is what is deposited in the detention basin, which then meters the water out. But the water quality comes when water flows over grass through swales, etc. then ultimately through the forebay. The forebay is a small pond usually rock lined and the water hits it first and has a first cleansing treatment that is a result of the first flush bankful, which is the most contaminated water that runs over the land or through the stream after a storm event. The idea is to hold the water as long as possible, filter as often and completely as possible before it hits that forebay where it gets the last treatment in regard to water quality. It is deposited into the detention basin where it settles to the bottom, filters the pollutants to the bottom of the detention basin and then the cleaner water is metered out slowly. Member Capello asked if the current ordinance required forebays and Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said it did not. The consulting firm was asking for them but it didn’t require them. Member Capello stated he would be more likely to approve the sections of the ordinance that relate to water quality as opposed to the difference between the 10 year and 100 year basin. He felt it was the basin that was creating the re-engineering problems. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said they didn’t see many applicants who were following the hierarchy of practices because it takes more time and effort on how the land would be laid out, creative time with regard to the configuration. To suppose that you wouldn’t look at all of these things, it is just smart land management and people like living in developments that those developments look like, so it’s a win/win.

Member DeRoche commented they were discussing an interim interpretation of the storm water ordinance because of the potential it had to create legal liability to our City and cause potential litigation. He thought it was a responsible thing that this Council and administration had recognized and he wanted to make sure Council wasn’t responsible for creating liabilities for the residents. He thought the concerns, from a legal standpoint, were that it added significant costs to developers. It would take

physical property away from the property owners to accommodate a 10-year to a100 year storm event. Also, he was concerned that this ordinance wasn’t based on scientific

analysis in Novi and he would have liked to have seen the maps from showing what had been happening since 1985. Also, there seems to have been a lack of public notice.

Mr. Klaver noted he would have to check and get back to Council. It was his understanding that it went through the normal notices and the comments this evening were about earlier possible notifications of what was coming forward and he would have to look into this and report back at a later meeting.

Member DeRoche recalled they passed the first ordinance and it came back for tweaking from the Council. Mr. Pearson said the notice requirements were met and it was a first and second reading when they were done. The Storm Water Committee had met on this and he assumed there was a referral from Council so there had to be some knowledge from that process. Member DeRoche noted that while many things have changed, we should treat all property owners the same as to how it would affect their property values and they should receive notice in advance. The upside of this Interim Storm Water Ordinance implementation, that we are considering, it would move the City in the direction of better drainage, and we would be working towards compliance with a Federal mandate and better quality. The downside was that he was still not sure of where we are at with the storm water that was in place over the last 17 years. There have been 100-year events and he didn’t know what effect that had on water quality, lasting damages and what the financial impacts were to correct those. Going back to the maps, he would like to have seen the red x’s with the 100-year event where we were deficient. He felt there was a lack of information provided. He knew this motion tonight was to avoid legal liability and he was all for that so he would support any motion that goes to that responsible end and commended the maker of the motion. He was not sure what effect this would have on the cost to the old system that was put in place. It was his understanding that it was dependent on participation going forward but that is another night’s discussion. He would support this motion but thought they could go a lot further and if he had his way, he would have held up the entire ordinance until Council was ready to address all these issues.

Mayor Clark wanted to clarify, with Member Landry, that under Item #2 of the proposed resolution that "in the event that a development has been submitted", he assumed for preliminary site plan approval and received or for which a number had been assigned prior to the effective date of the ordinance? Member Landry said correct.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi noted the City was covered under the RPO, Rouge Program Office Storm Water Management Plan for the Rouge from middle one. If interested in this technical information, she would provide it for the asking. Secondarily, to presume that every ordinance in the City requires notification to individual property owners sounds ideal but whether or not residents want to spend their tax dollars for this is

something else and the staff to do that would be considerable. Thirdly, some of her concerns with regard to comments about how is this better than the previous ordinance, she felt had already been addressed. When talking about increased water flow we are talking about people proposing to do developments and not being real concerned, under the current ordinance, about what happens downstream. There was a comment made

about legal entanglements and she noted she was not threatened about legal entanglements. She believed that a responsible City made those determinations ordinance-wise about what best served the interests of the citizens and their welfare;

both from the standpoint of health and safety and water quality falls in there. As long as the City Attorney felt that the ordinance could be defended with regard to where we are going very shortly with Phase II of the Storm Water Permit, she was not concerned about threatened legal action. When talking about interest with regard to the public health and safety she understood the interests and concerns of the applicants present this evening. They are 6 people and she considered her duty as a Councilperson she represented 50,000 residents and not only those who vote but everyone who had the benefit of living here. We are also talking about business people who have a very real concern about spending more money on their projects because profitability is in the balance but that is the cost of doing business. We have a deadline coming up in 2003 with regard to Phase 2 Storm Water Permit and we have come down to a question of how this should be done that is equitable for everyone.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi had concerns regarding Avalon Subdivision and Scenic Pines Estates and the process they went through to get where they are and commented it was taking much too long but felt this was another subject and that there was another side to the story. She commented that she did this for 7 years and never had more than four meetings with the most difficult project she ever had. It was beyond her why anyone was having 13 meetings unless we are talking about applicants who are truly trying not to meet the qualifications and you just have to keep kicking it back again and again. The timeline here for Avalon is 9 months for an approval and 14 months for Scenic Pines and that could be because the applicant wasn’t timely. However, from the standpoint of not meeting review deadlines, what happened to any review deadline that she wouldn’t meet; the site plan was approved whether it met the ordinance requirements or not and that is the incentive. She suggested Council look at this.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said regarding the motion the language with regard to Item #2 is presuming that whether or not a preliminary site plan had been approved, Member Landry was suggesting that it should say that the preliminary plan has been received. She would go a long with that only if, and she intended to put the burden on the City engineer, the language was amended to state "the preliminary site plan is deemed complete by the City engineer". That would forego anybody bringing in anything to get in under the wire. She didn’t think anyone would object to saying that according to the existing ordinance that the City engineer could go down their punch list and determine that the application was complete. If that Phase was put in Item #2 as amended, she would have no problem. She thought the resolution was fine as it was but said no community she had ever worked with did anything like this because the burden was entirely on the administration where it belonged. Anyone else who had a hardship they wanted to bring forward could do so.

Mayor Clark shared the concerns of everyone at the table and Member Csordas as Council just spent 18 months resolving some very long litigation and he doesn’t want any new monumental litigation and #3 has appeal language in it. If looking at the 50 projects some of their final plans have been submitted or approved and some of the

preliminary plans have been approved. Then plans like Avalon, Scenic Pines and the Expo Center, their plans included engineering, architectural and landscaping and he thought it could be concluded that they spent some real money making commitments to the community and that should be considered. Other items to be considered, for

example, are Carraba’s Italian Grill has been approved which will be sitting in the parking lot at West Oaks one because they not only purchased the Pizza Hut site but the building is gone and whether or not they have additional land that would allow them within the confines of that parking lot to meet a 100 year storm event raises some real serious concerns. Other projects are the Haggerty pumping station, two churches, Walled Lake/Novi WWTP and Society Hill, which has had some unique problems. He thought what had been proposed, in terms of this Interim Interpretation, the Resolution and the motion that had been made, is it appropriate. We are in a Catch 22 situation because we have Federal requirements to meet and there is litigation in the Federal Courts that is very cognizant of wastewater and storm water management and we can’t ignore that either. The City must act responsibly, expeditiously and in a fashion that is fair and appropriate to those that have or are in the process of making a substantial commitment to the community. The appellate process in #3 would achieve that. He felt the resolution was a good approach and hardships could be addressed on an individual basis at the Council table. He thought the map was excellent and he requested a time line for each of the projects so it would be readily accessible to every member of Council so if someone comes in for a hardship appeal the information would already be available. He would support the motion.

Member Capello was concerned about the ordinance if adopted as proposed. Mr. Roskelly expressed the effort that goes into the engineering and design. The structure of the Ordinance required that 80% of the engineering be done at the preliminary site plan stage. So most of the engineering is done when they make their submission. If we pass the ordinance it says to them that they needed to have the engineer redesign the entire site with a 100-year plan and the new water quality standards. Then bring that to our engineers to see if it is feasible or not. He felt this was a great burden to put upon them to ask them to start all over again. They should not have to do that. He thought most of the projects, especially small ones without enough land, would not be feasible because the basin would be expanded and lots would be lost and square footage of the building would be lost. He asked if Member Landry would accept a friendly amendment to the extent that we only require the feasibility issue by the engineer for water quality and not the basin itself. Member Landry did not accept the friendly amendment.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi didn’t think that would be appropriate in any case because the ordinance would have to be amended in order to do that.

Member Landry said his motion was that the development has been submitted for preliminary site plan approval, prior to the effective date of the ordinance, the new ordinance would apply unless the developer could convince the City engineer that to do so if the new ordinance applies they would have to reduce the number, size or density

of the buildings. If the developer was not satisfied with the City engineer’s decision he could appeal to the City Council.

Member Lorenzo supported the motion and felt that it was a good compromise. She asked if Member Landry accepted the friendly amendment from Mayor Pro Tem Bononi

including the words "complete". Member Landry said he didn’t have a problem with the language "a complete application for development" to be added in #2 after "In the event a". She asked if Member Capello, seconder agreed? Member Capello said in theory it was a good idea, however, because of the complicated structure of our

ordinance he didn’t know if there was ever an application that comes in that is complete the first time around. Secondly, the first submission was really just a request for fees.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Fisher if he felt a need to redraft this with the proposed changes or did he feel comfortable with what had been proposed tonight? Mr. Fisher was comfortable and to solve that problem it could read "substantially complete". The motion maker and seconder accepted. Mr. Fisher said with the change from "a plan has been reviewed" to "a plan has been submitted" brings about one other possibility that Council would not want to bring on and that is if a plan had been submitted and then abandoned for a few years he assumed the intent was not to have the benefit of the older ordinance. He suggested that in the second line after the "effective date of this ordinance" it be add "in the event a substantially complete application for development has been submitted for preliminary site plan approval prior to the effective date of this ordinance", INSERT "and reasonable effort is made to continuously pursue the plan to completion." Mayor Clark said to add the words "for which a number has been assigned". Mr. Fisher said when using the term site plan it also refers to plats and site condos. The maker and seconder of the motion agreed.

Member DeRoche said he was still supportive of the motion but preferred the motion reflect Mayor Clark’s wording. He would vote no and if the motion didn’t pass it could be changed to Mayor Clark’s wording.

Nays: Csordas, DeRoche,

Member Capello asked if it was the understanding that the applicant did not actually have to resubmit full re-engineering under the new ordinance and it could just be a discussion between engineers? Is that something that would be left up to administration and is there going to be an additional review fee charged to the developer? He felt the administration needed to know how to address these issues and we are leaving it open for them. Normally they would charge a new review fee and he didn’t think they should.

Mayor Clark said to wait and see what develops. It is their responsibility and it is what Council charges the administration to do. He wanted to see how it began to work in practicality and if there are problems Council would hear about it. Mayor Clark quoted #4 of the resolution and said if there was a problem it could be dealt with in short order.

See resolution below.

R E C I T A T I O N S

New and comprehensive regulations for Storm Water Management were adopted by the City Council on May 20, 2002 (the "Ordinance").

There are a number of developments in the City at various stages of approval and/or at various stages of phased construction completion. For purposes of this Resolution, the phrase "site plan" shall be deemed to include subdivision plat plans and condominium plans.

During the period of time that such developments are in progress, there is a need for guidance for property owners and developers with regard to the application of the Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the storm water management regulations contained in the Ordinance shall be interpreted as follows with respect to developments at various stages of approval and/or at various stages of phased construction and completion on June 4, 2002, the date of effectiveness of the Ordinance:

1. In the event a development has received final site plan approval prior to the effective date of the Ordinance, then the newly adopted Ordinance standards and regulations shall not apply unless site plan approval expires prior to the commencement of construction.

2. In the event a substantially complete application for a development has been submitted for preliminary site plan approval prior to the effective date of this Ordinance and assigned a number by the City for site plan consideration, and reasonable effort is made by the applicant to continuously pursue the plan through preliminary site plan approval, then the review required under the Ordinance shall proceed, and there shall be compliance with the terms of the Ordinance to the extent determined to be feasible by the City Engineer without redesigning the development so as to reduce the number, size and density of buildings; provided, if preliminary site plan approval expires prior to the grant of final site plan approval, there shall be full compliance with the Ordinance. The developer may petition the City Council for relief on the ground that the interpretation by the City Engineer was incorrect or would create an unreasonable hardship, and the Council shall determine, in its discretion, whether, and the extent to which, relief shall be granted on such basis.

3. In the case of a phased development in which one or more phases have been constructed prior to the effective date of the Ordinance, then the Ordinance shall apply to those phases for which storm water facilities have not been constructed and approved, provided, the developer may petition the City Council for relief on the ground that such interpretation would create an unreasonable hardship, and the Council shall determine, in its discretion, whether, and the extent to which, relief shall be granted on such basis.

4. Periodically, in connection with the administration of the Ordinance, the City Engineer shall compile a list of additional rules deemed relevant to the application of the Ordinance, and such list shall be presented to the City’s Storm Water Management and Watershed Stewardship Committee for review and recommendation to the City Council with regard to amendments to the Ordinance and/or to this Resolution.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if there was an engineering statement that all of the improvements meet City requirements? Mr. Pearson said an inspection had been done by the engineer’s office, it met the requirements and it was signed off on. She asked that, in the future, a copy of that certification be included in the packets.

Member Capello asked that he be allowed to recuse himself as he had represented Maybury Park Estates before this Council.

Member Landry added conditions to the motion as follows: that a written maintenance agreement with responsibility for the maintenance remaining with Maybury be provided, that the developer post a bond for future paving, that the road be constructed in the same location

as the permanent road and that it be at least 22 feet wide, that the developer acquire City of Novi and Wayne County R.O.W. permits and that a time limit on the waiver be set for 60 days.

Member Csordas suggested the waiver be set for 60 days when Member Landry requested input.

Mr. Fisher said it had to be longer or it wouldn’t serve the purpose of the waiver.

Member Landry thought the time limit was a suggestion as to a time limit to when the permanent road should be in place. That is the suggestion in the information provided and obviously this was a temporary construction road. He asked if there was any input from administration about how long it would take for the completion or what a reasonable time would be?

Mr. Pearson said Phase I of this project is a two-year build out and that is the reason for the waiver. He thought Council was looking more to a two or three year at the outside time frame.

Member Landry said he would then include in the motion that it be a two year limit and if the applicant wanted to come back after two years and show need for a further extension they could do it at that time. In other words, the permit must be completed in two years.

Member Lorenzo understood the build out of that phase might be two years but there are residents living there. What about them? Maybe it should be when 50% of the people are in that phase and that might before two years.

Mr. Pearson said with the two-year time frame they are in a much better position than the majority of other developments. There are forty-three lots, this is a secondary access and this is above and beyond. If you want to make ¾’s of them or some kind of time frame like that but the two years should cover for the build out on this. Member Lorenzo said this is secondary access so the minute the first person is in a home in this subdivision they will need that secondary access. Will a fire apparatus be able to use this road? Mr. Pearson said that was a requirement of the secondary access that they provide a gravel road that provides another means of egress. It is similar to Churchill Crossing. Mr. Pearson said the Fire Marshall’s Office has reviewed this and concurs with it.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi wanted to make a point with regard to the fax sheet that was included

in the information. Under restaurant size, it says the restaurant contains 600 sq. ft. and

that should be 6,000 and asked that that be corrected.

Member Lorenzo commented that this was precisely the type of restaurant that deserved a

liquor license and these are the ones that the liquor licenses have to be preserved for.

Consumers Energy – 22-15-326-012 $200 Dennis & Robin Cregar 22-15-376-008 $250

Harry T. Varterseian –22-16-426-003 2,875 DeMaria Investments, a 22-16-426-005 1,200

DeMaria Inv. a - 2-16-426-005 2,650 Michigan Co-Partnership

Michigan Co-Partnership

Member Landry didn’t think it should go unnoticed that these people have agreed to donate the largest R.O.W. along Nine Mile. The record should reflect that this property owner has refused to accept money from the City and was agreeing to donate for $1.00 this R.O. W. and he felt they should be commended.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi agreed with Member Landry and thought these people should be recognized in some way if only by a simple letter of thanks for the fact that they are

putting the community’s interests ahead of their own personal gain should be laudatory. Mayor Clark asked that an appropriate letter of gratitude go out.

Mr. Pearson said if Council approved this they add, as part of the motion, that payment also be authorized to CSX rather than wait for the next warrant. They had met with CSX and they can’t start until they have the check. Maker and seconder of the motion agreed.

Member Capello said they were in front of the Planning Commission a few years back

and he asked if they weren’t required to put in the bike path as a part of that revised

preliminary site plan process? Mr. Fisher said that was his understanding and they

placed it in a location and now it was going to be in a different location. As part of this

project it will be in a different location than where they constructed it. Mr. Fisher

assumed they constructed it in a location specified by the City initially. Member Capello

asked why they were ripping up a sidewalk that just went in a few years ago, putting in a

new sidewalk and then paying them to relocate it?

Mr. Pearson believed that what was required at the time wasn’t the same width but he

thought the bigger issue was that they didn’t complete it for the section that was required

and that we need. It was not required of the site plan at that time. There would be a

gap unless we buy this from them and since they had to install another section they are

making us pay for this. Member Capello thought they had looked at that and they had

some issues about going around some existing landscaping. Mr. Pearson said his

recollection from Mr. Schultz, who negotiated this, is that there is still a gap that exists

and because it wasn’t acquired when they got their site plan approval so that is what we

are buying now and what we are paying for.

Mr. Fisher said this is a condemnation case that went to court several years ago and ended up in a judgment in the approximate amount of $345,000. It went to the Court of Appeals and was argued within the last three months and the Court of Appeals came out with a decision that ruled in favor of the City in part. Based upon that head start from the Court of Appeals there were further negotiations and they had been able to reduce the amount of payment from $345,000 to a settlement of $260,000. He

recommended that the Council accept that settlement and authorize payment without going on to a future warrant to save the claim for interest monies.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said since she seriously questioned the cost of each one of these she wanted to commend the Police Department for getting the best price because they saved quite a bit of money from the originally budgeted $161,000. She wanted to know what would happen with the extra $26,504.02 and if it could go back to the General Fund? Mr. Klaver said unspent money would normally be taken into consideration and carried into the next budget process and would be part of the fund balance they would start with. She asked if he was saying it stayed there? Mr. Klaver said yes. She asked if it was invested and Mr. Klaver said yes. She asked by whom? Mr. Klaver said the treasurer, Ms. Valente, under the supervision of Finance Director Ms. Smith-Roy, would invest it.

Mr. Klaver said OLSHA representatives Donald Jones, Director of Resource Development and Payson Tilden, Deputy Director of Housing and Energy were present. He also acknowledged the work of Marina Neumaier, Controller, who had been instrumental in putting this together. This is a recommendation from the Citizens Advisory Committee who reviewed these proposals. Mayor Clark was glad to see these funds spent where they are really needed.

Mayor Clark commented that he received a resolution from the Charter Township of Highland, whose Township Board is as unanimously opposed to the establishment of Chapter 20 Drains as we have indicated we are.

Mr. Fisher suggested insertion in the resolution where it says, "Now therefore, be it resolved that "The City Council of the City of Novi is opposed to the establishment of Chapter 20 Drains, countywide". The maker and seconder of the motion agreed.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi expressed concerns she had regarding the proposal being made by the Drain Commissioner. They included, and were not listed in the resolution, that we do not necessarily have a community of interest in those communities that have combined sewer outfalls and she had no interest in paying for those. We do not have combined sewers and although those sewers have to be separated in communities or dealt with in some way that’s not a part of a 14 to 52 billion dollar cost that she was interested in having the City of Novi pay. She was not interested in helping to pay for an aging and inadequate infrastructure that isn’t a Novi problem and she didn’t want to pay for it on behalf of others. She was also not interested in non-existent maintenance and inadequate county development standards with regard to how they apply to us since as of June we have a higher development standard. She was also concerned with the implementation of storm water plans; we have implemented ours and don’t want to pay for others, we want to pay our share. She would question how in this proposal Novi actually benefits and had very real concerns about that. We don’t have to depend on the county for soil erosion and sedimentation control we have our own program. She was also concerned about risk management considerations of being sued by downstream parties. She didn’t know that we received that much assistance from the county in that regard. She also had real concerns about the size and scope of any projects being determined by the communities; the size and scope of what, what program, areas of involvement and she believed that responsibility would rest with the Drain Commissioner.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said a watershed is a watershed and it can’t be cut up. If really approaching this from a watershed standpoint she would also want to know how the counties would be involved in watersheds that cross country boundaries. Compliance is missing; regulation compliance authority being the Drain Commission.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was concerned about a couple of things in the resolution that she thought might be added if Council thinks they are important as she did. She would appreciate having a phrase that reflects the fact that we don’t necessarily share the same community of interest that other communities do that he’s referring to in this program. Also, most importantly, there is no force of law in the Drain Code, as it now stands, to recognize any sort of advisory board that is mentioned in the Drain Commissioner’s proposal. That is not to say that she would be distrusting of a Drain Commissioner with regard to whether or not he would take the advice of the communities with regard to the proposals that we want seriously. However, in four years we could have another Drain Commissioner who could dismiss any advisory board so that advisory board has no force of law.

The two things she wanted inserted in the resolution are: That we don’t share a community of interests with all of these communities that we would be lumped together with and the fact that there is no force of law with regard to an advisory board. Maker and seconder of the motion accepted.

Nays: None

Whereas, the City of Novi has reviewed the intentions of the Oakland County Drain Commission to establish a Chapter 20 Drainage District that would encompass the entire Oakland County portion of the Rouge Watershed and finds that establishment of such a district at this time without significant further research and modifications is not in the best interest of the residents of the City of Novi, of Oakland County, and the environmental interests of protecting our watersheds; and

Whereas, the constitutionality of establishing such a County-wide district is questionable; and

Whereas, the process for establishment of this Chapter 20 Drainage District has not provided the opportunity for meaningful dialogue with the affected parties; and

Whereas, individual communities would potentially be under severe economic hardship without adequate financial resources to deal with such issues; and

Whereas, the structure of the proposed Chapter 20 Drainage District is not in the interest of a system of checks and balances in government and would put unilateral

authority in the hands of one person or three designees to decide other community's payments; the normal practice in Oakland County has been for a city or township to approach the Drain Commissioner's Office with a request for information about construction of a drainage project as a county drain; and

Whereas, the experience with other projects such as Quail Ridge has been that communities are able to resolve issues amicably and in a practical fashion without undue financial hardship as opposed to a County-imposed solution, there are equity considerations when municipalities are combined which have not previously provided adequate drainage facilities, and

Whereas, the City of Novi does not share the same community of interest with all of the other communities and there is no force of law with regard to an advisory board; and

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Novi is opposed to the establishment of the Chapter 20 Drain, countywide, as proposed and the City Clerk is requested to send a copy of this resolution to every community in Oakland County, to the Oakland County Drain Commission, to the City of Novi's Storm Water Stewardship Committee, and to communities adjoining Oakland County who share the Novi watersheds.

Ordinance No. 02-37.25, an Ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, as amended, Chapter 34, "Utilities" to add a subdivision regarding the Island Lake of Novi Water Main Booster Pump System and for the reimbursement of construction charges.

Island Lake of Novi Middle Arm Sanitary Sewer Extension, Pump Station and Over Sizing Agreement.

Ordinance No. 02-28.42, an ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, as amended, Chapter 34, "Utilities" to add a subdivision regarding the Island Lake of Novi Middle Arm Sanitary Sewer Extension and for the reimbursement of construction charges.

Island Lake of Novi Northern Arm Sanitary Sewer Extension and Over Sizing Agreement

Ordinance No. 02-28.43, an Ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, as amended, Chapter 34, "Utilities", to add a subdivision regarding the Island Lake of

Novi Northern Arm Sanitary Sewer Extension and for the reimbursement of construction

charges.

Island Lake of Novi Southern Arm Sanitary Sewer Extension and Over Sizing Agreement.

Ordinance No. 02-28.44, an Ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, as amended, Chapter 34, "Utilities", to add a subdivision regarding the Island Lake of Novi Southern Arm Sanitary Sewer Extension and for the reimbursement of construction charges.

Island Lake of Novi Western Arm Sanitary Sewer Extension and Over Sizing Agreement.

Ordinance No. 02-28.45, an Ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, as amended, Chapter 34, "Utilities", to add a subdivision regarding the Island Lake of Novi Western Arm Sanitary Sewer Extension and for the reimbursement of construction charges.

Island Lake of Novi Wixom Road Water Main Extension Agreement.

Ordinance No. 02-37.26, an Ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, as amended, Chapter 34, "Utilities", to add a subdivision regarding the Island Lake of Novi Wixom Road Water Main Extension and for the reimbursement of construction charges.

Island Lake of Novi Booster Pump Station Payback Agreement.

Member Capello offered discussion on this particular item and not carry through to each and

every other item. He had asked in the past that we bring this issue of payback agreements

to City Council. He noticed on the Ordinance Review Committee meeting agenda for July 18

on the bottom it said policy for payback ordinances and agreements is set for sometime in

August. He did not think Ordinance Review should have the issue unless City Council as a

whole establishes a policy. Ordinance Review would draft an Ordinance and they have no

idea of what City policy is going to be in regard to payback agreements on over sizing or

payback agreements on developer implemented utility improvements. He thought this issue

should come back to Council at the next meeting, it should be decided whether to have a

payback ordinance or not, if not what the criteria would be and once Council establishes their

criteria they could decide if Mr. Fisher should draft the ordinance directly or if Ordinance

Review should do it. It is premature to have Ordinance Review working on this.

Mayor Clark asked him to bear in mind that Ordinance Review, in instances such as this, is a

starting point and we do take into account what those who might be affected might wish

to give Council in terms of their input. Also, Council, as a whole, had always been welcome to

submit any concern or comments that they have so that a proposed ordinance, and only a

proposed ordinance could ultimately be drafted and brought back to the full Council for

discussion and decision.

Member Capello said the Ordinance Review had no idea what direction Council wanted them

to take. There are policy issues here regarding whether or not interest rates would be charged

and what the interest rate would be. Mayor Clark said that was the whole purpose for asking

for input from members of the Council. Member Capello said you should get input from the

Council and then it goes to Ordinance Review. It shouldn’t start at Ordinance Review.

Council should discuss it as a whole body at an open meeting and then if we want Ordinance Review to draft an ordinance based on the policies that we establish, they can draft it.

Otherwise, there are three members, which isn’t a majority of Council, trying to set policy for this Council and you’re going to bring back a policy that those three members created.

Mayor Clark said they would not bring back any policy, they would just bring back a point of origin from which discussion could start based on all of the input we have taken not only from those who might be effected by the proposed payback ordinance but members of Council as well. We have done this on numerous occasions asking Council members who do not serve on the Implementation Committee. On some occasions Council members have addressed the Ordinance Review Committee to give them their thoughts. We are not establishing an ordinance we are establishing a starting point on all of the input of those who might be affected and those who would ultimately have to make a decision, including Council, wish to give them. That is their charge as the Ordinance Review Committee.

Member Capello said that was what he disagreed with. Direction should come from Council

before you begin a draft of an ordinance. He thought that committee’s role was to draft

language to ordinances that the Council determines are needed in the City. Without any

direction from Council, it’s drafting with a blindfold on. He would rather see it come back to

Council for discussion, at the next meeting, get input during Audience Participation and

then direct Ordinance Review the direction we want them to take in regard to the content

of this ordinance.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said this Council referred this subject to Ordinance Review

and what predicated this matter being referred to Ordinance Review was the fact that the, then Director of Community Services was referring to an ordinance that did not exist. We talked about it on Council and they referred the matter to Ordinance Review with regard to

a rather broad charge to research the matter. It languished on that agenda until the Ordinance Review Committee insisted that it be brought forward and that is the reason Council has it. It was not as though that committee decided to draft this ordinance; we were charged by Council to do that and that is what we are doing.

Member DeRoche recalled giving direction for this to go to the Ordinance Review Committee. However, Member Capello raises a very important point in that it doesn’t mean anything to him because he wasn’t here for it. If this didn’t have to be fast tracked he thought it would be a beneficial to have it on for its usual discussion so the new members would have the opportunity to provide their input to the committee. He would like to see this done.

Member Capello had one comment specifically on the proposed ordinances that are before Council now. He saw nothing in his packet regarding whether an interest rate would be charged or not. Is there one? Mr. Pearson believed it was 2.5%. Member Capello thought that was low.

Nays: None

Homeowners Association for Stop Signs – Member Csordas

Member Csordas wanted to save the taxpayers some money and the Council some time by just looking at the history of this Council and the majority of Council members had been on the Planning Commission and have seen many recommendations for traffic studies. We have recently seen requests for stop signs, etc. and traffic studies. He thought this would be a waste of taxpayers money and consultant time and Council time because what might happen was that the traffic report would come back with a recommendation for Yield signs, which seem to be more effective than Stop signs and we will install the Stop signs anyway because the citizens want them. He understood that they have a real and perceived problem in their area.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Klaver if this was done in conjunction with the policy established not long ago? Mr. Klaver said it was.

Member Capello said then the procedures that Council outlined they have complied with those procedures and have met the requirements to get the Stop signs? Mr. Pearson thought the item, as Member Csordas said was to avoid going through that process so they haven’t done the whole process. If Council approved this resolution and as a part of it a confirmation from the engineers office or somebody that wouldn’t create a negative hazard he thought they would be covered that way. Member Csordas said that’s OK but he didn’t want to spend any money or waste any time on this. Mr. Pearson said the engineers would look at it from in house for confirmation and it would be done quickly. Member Csordas asked if it would be by the next meeting and Mr. Pearson said yes as the next meeting is a month away.

Member Capello said the only problem he had was they just set up this procedure and we are entirely avoiding it right now. Part of what the procedure sets out is to give notice to those residents on the street and members of the association that the Stop signs are coming to give them an opportunity to object. He didn’t think this should be done and that the procedures just adopted should be followed. They should submit their petition and go through the process.

Mayor Clark said another possibility was to put the temporary Stop signs up like they did on Taft and Eleven Mile Roads. Member Csordas agreed and said they were nice.

Mr. Pearson said that would mean going through the study and everything to make them permanent, which is what they were trying to avoid. Mr. Pearson thought the notice referred to individual homeowners and didn’t think it applied if it was a homeowner association group request like we have here.

Member Landry said he had considerable communication with the Chase Farms Homeowners Association and he thought they had done due diligence in this situation. They have really investigated this and if there is a situation to deviate from the procedures we set, he thought this was it and would support the motion.

Lorenzo, Clark

Member Csordas said there is one group of signs that stands out from the others. He said works in Sterling Heights and drove though Warren every morning and said their election signs are ridiculous. He felt this was the first step to going in that direction. There is no question that the 6 sq. ft. signs are out there all over the place and they are picked up three days afterwards and he thought that was plenty. He read Mr. Fisher’s memo and said he would like to eliminate the "or" and everything that follows it. Our ordinance says signs can be 6 sq. ft. in area. If we have this retroactive, he didn’t know how to deal with that. He was only trying to stop the proliferation of the bigger signs than we were used to seeing in the City.

Mayor Clark said Mr. Fisher could come back at the next meeting with an amendment to the ordinance and the individual involved said that if we took the position that the signs were not in compliance, he would remove those signs. If that is consensus of Council then a motion should be adopted to that effect and have Mr. Fisher direct a communication to him asking him to do that. Member Csordas agreed.

Member Lorenzo thought the gentleman was correct and that it was the ordinance that was the problem. She suggested that Mr. Fisher come back at the next meeting with the ordinance change, which would be 15 days after the meeting, and then he would be in violation and then for the November election the new standards would take place. Until we adopt a new ordinance she thought he was correct. The intent is one thing but it says what it says and that’s why every word of an ordinance is important.

Member Landry said there is a cardinal rule of statutory construction, which provides that you cannot read an ordinance to render any individual term meaningless. There is an interpretation of the statute that he would make. One part said a sign could not exceed six sq. ft. and the other part said it couldn’t exceed 5 ft. in height. If looking solely to the 5 ft. regulation it would be rendered meaningless the 6 sq. ft. because this sign is obviously 16 sq. ft. He didn’t think anyone could reasonably look at this ordinance and think that this particular sign, 16 sq. ft., was intended. He wanted to hear the City attorney’s opinion on how fast he thought we could appropriately amend the ordinance to get rid of the "or".

Mr. Fisher said it is a sign ordinance not the Zoning Ordinance so it didn’t have to go through the Planning Commission process and therefore, it could be brought to the next meeting.

Mr. Landry said he didn’t anticipate any problem with this gentleman and he would suggest that, for the integrity of the City, that we do ask him to remove them. He thought he would comply and he thought Council should instruct the City attorney to present to Council an amendment ordinance as soon as possible.

Member DeRoche agreed with Member Landry. He thought that Council interprets the ordinance, as not to exceed the 6 feet and he didn’t think it was appropriate to pass a motion for one candidate. He felt consensus with direction to the administration should be enough.

Mayor Clark said there seemed to be consensus to have a letter sent and could ask Mr. Fisher to do that and then bring back an amended ordinance at the next meeting.

Member Lorenzo said she would not be at the August 12^th Council meeting and would like to reschedule the meeting for Clerk and Manager Evaluations. Mayor Clark suggested August 26^th. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi felt it would be very helpful to have some sort of outline or form to be used for these evaluations.

Mayor Clark said the evaluations would be done on August 26^th at 6:30 PM prior to the regular meeting of Council.

Member Capello said an SAD was approved for a portion of Pioneer Meadows for both sanitary sewer and water. At the time, he argued against that until the entire subdivision got sewer and water. Mayor Clark had commented that residents had waited so long that it should be allowed to go forward and then look into providing water and sewer to the balance of the subdivision. He asked if any progress had been made. Mr. McCusker stated JCK was looking at the overall costs associated with the whole subdivision. Since the last meeting they found a number of septic fields that have failed in the subdivision outside of the SAD and people in those homes can’t sell their homes the way they are. Homeowners said the estimated cost of septic replacement is about $23,000. They also looked at the PASER to see what the subdivision looked like and it is coming up shortly and he thought it would be frugal for the City to put in the infrastructure. They wouldn’t be paying for the road part of it because they would be picked up as part of the repaving under the road bond program, which would reduce the cost of the whole SAD. Mr. McCusker said a proposal was being investigated with a 10-year payback on an SAD for the whole subdivision. Member Capello asked if this could be done in time to tie into the existing SAD approved about a month ago? Mr. McCusker said they were hoping to but other cores were pulled and there was some really bad ground in the subdivision and they want to take a look at deep cores to see how deep the ground is bad and see what the costs would be to run the infrastructure through those bad grounds. He said they would know shortly what the total cost would be and would bring those figures back to Council.

1. Letter from Debbie & John Carbotts, Re:Birchwoods Subdivision depressions forming in yards.

2. Letter from William Roskelly, Re: Storm Water Management Ordinance No. 168.

1. Letter from Joseph Atto, Re: Downtown Gateway Ordinance.

2. Letter from Marvin Daitch, Re: Application of new detention criteria to Scenic Pines Estates.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:52 PM.

_________________________________ _______________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: ____________________________

Charlene Mc Lean

Date approved: August 12, 2002