CHAIRPERSON COUNTY SERVICES COMMITTEE DEBBIE DE LEON VICTOR CELENTINO, CHAIR CAROL KOENIG VICE-CHAIRPERSON DIANNE HOLMAN DALE COPEDGE DALE COPEDGE MARK GREBNER VICE-CHAIRPERSON PRO-TEM DONALD VICKERS RANDY SCHAFER

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

P.O. Box 319, Mason, Michigan 48854 Telephone (517) 676-7200 Fax (517) 676-7264

THE COUNTY SERVICES COMMITTEE WILL MEET ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2009 AT 6:00 P.M., IN THE PERSONNEL CONFERENCE ROOM (D & E), HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING, 5303 S. CEDAR, LANSING.

NOTE CHANGE IN TIME Agenda

Call to Order Approval of the May 19, 2009 Minutes Additions to the Agenda Limited Public Comment 1. Interviews a. Equal Opportunity Committee b. Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors c. Youth Commission 2. Controller/Administrator’s Office

a. Resolution Updating Various Fees for County Services b. Resolution to Transfer the Jury Administration Duties from the Ingham County

Management Information Systems Department to the Thirtieth Judicial Circuit Court and to Appoint the Circuit Court Administrator as the Ingham County Jury Administrator

3. 911 Steering Committee/Controller’s Office - Resolution to Adopt the Recommendation

of the 911 Steering Committee to Select a Site for an Ingham County 911 Consolidated Dispatch Center Facility

4. Register of Deeds

a. Resolution Entering into an Agreement with Fidlar Technologies for the Purchase of Property Fraud Alert Software for the Register of Deeds’ Office

b. Request to Start Employee at Step 4 5. Ingham County Treasurer - Request to Post Vacant Existing Manager Lansing

Treasurer’s Office Position 6. Economic Development Department and Brownfield Redevelopment Authority -

Resolution Authorizing the Acceptance of $300,000 of Brownfields Assessment Grants from the United States Environmental Protection Agency

7. Ingham County Parks & Recreation Commission - Resolution Authorizing a Transfer of Funds to Proceed with Construction of a New Eurasian Eagle Owl Exhibit at the Potter Park Zoo

8. Facilities Department

a. Resolution Authorizing a Contract with Stouffer Masonry Washing, Inc. to Provide Exterior Restoration Services at the Hilliard and the 55th District Court Buildings

b. Resolution to Renew the Facilities Contract with Nelson Trane for the Air-Cooled Rotary Screw Water Chiller at the Ingham County Hilliard Building

c. Request to Waive Hiring Freeze for Vacant Building Maintenance Mechanic I Position

9. Board Referral - Letter from Tonatzin Alfaro Maiz Regarding the Ingham County Drain

Commissioner, Deer Creek, Holt Road Branch Drain Announcements PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES OR OTHER ELECTRONIC Public Comment DEVICES OR SET TO MUTE OR VIBRATE TO AVOID Adjournment DISRUPTION DURING THE MEETING

The County of Ingham will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as interpreters for the hearing impaired and audio tapes of printed materials being considered at the meeting for the visually impaired, for individuals with disabilities at the meeting upon five (5) working days notice to the County of Ingham. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary aids or services should contact the County of Ingham in writing or by calling the following: Ingham County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 319, Mason, MI 48854 Phone: (517) 676-7200. A quorum of the Board of Commissioners may be in attendance at this meeting. Meeting information is also available on line at www.ingham.org

COUNTY SERVICES COMMITTEE May 19, 2009

Minutes

Members Present: Victor Celentino, Carol Koenig, Dianne Holman, Dale Copedge, Mark

Grebner, Donald Vickers and Board Chairperson Debbie DeLeon Members Absent: None Others Present: Matthew Myers, Jim Hudgins, Rick Terrill, Sally Auer, Tony Lindsey,

Janeil Valentine, Becky Bennett, Willis Bennett, Rich McNulty, Laura Davis, Mark Stambaugh, Chris Fisher, Steve Russell, Dan Pohl, Dan Reuter, Marie Wolfe, Sue LeDuc, Tom Byerley, Eric Matwiejczyk, Guy Sweet, Dan Stuart, Mike Crawford, Colleen Drake, Brad Weir, Michael Marks, Linn Driver, Ray Whitaker, Brian Brannick, Sam Fuller, Jason Ottney, Scott Fahey, Susan Morris, Claudia Ruehle, Jill Malinowski, Bill Buyak, Richard VanDenBerghe, Dave Clark, Rick Strank, Tim Foss, Charles Laien, Mary Cooley, Jeff Ostrom, Tom Shewchuk, Steve Bair, Scott Clark, Rick Jackson, Casey Flietstra, Avery Rogers, Red Michaels, Mr. Stewart and others

The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Celentino at 6:02 p.m. in Conference Room A of the Human Services Building, 5303 S. Cedar, Lansing. Approval of the May 5, 2009 Minutes MOVED BY COMM. GREBNER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. HOLMAN, TO APPROVE THE MAY 5 MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Absent: Comms. Copedge and Koenig The Minutes were amended as follows: Page 2, Comm. Grebner was absent for the vote, not Comm. Copedge. Additions to the Agenda 3. Substitute Resolution 7. Additional Information Limited Public Comment Comm. Koenig here (Comm. Koenig arrived at 6:03 p.m.) Mr. Fisher, ABC President, addressed the Committee regarding agenda item 7. He stated the draft Project Labor Agreement policy states contractors must be signatory to a collective bargaining agreement for the duration of a County construction project; however, the policy does not include a provision to guarantee the ability of a contractor to return to their non-signatory status once the project is completed. This policy also states that contractors may use their own

employees only if those workers pay union dues. Mr. Fisher stated the policy is unfair and it does not insure the interest for the County. He then distributed copies of his concerns to the Committee. Mr. Crawford, Michigan Chapter Association of Electrical Contractors, said the Association represents contractors for small and big projects. He has noticed a trend throughout the State to have contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement. Projects for GM, Toyota, MSU, House of Representatives and Lansing Lug Nuts used these Agreements. Mr. Crawford commended the County for considering the use of Project Labor Agreements. Ingham County has done a great job in leveling the field of union and non-union workers and fair wages. He then offered his assistance to move this matter forward. Mr. Stewart, Principle of Construction Solutions, said he can attest very strongly to the value of Project Labor Agreements. The Agreement allows safe practices, greater communication, generally a high probability of high success for projects. Mr. Stewart stated it is in the best interest of the County to use Project Labor Agreements. Ms. Drake, MSU Clerical-Technical Union, said the Associated Builders and Contractors have launched a major campaign of misinformation about the Project Labor Agreement. ABC does not want to pay their workers family wages. The Clerical-Technician Union supports the consideration of entering into Project Labor Agreements because of the advantages they bring to our community. Ms. Crawford further stated Project Labor Agreements are agreements negotiated for complex public-works projects that guarantee that all work will be performed using one set of wage, benefit and hiring standards responsible to the local community. Ms. Crawford provided copies of her statements to the Committee. Mr. Buyak, Capital Steel, said he would be discriminated against regarding the Project Labor Agreement. He then stated he is a merit shop worker. It’s economical for his clients to pay a lower rate for his services. Project Labor Agreements will not benefit the County. Mr. Buyak said he has chosen to not affiliate with unions. Approximately 75% of the work conducted in the County is performed by non-union workers. Mr. VanDenBerghe said he recently heard on the local news that the County wants to use Project Labor Agreements because a non-union contractor performed badly on a County project. Mr. VanDenBerghe stated many union contractors have also performed badly. The economy is not improving and the County will not have money to build any more facilities. A Project Labor Agreement will result in more division between union and non-union workers. Mr. Flietstra, Lansing Tile, stated the draft Project Labor Agreement is between what is right and what is wrong. The County is clearly discriminating against non-union workers. Mr. Flietstra asked the Committee to make the correct decision regarding the Project Labor Agreement issue. The Commissioners will have to answer their decision during the next election process. Mr. Jackson stated a Project Labor Agreement will eliminate over 75% of non-union workers in this County. 2

Mr. Michaels, Local 665, stated he represents 800 electrical workers. He said some of the efforts of non-union workers have misrepresented the Project Labor Agreement. This Agreement is a widely used tool for value added projects. The County is being responsible for moving forward on this matter. Mr. Eastwood, IBEW Local 665, stated a Project Labor Agreement is not a union-only agreement. Project Labor Agreements are used by several Fortune 500 businesses. These businesses are not union companies. Mr. Eastwood stated one of the largest Project Labor Agreement projects in this Country was in California. On this project, approximately 60% of the contractors were non-union workers. Mr. Eastwood stated he supports Project Labor Agreements. Ms. Auer, UAW, echoed the sentiments of her union brothers and sisters regarding the Project Labor Agreements matter. The UAW supports Project Labor Agreements. Mr. Russell stated he works in the electrical trade. His business is in the process of a third layoff for the past 21 years. Mr. Russell said his business supports the community. The backbone of the County and the State is small business. He then stated the County needs to do what is in the best interest of the County. The County has a Prevailing Wage Policy; therefore, everyone pays a fair wage. All contractors are required to meet safety standards. A Project Labor Agreement will only guarantee that union workers will not strike. This Agreement is not in the best interest of the County. Ms. Cooley, Ide Construction, stated women are not discriminated against in the work field in a merit shop and a union. She further said she would not sign a collective bargaining agreement. If she wants to belong to a union, she would do so. Mr. Weir, electrician and life long Ingham County resident, stated he believes the County should not lose sight of the Project Labor Agreement. In his experience, Project Labor Agreement projects are done more efficiently, quickly and on budget than non-union projects. (Comm. Copedge arrived at 6:42 p.m.) Mr. Clark said everyone wants to save money. A Project Labor Agreement will not help with this matter. Money is tight for everyone. It would not be fair to limit contractors who can bid on County projects. Mr. Clark stated the County’s Prevailing Wage Policy has worked well. He then said the County should research this matter further. MOVED BY COMM. VICKERS, SUPPORTED BY COMM. KOENIG, TO APPROVE A CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: 1. Ingham County Agricultural Preservation Board – Resolution Approving Legal Services

Contract for the Ingham County Agricultural Preservation Board

3

2a. Ingham County Parks & Recreation - Resolution Recommending the Approval of Visitor Incentive Programs at the Potter Park Zoo

4. Facilities Department

a. Resolution Authorizing a Contract to Wigen, Tinckell, Meyer & Associates for Masonry Restorations at the Grady Porter Building/Veterans Memorial Courthouse

b. Facilities Line Item Transfer Request – Purchase of Radios

5b. Human Resources Department - Resolution to Amend Resolution #09-008 Extending an

Agreement with the Accident Fund for Administration of Self-Funded Workers’ Compensation Claims

6. Management Information Systems Department – Resolution to Approve the Purchase to

Convert Ingham County’s MUNIS Financial System Database from Informix to Microsoft SQL

8. Controller/Administrator’s Office – Resolution to Transfer the Jury Administration

Duties from the Ingham County Management Information Systems Department to the Thirtieth Judicial Circuit Court and to Appoint the Circuit Court Administrator as the Ingham County Jury Administrator

9. County Services Committee a. Resolution Honoring Robert Van Kirk b. Resolution Honoring Alexandria Genia c. Resolution Honoring Rami Janoudi d. Resolution Honoring Nicholas Stevenson MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOVED BY COMM. VICKERS, SUPPORTED BY COMM. KOENIG, TO APPROVE THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2b. Ingham County Parks & Recreation - Resolution Recommending Ingham County to

Enter into a Contract with the Ehresman Associates Architectural Firm for the Construction of the Potter Park Zoo Rhino Yard Expansion Including Additional Renovations to the Rhino Holding Building

Comm. Copedge informed the Committee that he is late because he had a previous commitment. MOVED BY COMM. GREBNER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. HOLMAN, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING INGHAM COUNTY TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE EHRESMAN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURAL FIRM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE POTTER PARK ZOO RHINO YARD EXPANSION INCLUDING ADDITIONAL RENOVATIONS TO THE RHINO HOLDING BUILDING.

4

Comm. Vickers requested clarification regarding the financial implications. Mr. Bennett stated the project cost includes $430,000 from the 2008 Capital Improvements Project budget (CIP), $200,000 is committed by the Potter Park Zoological Society and $400,000 is included in the 2010 CIP budget request. The project cost is funded from the Zoo Millage. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

c. Resolution Recommending Ingham County to Enter into a Contract with Jones

and Jones Architects for the Completion of the Potter Park Zoo Master Plan MOVED BY COMM. GREBNER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. HOLMAN, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING INGHAM COUNTY TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH JONES AND JONES ARCHITECTS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE POTTER PARK ZOO MASTER PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTN. Comm. Vickers asked if this item is also funded through the Zoo Millage. Mr. Bennett indicated that is the case. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3. Health Department and MSU Extension Office – Resolution to Authorize the Acceptance

of a Support Grant from the Corporation for National and Community Services for Additional Funding for the VISTA Coordinator

MOVED BY COMM. GREBNER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. COPEDGE, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF A SUPPORT GRANT FROM THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE VISTA COORDINATOR. Mr. Bell stated he was notified by the Corporation for National and Community Services (CNCS) that the County has been awarded a $14,000 support grant to be used specifically to increase the wage of the VISTA project coordinator. The increased wage is due to the expanded workload. The time period for the grant is May 11, 2009 through September 30, 2010. Mr. Bell also stated the CNCS has offered another four to five slots for the VISTA program. The funds will be used to hire a temporary employee without benefits. Mr. Bell further explained this matter does not involve any General Fund money. Mr. Bell stated the substitute Resolution amends the dates and includes the FICA information. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. Human Resources Department a. Correspondence from Attorney Jeffrey Donahue

5

Mr. Byerley stated Mr. Matwiejczyk is requesting an additional four months of severance pay. He then explained the process that lead up to the termination of this employee. This is a unique situation. The employee does not have any clouds over his head and he should not be punished to this extent. Mr. Byerley asked the Committee to grant the employee’s request for an additional four months of severance pay. He then said Mr. Dunnings previously indicated he would support this request. Mr. Sweet stated Mr. Dunnings did specifically say he was in favor of granting Mr. Matwiejczyk’s request for an additional four months of severance pay. Mr. Myers stated this is a contract situation; it does not involve a County policy. He then said the Committee should uphold the language in the employee’s contract. Comm. Grebner said he spoke with Mr. Dunnings last week regarding this matter. He then stated he does not believe that Mr. Byerley and Mr. Sweet have captured Mr. Dunning’s present position on this matter. Mr. Dunnings’ position is not in writing at this time. If a Commissioner wants to approve the request, a motion should include that the money will be paid with an agreement from the union. Comm. Vickers stated he also spoke with Mr. Dunnings regarding this matter last week. During that discussion, Mr. Dunnings provided no indication that he granted the additional four month severance pay request. Comm. Vickers said this Committee cannot make this determination in a vacuum. Mr. Sweet stated Mr. Dunnings made the statement on the termination day. Comm. Copedge stated the Prosecutor is not present to state his position on this matter. The Committee would need a signed document from Mr. Dunnings regarding his position. Comm. Copedge further stated the Committee should also speak with its Attorney before acting on the employee’s request. Comm. Davis asked if an attempt was made for mediation for this situation. Mr. Sweet said this Committee is their forum. Comm. Davis stated she feels badly about this situation; however, she agrees with Comm. Grebner’s and Comm. Copedge’s statements. 7. Purchasing Department – Discussion: Draft – Resolution Authorizing the Ingham

County Project Labor Agreement Policy Mr. McNulty, County Attorney, explained that Document No. 1 is the same document in the agenda information; Document No. 2 is a client/privilege document; and Document No. 3 is a clean draft which incorporates everything this Committee wanted in this policy. Mr. McNulty explained this is a very complex Project Labor Agreement Policy. The Board of Commissioners asked him to positively address this Policy for public and non-union concerns. Mr. McNulty referred to Document No. 3 during his discussion. Section 4 is not required for the Policy. This Section addresses the concerns from the public that were raised at the last meeting.

6

Comm. Grebner asked if a contractor that was awarded for a project has to sign the Project Labor Agreement. Mr. McNulty explained a contractor does not have to sign the Project Labor Agreement when it bids for a project. Bidders do not sign the Policy unless they are awarded a contract. If an awarded contractor does not sign the Policy, it would be a disqualified bidder. Contractors have to agree to be a signatory when it accepts the bid award. Comm. Holman said she sees the Project Labor Agreement as a beneficial tool for specific projects. The Board has an option to use the Project Labor Agreement when it is appropriate. Comm. Holman stated she would not support using a Project Labor Agreement as a default. Chairperson Celentino agreed with Comm. Holman’s position. A Project Labor Agreement would be a tool for specific projects. Chairperson Celentino also said he would like to ask staff to come back with a recommendation to use a Project Labor Agreement if it is beneficial for the County. The draft Policy currently indicates every project over $100,000 would automatically be subject to a Project Labor Agreement unless the Board of Commissioners decides otherwise. Comm. Grebner said the $100,000 applies directly to labor costs. He is pleased with this language. Comm. Grebner then stated he asked for the default policy. It may be better to admit that unless a Project Labor Agreement should not be used for a specific project, we will accept to use a Project Labor Agreement for most projects that meet the requirements of the Policy. Staff will report to this Committee in a year to explain how the Policy has worked for a year. This Committee would then determine if it will continue to use the Policy. Mr. McNulty said Document No. 3 is not actually a default Policy. This Policy is the best of both worlds; however, it puts more work on the staff. If a project is suitable for the Policy, the Board would not need to act to approve the Agreement. The Board could act to say the Policy should not be used for a specific project. Mr. McNulty stated he is more comfortable with Document No. 3 than Document No. 2 on this matter. Comm. Koenig asked how different the rhino project would be if the County currently had a Project Labor Agreement. She then stated the County can eliminate the Policy after one year if it has not been beneficial to the County. Chairperson Celentino said the Committee just received the Documents prior to the start of this meeting. He then asked if Document No. 3 includes the provision that the County can eliminate the Policy after one year. Mr. McNulty stated the language is included in the draft Policy. Staff will report to this Committee in 12 months to explain how the Policy has worked. Comm. Vickers asked Mr. McNulty to review Document No. 3. Mr. McNulty stated Document No. 3 requires that a project’s labor cost must exceed $100,000. When a Project Labor Agreement is required it is under Section 2 of Document No. 3. He then explained the Board always has the ability to require or not to require a Project Labor Agreement for specific projects. Staff would recommend the use of Project Labor Agreement to this Committee.

7

Comm. Koenig stated Section 1(a) is not correct as written. The language should include “or as decided by the Board of Commissioners.” Mr. McNulty explained that staff will review a project. If the labor costs exceed $100,000, staff will make a recommendation to this Committee to use a Project Labor Agreement. If a project’s costs are under $100,000 or staff recommends against using an Agreement, the Agreement would not be used on that project unless deemed so by the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners can always require a Project Labor Agreement when it applies the appropriate standards for small or large projects. Mr. McNulty stated he would rework the language in Section 1(a). He then explained a Project Labor Agreement would not be required for projects under $100,000, emergency construction projects, a pre-bid that would be provided to 30 days before the bid, if the County decides to re-bid a project, if the bids are too high or to re-bid a portion of the project. The Board of Commissioners would determine if an Agreement is needed in these situations. Mr. McNulty explained that Section 4 of Document No. 3 is not a normal section for a Project Labor Agreement Policy. This section was included at the request of the Board of Commissioners. Any non-union contractor has the right to bid on a Project Labor Agreement project. Board Chairperson DeLeon stated this Policy will guide the development of a Project Labor Agreement in the future when it is negotiated to be needed for specific projects. Mr. McNulty stated that is correct. Mr. McNulty reviewed the subsections under Section 4 of the draft Policy in Document No. 3. Subsection (d) states a Project Labor Agreement shall specifically provide that signatory unions shall comply with the requirements of federal law with respect to membership and dues payable by employees of non-union contractors/subcontractors who are not already members of the applicable union. Mr. McNulty further stated he provided two options to the above language. The Project Labor Agreement shall (may) provide that the Labor Organization shall waive initiation fees paid by employees of non-union contractors/subcontractors who are required to join the Labor Organization as a result of the contractors’/subcontractors’ agreement be bound by the Agreement for the duration of the project. In response to Comm. Copedge, Mr. McNulty explained Michigan law requires the payment of the dues. The dues amount can be negotiated. Mr. McNulty reviewed Section 4 (e). This section provides that the Project Labor Agreement shall provide that any contractor/subcontractor who is not currently a party to a collective bargaining agreement with a Labor Organization having jurisdiction over the project may elect not to make payment to any union trust fund or health, pension, welfare or benefit fund where the contractor/subcontractor makes similar benefits directly available to its employees. Any such contractor/subcontractor who makes benefits directly available to its employees and whose cost of providing such benefits is greater than 15% less than the cost of the corresponding fringe

8

benefit contribution otherwise payable to the union trust fund providing similar benefits, shall be required to pay the difference directly to the employee as part of his paycheck for wages earned on the project. Alternatively, if a separate trust fund or voluntary employee benefit association (VEBA) fund under Section 501(c) (9) of the IRS Code has been established by a signatory union or unions for the purpose of providing qualified benefits to the employees of such contractors/subcontractors, on whose behalf such contributions are made, they may elect to participate in and pay the difference into such fund. Comm. Vickers asked who will determine the difference regarding the benefit contribution. Mr. McNulty stated the County would make that determination. The benefit cost is the issue, not the coverage of the benefit. Mr. McNulty stated Section 4(f) provides that the Agreement shall provide that a contractor is not a party to a current collective bargaining agreement with the Labor Organization having jurisdiction over the project/affected work that the contractor may use its own workforce to perform work on the project. Only if the contractor does not have sufficient qualified employees shall the contractor be required to use the Labor Organization referral system. Board Chairperson DeLeon asked if Subsection (f) can be left up to a negotiation of the Project Labor Agreement itself. Mr. McNulty stated that is possible. Section 4 of the draft Policy was added at the request of the Board of Commissioners. Board Chairperson DeLeon stated this matter could make a difference on some projects. Mr. McNulty stated this issue can be negotiated on a case by case basis. Subsection (g) provides a guarantee against strikes, lockouts and similar job disruptions; (h) states the Policy shall include a management rights provision; (i) and (j) set up mechanisms for safety, work quality, productivity and jurisdiction disputes. Subsection (k) states the Agreement shall fully conform to all statutes, regulations, County policies and Executive Orders. Board Chairperson DeLeon stated Mr. McNulty has done a great job to address our concerns; however, she would prefer that subsection (f) be addressed on case by case basis. Comm. Grebner said it would make sense to cap the initiation fees. The capped amount should not be a huge barrier. He also stated contractors should be able to work with people they normally work with on projects. Comm. Koenig asked Board Chairperson DeLeon to explain why she wants subsection (f) to be negotiated on a case by case basis. Board Chairperson DeLeon said she is familiar with some companies who share their employees with other companies. The employees are farmed out from one contractor to another contractor. She further stated workers may identify themselves with one company even though they actually work for a different company. We need to ensure the workers are Ingham County residents. Comm. Koenig stated subsection (f) addresses this concern. She also stated the County cannot define each and every issue.

9

Comm. Vickers said he worked with a contractor for about ten years. Union and non-workers have a network of people they draw from for projects. It doesn’t take long to find out who can do the job and who cannot. People are concerned with union dues and initiation fees. Comm. Vickers stated he is neither pro-union nor pro non-union. We need to look at our policy to assure the quality of the work. Contractors hire quality workers. Comm. Grebner said contractors should be able to work with people they normally work with on projects. Comm. Holman asked which labor unions will be a part of the bargaining units. Who is the controlling labor organization? Mr. McNulty stated this is a difficult question to resolve. As an example, if a project mainly requires steel workers, then a steel worker union would be appropriate. Board Chairperson DeLeon asked if a project could have a general manager who is also the signatory for the project. Mr. McNulty said the County can negotiate an Agreement directly or it could designate a general manager. A general contractor can inter-relate the trades needed for specific projects. This determination would be made on a case by case basis. Comm. Davis asked if a project requires more than one union, would it be best to have the County Attorney help the Board of Commissioners on this issue and require the County to have a general manager over the project. Mr. McNulty stated the County’s current policy provides enough discretion to make that call on a case by case basis. Comm. Grebner said Section 4(d) may require additional research regarding the initiation fee. Mr. McNulty stated from his experience the cap is usually between $300 and $400. Comm. Grebner said the amount may need to be capped. He further stated most unions don’t have a problem with waiving these dues. Comm. Grebner suggested that Mr. McNulty discuss this matter with Comm. Vickers. If this Committee can live with a $100,000 project cost, it would alleviate many concerns. Comm. Holman indicated the $100,000 amount is too high. Comm. Grebner said most constructions costs are equal to 1.5 FTE’s. Comm. Vickers stated he would like to see language that allows a waiver of the initiation fees. He then stated there are some excellent apprenticeship firms in the State. He asked why the draft Policy refers to the Bureau of Apprenticeship & Training Program. Mr. Hudgins stated the Prevailing Wage Policy refers to this Program. MOVED BY COMM. GREBNER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. COPEDGE, TO TABLE THIS MATTER UNTIL STAFF PROVIDES A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THIS COMMITTEE.

10

Mr. McNulty requested clarification regarding this Committee’s concerns with Document No. 3. Comm. Grebner suggested that Mr. McNulty draft two versions of Section 4 (d) and (f) for this Committee to choose from at an upcoming meeting. Comm. Holman said she would like Section 4 to refer to the Policy as a default Policy. Comm. Davis thanked staff for their hard work on this matter. She then stated she is very excited about the progress made on this issue. Chairperson Celentino stated this matter will be discussed again at its June 16, 2009 meeting. This meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairperson Celentino thanked staff for their work on the Project Labor Agreement Policy. Announcements Comm. Vickers informed the Committee that the annual safety picnic is tomorrow afternoon at Hawk Island County Park. (The recording was paused from approximately 20 seconds at this time.) Public Comment Mr. Strank said he does not appreciate the County spending his tax dollars for the Project Labor Agreement Policy. He then stated according to a Fox News poll, 86% of Americans want less government. A Project Labor Agreement is actually funding unions. Mr. Strank further stated this Agreement will slow process and staff will go crazy when it tries to negotiate this Agreement. He begged the Committee to please reconsider how much more of a burden this Agreement will place on staff, workers and tax payers. Mr. Eastwood, IBEW, stated his union contract includes a “no strike” clause. An employer can refuse to use any employee. Mr. Eastwood addressed the issue of employers sharing their employees. The Unemployment Insurance Agency looks at this issue as a scam. Comm. Vickers stated everything is not black and white. The County has three or four excellent staff people to handle these projects. The County’s main concern regarding the Project Labor Agreement is not cost. Cost is his number two priority. The meeting adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Neff

11

Agenda Item 2a RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE May 21, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution Updating Various Fees for County Services Submitted by: Controller/Administrator’s Office Committees: LE X , JD X , HS X , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This resolution will authorize the adjustment of various fees for county services to be effective for the Health Department on October 1, 2009 and for all other departments on January 1, 2010. These adjustments are based on an update of the “Cost of Services Analysis” completed by Maximus in 2002. Updated costs were then multiplied by the target percent of cost to be recovered by the fee for services as identified by the Board of Commissioners. Input was solicited from county departments and offices as part of the process of making these recommended adjustments. A full analysis of each fee was presented to all committees at a previous round of meetings. Financial Implications: If the fee adjustments are passed as proposed, additional annual revenue would total approximately $214,925. This total changed slightly from the $229,161 calculated for the previous round of meetings due to the update of several of the units associated with certain fees. Any additional revenue will be recognized in the 2010 Controller Recommended Budget. Some of the units for Environmental Health fees remain at zero due to the fact that these are for penalties for non-conformance of administrative actions or failure to comply with licensing or permit requirements. Operators will meet requirements 99% of the time. The others are for services offered or licenses for unique operation. Other Implications: As directed by the Board of Commissioners, the Controller’s Office has incorporated the update of county fees into the annual budget process. This will allow the County to annually and incrementally adjust fees based on changing costs, rather than to make large adjustments at one time. Staff Recommendation: MM JN TL TM X JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

Agenda Item 2a Introduced by the Finance Committee of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION UPDATING VARIOUS FEES FOR COUNTY SERVICES

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners set various fees for county services in Resolution 02-155 based on information and recommendations of the Maximus Cost of Services Analysis completed in 2002; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners also established the percent of the cost of providing the services which should be recovered by such fees, referred to in this process as a “target percent”; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has directed the Controller/Administrator’s Office to establish a process for the annual review of these fees and target percents; and WHEREAS, this process begins with the calculation of a cost increase factor, which is equal to the previous three year average increase in the General Fund adopted budget for the appropriate departments; and WHEREAS, this cost increase factor is applied to the previous year’s calculated cost and multiplied by the target percent and in most cases rounded to the lower full dollar amount in order to arrive at a preliminary recommended fee for the upcoming year; and WHEREAS, in cases where the calculated cost multiplied by target percent is much higher than the current fee, the fee will be recommended to increase gradually each year until the full cost multiplied by target percent is reached, in order to avoid any drastic increases in fees; and WHEREAS, in cases where the calculated cost multiplied by target percent is lower than the current fee, no fee increase will be recommended for that year; and WHEREAS, after initial recommendations are made by the Controller/Administrator, these recommendations are distributed to the affected offices and departments, in order to receive their input; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the input from the affected offices and departments, the Controller/Administrator makes final recommendations to the Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Controller/Administrator’s Office has finished its annual review of these fees and recommended increases where appropriate based on increased costs of providing services supported by these fees and the percent of the cost of providing the services which should be covered by such fees as established by the Board of Commissioners; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has reviewed the Controller/Administrator’s recommendations including the target percentages, along with recommendations of the various county offices, departments and staff. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Commissioners authorizes or encourages the following fee increases in Attachments A and B at the rates established effective January 1, 2010 with the exception of the Health Department, where new rates will be effective October 1, 2009. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the fees within major Health Department services are not included on the attachments and were not set by the policy above, but rather through policy established in Resolutions 05-166 and 05-242.

ATTACHMENT B: FEES FOR WHICH AN ADJUSTMENT IS RECOMMENDED

Location of Fee 2009 2010 Target

Service Description Fee Fee PercentDistrict Court Pre-Sentence Reports $0.00 $100.00 100.0%Family Division Delinquency Costs $155.00 $150.00 100.0%Family Division Tether $10.00 $15.00 25.0%Family Division Traffic $80.00 ticket fee sched 50.0%Family Division Traffic - Fail to Appear $23.00 $24.00 25.0%FOC FOC Bench Warrants $200.00 $225.00 100.0%

Agenda Item 2b RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE May 05, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution to Transfer the Jury Administration Duties from the

Ingham County Management Information Systems Department to the Thirtieth Judicial Circuit Court and to Appoint the Circuit Court Administrator as the Ingham County Jury Administrator

Submitted by: Controller/Administrator’s Office Committees: LE , JD X , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This Resolution will transfer the duties of Jury Administration from the MIS Department to the Circuit Court. It will also appoint the Circuit Court Administrator as the Ingham County Jury Administrator. Financial Implications: Because the duties of Jury Administration were ½ of a full time position in MIS, two ½ time positions will be hired. One of the positions will be transferred to the Circuit Court and the other ½ time position will remain with MIS. It is anticipated that the efficiency of the transfer will result in a savings to the County. There will be no increase in cost to the County for FTEs. Other Implications: The Jury Administration duties will be physically transferred to the Veterans Memorial Courthouse (VMC) and will provide greater efficiency for the Courts. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN X TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

Agenda Item 2b Introduced by the Judiciary, County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER THE JURY ADMINISTRATION DUTIES FROM THE INGHAM COUNTY MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT TO THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT AND TO APPOINT THE CIRCUIT COURT ADMINISTRATOR AS THE INGHAM COUNTY JURY ADMINISTRATOR

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has the authority, under MCL 600.1303, to appoint assistants to the County Jury Board; and WHEREAS, the Jury Administration has been assigned to the County Management Information Systems Department (MIS) and one of the primary staff members involved in this function has recently retired; and WHEREAS, the County Controller/Administrator has recommended reassigning these responsibilities to the Thirtieth Judicial Circuit Court, as a more efficient method of fulfilling these functions; and WHEREAS, Chief Circuit Court Judge William Collette is agreeable to assuming these responsibilities. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ingham County Board of Commissioners hereby appoints the Circuit Court Administrator as the Ingham County Jury Administrator, with all the duties and responsibilities inherent in that position, effective as of the date of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Circuit Court Administrator, and those Deputy Clerks who may be designated, are authorized to assist the County Jury Board and administer the County Jury System as may be required by law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a .5 FTE position shall be transferred to the Circuit Court from the MIS Department to provide staffing for these additional responsibilities in the Circuit Court, and the Controller/Administrator is hereby authorized to transfer the budget allocated to the Jury Board from the MIS Department to the Circuit Court.

Agenda Item 3 RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE: May 19, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution to Adopt the Recommendation of the 911 Steering

Committee to Select a Site for an Ingham County 911 Consolidated Dispatch Center Facility

Submitted by: 911 Steering Committee/Controller Administrator’s Office Committees: LE X, JD ___, HS ___, CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: (See the attached Executive Summary.) This resolution will authorize the approval of the Jolly Road Site on vacant land west of the Community Mental Health Building on the Ingham County Human Services Building Campus as the site to construct the proposed Ingham County Consolidated 911 Dispatch Center. Financial Implications: (See the attached Cost Comparison and Conclusion.) Although final costs will not be determined until the project building, site prep and equipment is bid out, the final cost is estimated on the attached document. Other Implications: The Architectural/Engineering Consultant, Landmark Design Group, P. C., the Controller/Administrator’s Office and the 911 Advisory Steering Committee have all approved this recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Staff Recommendation: MJM JN X TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

911 STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Chief Mark Alley, City of Lansing Police Department Gerald Ambrose, City of Lansing Chief of Staff Karen Chadwick, City of Lansing 911 Director Chief Tom Cochran, City of Lansing Fire Department Chief David Harper, Meridian Township EMS/Fire Department George Lahanas, City of East Lansing Deputy City Manager John Neilsen, Ingham County Deputy Controller Chief Rick Royston, Delhi Charter Township Fire Department Undersheriff Allan Spyke, Ingham County Sheriff’s Office Chief John Stressman, City of Mason Police Department Tom VanderWoude, City of East Lansing 911 Director Chief Tom Wibert, City of East Lansing Police Department Assistance Chief Russell Wolff, Meridian Township Police Department Chief Randy Talifarro, City of East Lansing Fire Department Chief Dave Trexler, Michigan State University Police Department This is the actual minutes (not approved yet) from the March 17, 2009, 911 Steering Committee meeting: MOVED BY GERALD AMBROSE, SUPPORTED BY CHIEF COCHRAN TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 911 FACILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE AND LANDMARK DESIGN GROUP, P. C. TO RECOMMEND INGHAM COUNTY SELECT THE JOLLY ROAD SITE FOR THE NEW 911 CONSOLIDATED DISPATCH CENTER DISPATCH FACILITY. MOTION CARRIED. YES VOTES: Mark Alley, Jerry Ambrose Karen Chadwick, Tom Cochran, David Harper, George Lahanas, John Neilsen, Allan Spyke, Tom Vanderwoude, Tom Wibert, Russell Wolff NO VOTES: Chief Royston, Delhi Township and Chief Stressman, City of Mason ABSENT: Randy Talifarro, Dave Trexler TOTAL: 10 YES; 2 NO, 2 ABSENT

Agenda Item 3

Agenda Item 3 Introduced by the Law Enforcement, County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 911 STEERING COMMITTEE TO SELECT A SITE FOR AN INGHAM COUNTY 911

CONSOLIDATED DISPATCH CENTER FACILITY

WHEREAS, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners previously authorized a contract with Plante & Moran to evaluate the potential of combining the two 911 Dispatch Centers into one consolidated 911 Dispatch Center operated by the County of Ingham, as well as a review of a alternative Dual Dispatch Plan, and the development of an Action Plan from their original Feasibility Study on creating a single emergency dispatch center serving all of Ingham County; and WHEREAS, representatives from the Cities of East Lansing and Lansing, the Public Safety Community and Ingham County have worked with Plante & Moran as a 911 Steering Committee to guide the development of these past studies and the Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the completed studies and Action Plan were presented to the Board of Commissioners and the Public Safety Community in 2006, 2007 and 2008; and WHEREAS, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners authorized the adoption of the Ingham County Central Dispatch Action Plan to outline the process to accomplish a Consolidated 911 Center operation; and WHEREAS, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners has adopted a Resolution of Intent to enter into a Conditional Agreement with the Cities of East Lansing and Lansing for the Purposes of Creating a Ingham County Consolidated 911 Center, and creating a single Emergency Dispatch Center serving all of Ingham County; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Ingham County Central Dispatch Action Plan, the 911 Steering Committee’s Facilities Subcommittee reviewed numerous proposed sites and narrowed the list down to four; and WHEREAS, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners approved the use of an experienced Architectural Consultant to help guide this process with the 911 Steering Committee’s Facilities Subcommittee; and WHEREAS, Landmark Design Group P. C., presented the Ingham County Site Evaluation Report for the Consolidation of 9-1-1 Central Dispatch to the 911 Steering Committee on March 17, 2009; and

WHEREAS, the 911 Steering Committee has recommended the Ingham County Board of Commissioners utilize the Jolly Road Site on vacant land west of the Community Mental Health Building on the Ingham County Human Services Building Campus. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ingham County Board of Commissioners accepts the recommendation from the 911 Steering Committee and approves the selection of the Jolly Road Site on vacant land west of the Community Mental Health Building, on the Ingham County Human Services Building Campus, as the site to construct the proposed Ingham County Consolidated 911 Dispatch Center. BE IT FURTER RESOLVED, that the Ingham County Clerk will distribute a copy of this Resolution to all local units of government and public safety agencies in Ingham County.

Agenda Item 4a RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE May 22, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution Entering into an Agreement with Fidlar Technologies

for the Purchase of Property Fraud Alert Software for the Register of Deeds’ Office

Submitted by: Register of Deeds’ Office Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This Resolution will authorize the purchase of software from Fidlar Technologies and will authorize a three year annual support agreement with Fidlar Technologies. Financial Implications: The purchase of the software is a one time $15,000 cost. The annual support agreement will cost $3,000 per year. The costs will be paid from the Register of Deeds automation fund. Other Implications: The technology will alert homeowners of fraudulent activity on their property. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution. As required by the Board Ethics Policy, the role of the Board is to accept or reject the recommendation. If the recommendation is rejected, the committee should state the reason(s) for the rejection and instruct the staff to review the recommendation.

Agenda Item 4a

TO: County Services Committee

FROM: Curtis Hertel, Jr., Register of Deeds

DATE: May 21st, 2009

RE: Property Fraud Management Software According to the FBI Michigan is in the top five states where mortgage fraud is occurring. Currently, the Michigan State Police and the United States Secret Service have partnered to combat this problem in Michigan. One of the largest problems with mortgage fraud is that it is often not caught until well past after the crime was committed. The Ingham County Register of Deeds is looking for a software solution that will allow citizens who wish to be electronically notified of any paperwork filed on property they own. This will allow citizens to help the County identify fraudulent activity quickly and work with law enforcement to catch criminals much quicker than under the current system. Fidlar Technology was the lowest bidder to our RFP and has the greatest history of working with Registers in this state to provide this service. Thank you for your support in this matter. I will be in attendance at the meeting to address any questions you may have.

Agenda Item 4a

COUNTY OF INGHAM Purchasing Department

121 East Maple Street Mason, Michigan 48854

Telephone: 517-676-7307 Fax: 517-676-7230

jvalentine@ingham.org TO: County Services and Finance Committee FROM: Janeil Valentine DATE: May 21, 2009 SUBJECT: Proposal Summary – Software Services Project: The project involved soliciting proposals for a property alert software solution for the Register of Deeds Office. Bid Summary: Vendors Contacted: 5 Local: 0 Vendors Responding: 5 Local: 0 The following firms submitted bids: Firm Base Bid Install Annual Total Cost Cost Fidlar Technologies $15,000 $3,000 $18,000.00 TriMin Government Solutions $10,000 $8,000 $2,700 $20,700.00 Record Fusion $25,000 $5,000 $30,000.00 Interpro No Bid Mantron No Bid Recommendation: It is the recommendation of the Register of Deeds in concurrence with the MIS and Purchasing Department to award a contract to Fidlar Technologies, to provide Property Fraud Alert software services. Advertisement: Vendors notified by electronic mail and posted on the Ingham County Purchasing website.

Agenda Item 4a Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH FIDLAR TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FRAUD ALERT

SOFTWARE FOR THE REGISTER OF DEEDS’ OFFICE WHEREAS, according to the FBI, Michigan is in the top five states where mortgage fraud is occurring; and WHEREAS, currently the Michigan State Police and the United States Secret Service have partnered to combat this problem in Michigan; and WHEREAS, one of the largest problems with mortgage fraud is that it is often not caught until after the crime was committed; and WHEREAS, the Ingham County Register of Deeds is looking for a software solution that will allow citizens to be electronically notified of any paperwork filed on property they own, if they so desire; and WHEREAS, Fidlar Technologies provides a software service that will allow citizens to subscribe to this property alerting messaging service to identify fraudulent activity quickly and work with law enforcement to catch criminals much quicker than under the current system; and WHEREAS, proposals were solicited and Fidlar Technologies was the lowest bidder with a one-time cost of $15,000 and $3,000 annual support for a three year period. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ingham County Board of Commissioners hereby enters into an agreement with Fidlar Technologies, 4450 48th Avenue Court, Rock Island, Illinois, 60201 for property fraud alert software services in the amount of $15,000 with a $3,000 annual support fee for a three year period. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that funds for this project will be taken from the Register of Deeds’ automation fund, the Controller/Administrator is authorized to make any necessary budget adjustments. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board Chairperson and County Clerk are authorized to sign the necessary agreements after approval as to form by the County Attorney.

Agenda Item 4b

TO: County Services Committee

FROM: Curtis Hertel, Jr., Register of Deeds

DATE: April 28, 2009

RE: Request to Start Employee at Step 4 The Community Outreach Coordinator position is the newly created classification in the Register of Deeds Office. The position has been offered to Martha Miles who is an outstanding candidate. Martha brings to the position more than 18 years of experience in the Lansing area organizing community events. A higher starting salary is recommended due to her education and experience. Because of the on the ground work experience and exceptional skills, it is anticipated that Ms. Miles will be able to quickly assume her job responsibilities. She will be an outstanding addition to our staff. I am requesting that Martha start at Step 4 of the MCF 07 classified position, for a salary of $50,752. A higher starting salary is appropriate given the assets she will bring to the department.

Thank you for your support in this matter. I will be in attendance at the meeting to address any questions you may have.

Agenda Item 5 TO: County Services Committee FROM: John Schlinker, Chief Deputy Treasurer DATE: May 22, 2009 RE: Request to Post Vacant Existing Manager Lansing Treasurer’s Office Position

Treasurer Schertzing would like to proceed with posting the vacant existing Manager Lansing Office position (position # 253007). This position is a revenue generating position in that it deals with Dog Licensing and Principal Residence Exemptions (PRE). Dog Licensing produces revenue for Animal Control. Investigation of suspect PREs last year, for example, uncovered more than 30 parcels where PRE was claimed but not appropriate. The position performs various other functions necessary to the proper functioning of the Treasurer's Office. Respectfully Submitted, John Schlinker

Agenda Item 6 RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE: May 21, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution Authorizing the Acceptance of $300,000 of

Brownfields Assessment Grants from the United States Environmental Protection Agency

Submitted by: Economic Development Department and Brownfield

Redevelopment Authority, Susan Pigg Administrator Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This Resolution accepts $300,000 Brownfields Assessment Grants through a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. EPA. The Economic Development Department will administer the grant funded program and contract with an environmental consulting firm for necessary technical services. Financial Implications: Ingham County is not required to provide any matching funds for these grants. The total grants amount is $300,000 to be used over three years. Other Implications: None. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

Agenda Item 6

MEMO TO: Ingham County Commissioners - County Services and Finance Committees FROM: Ingham County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Susan M. C. Pigg, MSUE Educator RE: U.S. EPA Brownfield Grants DATE: May 21, 2009 Congratulations! Ingham County has been selected by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to receive the two Brownfields Assessment grants we applied for a number of months ago. These grant funds will help us attract the redevelopment of sites where the concerns about potential contamination and liability limit their economic development potential. Attached is a resolution to accept the funds and implement the program. As I described in a March memo to you, the grants awarded here are similar to the Petroleum site assessment grant we recently completed. The new application requests another $100,000 to support continued assessments of potential petroleum contaminated sites. It also requests $200,000 to undertake a similar inventory and assessment effort for sites potentially contaminated with hazardous substances (other than petroleum). The US EPA is anxious to implement a cooperative agreement immediately so we can begin implementation by June 30, 2009. This is a three year grant. However, because their funding for this program is from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, they anticipate an agreement that will require us to use as much as a third of the funding before the end of the first agreement year. Your resolution of approval to accept the funds will help us move forward quickly to complete a cooperative agreement with USEPA, contract for needed expertise from an environmental consulting firm, and begin project work.

As always, I am pleased to answer questions and provide any additional information.

Agenda Item 6 Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $300,000 OF BROWNFIELDS

ASSESSMENT GRANTS FROM THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WHEREAS, Ingham County government has long term objectives to foster economic well being and promote environmental protection and smart growth; and WHEREAS, the Ingham County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority submitted an application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for competitive grants to fund the inventory, characterization, assessment, redevelopment planning, and community involvement related to brownfields or sites potentially contaminated with hazardous substances or with petroleum in order to assist in moving them into productive economic redevelopment; and WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has notified Ingham County that it has been selected as an entity with which the U.S. EPA will negotiate and award cooperative agreements for two grants which are: a grant of $200,000 for a Hazardous Materials Site Inventory and Assessments, as well as a grant of $100,000 for Petroleum Site Assessments to be used during the next three years; and WHEREAS, the U.S. EPA does not require the County to provide any matching funds; and WHEREAS, notice of the County’s intent to accept and implement this grant funded program will be published and opportunities provided for citizens to review and comment. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes acceptance of $300,000 of Brownfields Assessment Grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution authorizes the Ingham County Economic Development Department and Brownfield Redevelopment Authority to administer the grant funded programs, and to procure a qualified environmental consultant in accordance with applicable federal, state, and county requirements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairperson of the Ingham County Board of Commissioners and the County Clerk are authorized to sign any necessary documents, contracts and agreements consistent with this Resolution upon approval as to form by the County Attorney.

Agenda Item 7 RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE May 26, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution Authorizing a Transfer of Funds to Proceed with

Construction of an Eurasian Eagle Owl Exhibit at the Potter Park Zoo

Submitted by: Ingham County Parks & Recreation Commission Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: Unused funds from the 2009 Potter Park Zoo CIP Budget have been identified in the amount of $56,000. The Potter Park Zoo Board would like to use these funds to construct a new Eurasian Eagle Owl exhibit. This new exhibit will provide an enhanced experience for visitors and a more suitable enclosure for the Eagle Owls. This exhibit would also be flexible with regard to the types of birds it can house and beneficial in any master plan design. The Parks & Recreation Commission supports this project. Financial Implications: None. However, the following transfers of unused funds from the approved 2009 CIP budget would have to be made to the Eagle Owl exhibit project: Cavy Barn Drains line item 258-69900-977000-0902Z $ 7,000 Mandrill/Lemur Vestibules line item 258-69900-977000-0903Z $30,000 Amphitheater Renovation line item 258-69900-977000-0910Z $ 4,000 Hoof Stock Chute line item 258-69200-978000-31000 $10,000 Fencing line item 258-69900-977000-0909Z $ 5,000 TOTAL TRANSFER $56,000 Other Implications: None. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

Agenda Item 7 Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW EURASIAN EAGLE OWL EXHIBIT

AT THE POTTER PARK ZOO WHEREAS, the Potter Park Zoo Board recognizes the need to continue to improve the Zoo with new exhibits to enhance the visitor experience; and WHEREAS, the Potter Park Zoo Board has identified unused funds within the 2009 CIP budget to construct a new Eurasian Eagle Owl exhibit; and WHEREAS, the new exhibit will provide an enhanced experience for visitors and a more suitable enclosure for the Eagle Owls; and WHEREAS, the exhibit is flexible in regard to the types of birds it can house and will be beneficial in any master plan design; and WHEREAS, the Potter Park Zoo Board requests a transfer of funds from the following approved 2009 CIP budget line items to the Eagle Owl exhibit:

$ 7,000 Cavy Barn Drains, line item 258-69900-977000-0902Z $30,000 Mandrill/Lemur Vestibules, line item 258-69900-977000-0903Z $ 4,000 Amphitheater Renovation, line item 258-69900-977000-0910Z $ 5,000 Fencing, line item 258-69900-977000-0909Z $10,000 Hoof Stock Chute, line item 258-69200-978000-31000

WHEREAS, the Potter Park Zoo Board is requesting authorization to proceed with hiring an engineering/architectural firm to design the exhibit and proceed with the RFP process associated with the project; and WHEREAS, the Potter Park Zoo Board supported this project by the passage of Resolution #07-09 and the Ingham County Parks & Recreation Commission supported this project by the passage of Resolution #23-09. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ingham County Board of Commissioners approves the transfer of funds listed above, not to exceed $56,000 for the construction of a new Eagle Owl Exhibit at the Potter Park Zoo. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners authorizes the Purchasing Department to develop an RFP and identify an engineering/architectural firm to oversee the project.

Agenda Item 8a RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE May 22, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution Authorizing a Contract with Stouffer Masonry

Washing, Inc. to Provide Exterior Restoration Services at the Hilliard and the 55th District Court Buildings

Submitted by: Facilities Department Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This Resolution authorizes a contract with Stouffer Masonry Washing, Inc. to provide exterior improvements to the Hilliard Building and the 55th District Court Building. The improvements will be replacement of damaged masonry, re-pointing of deteriorated mortar joints, chemical cleaning of masonry stains and installation of new sealants. Financial Implications: This project is budgeted in CIP and the contractor submitted the low bid at $71,560. The Facilities Department is also requesting $6,000 added to the project for contingency, bringing the total amount to $77,560. Other Implications: None. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution. As required by the Board Ethics Policy, the role of the Board is to accept or reject the recommendation. If the recommendation is rejected, the committee should state the reason(s) for the rejection and instruct the staff to review the recommendation.

Agenda Item 8a

MEMORANDUM

TO: County Services and Finance Committees FROM: Rick Terrill, Facilities Director DATE: May 21, 2009 SUBJECT: Hilliard Building and 55th District Court Exterior Restoration Services The resolution before you authorizes awarding a contract to Stouffer Masonry Washing, Inc. for the purpose of providing the services needed to restore the exterior of the Hilliard Building and the 55th District Court. The fee for these services is not to exceed $71,560.00. A contingency of $6,000.00 is being asked for due to any unforeseen circumstances that may arise with this type of restoration. This would bring the total to $77,560.00 which is budgeted within the 2007 CIP Plan, 245-13799-931000-7FAC4 and the 2008 CIP 245-90210-931000-8FC07. Stouffer Masonry Washing, Inc., who submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, was chosen after going through a competitive bidding process and the recommendation of the Purchasing Department. Due to the scope and size of this project, it is necessary to contract with a qualified and experienced firm. We are confident that Stouffer Masonry Washing, Inc. will provide us with the quality service we need to complete this project successfully. I recommend approval of this resolution.

Agenda Item 8a

MEMORANDUM

TO: County Services and Finance Committees FROM: Jim Hudgins, Director of Purchasing DATE: May 21, 2009 SUBJECT: Bid Summary – Exterior Improvements to the Hilliard Building and the 55th

District Court Building

Project Description: This project consists of making exterior improvements (e.g. removal and replacement of damaged masonry at the window sills and throughout the buildings, re-pointing of deteriorated mortar joints, chemical cleaning of masonry stains, installation of new sealants, etc.) to the Hilliard Building and the 55th District Court Building. Bid Summary: Bidders Contacted: 17 Local: 4 Bidders Responding: 8 Local: 1 The following firms submitted a bid: Firm Cost Local Stouffer Masonry Washing, Inc. $71,560 N – Comstock Park Cusack’s Masonry Restoration, Inc. $80,025 N – Hubbardston National Restoration, Inc. $81,497 N – Keego Harbor Royal Restoration & Waterproofing $84,900 N – Livonia Bornor Restoration, Inc. $94,751 Y – Lansing D.C. Byers Co. $95,760 N – East Lansing M One Limited, Inc. $118,955 N – Detroit Chezcore, Inc. $119,329 N – Detroit

Recommendation: Award a contract to Stouffer Masonry Washing, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $77,560 (includes $6,000 for contingency.) Advertisement: The RFP was advertised in the Lansing State Journal, various construction news services, The Chronicle, and posted on the Purchasing Department Web Page. Prevailing Wage: Contractor is required to comply with the County’s Prevailing Wage Policy.

Agenda Item 8a Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH STOUFFER MASONRY WASHING, INC.

TO PROVIDE EXTERIOR RESTORATION SERVICES AT THE HILLIARD AND THE 55TH DISTRICT COURT BUILDINGS

WHEREAS, the exterior of the two buildings are in need of restoration due to deterioration over time; and WHEREAS, the removal and replacement of damaged masonry of the window sills and throughout the buildings, re-pointing of deteriorated mortar joints, chemical cleaning of masonry stains and the installation of new sealants are some of the improvements that will be made; and WHEREAS, the funds for this project are available within 2007 CIP 245-13799-931000-7FAC4- Tuckpoint District Court and 2008 CIP 245-90210-931000-8FC07- Tuckpoint Hilliard Building; and WHEREAS, after careful review of bids, the Purchasing and Facilities Departments both concur that a contract be awarded to Stouffer Masonry Washing, Inc., who submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid in the amount of not to exceed $71,560, which also reflects the payment of prevailing wage; and WHEREAS, a contingency of $6,000.00 is being asked for by the Facilities Department for any unforeseen circumstances that may arise with this type of restoration. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes awarding a contract to Stouffer Masonry Washing, Inc., to perform exterior restorations at the Ingham County Hilliard and 55th District Court Buildings, for a cost of $71,560.00 plus $6,000.00 contingency for a total of $77,560.00. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners authorizes the Board Chairperson and the County Clerk to sign any necessary documents that are consistent with this resolution and approved as to form by the County Attorney.

Agenda Item 8b RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE May 22, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution to Renew the Facilities Contract with Nelson Trane for

the Air-Cooled Rotary Screw Water Chiller at the Ingham County Hilliard Building

Submitted by: Facilities Department Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This Resolution authorizes a new one year agreement with Nelson Trane for the daily maintenance and repair on the chiller at the Hilliard Building. Financial Implications: The one year contract is at a cost of $5,189 and is budgeted through the Facilities Department. Other Implications: None. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

Agenda Item 8b

MEMORANDUM

TO: County Services and Finance Committees FROM: Richard Terrill, Facilities Director DATE: May 21, 2009 SUBJECT: Resolution to Renew the Facilities Contract with Nelson Trane for the Air-Cooled

Rotary Screw Water Chiller at the Ingham County Hilliard Building Due to the contract with Nelson Trane for preventative maintenance and repair on the chiller at the Hilliard Building expiring, we need to renew the contract to help keep the chiller working properly and efficiently. The contract will run from April 1, 2009 thru March 31, 2010 for a cost of $5,189.00 annually. The funds are available thru Maintenance-Contractual line item number 101-23303-931100. I recommend approval of this resolution.

Agenda Item 8b Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION TO RENEW THE FACILITIES CONTRACT WITH NELSON TRANE FOR THE AIR-COOLED ROTARY

SCREW WATER CHILLER AT THE INGHAM COUNTY HILLIARD BUILDING

WHEREAS, we currently use Nelson Trane to provide preventative maintenance and service on the water chiller at the Hilliard Building; and WHEREAS, the contract needs to be renewed and the new contract would run from April 1, 2009 thru March 31, 2010; and WHEREAS, Nelson Trane will continue to provide testing and maintenance for this chiller for a cost of $5,189.00 for the year; and WHEREAS, funds for this service are available within the Facilities Department’s Maintenance-Contractual line item 101-23303-931100. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ingham County Board of Commissioners amends the contract with Nelson Trane, 5335 Hill 23 Drive, Flint, Michigan 48507, to continue to provide testing and maintenance on the chiller at the Hilliard Building, at a cost of $5,189.00 for the period of April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners authorizes the Board Chairperson and County Clerk to sign any necessary contract documents that are consistent with this resolution and approved as to form by the County Attorney.

Agenda Item 8c MEMORANDUM

TO: County Services and Finance Committees FROM: Rick Terrill, Facilities Director DATE: May 21, 2009 SUBJECT: Request to Waive Hiring Freeze for Vacant Building Maintenance Mechanic I Position Due to the retirement of Herb Miller on May 15, 2009, the Facilities Department now has a vacant Building Maintenance Mechanic I position. This position is located at the VMC/GPB and performs a variety of preventative maintenance and repair for the facility. The Mechanic I position performs preventative maintenance and makes repairs to critical systems such as electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and other mechanical systems. This person may also serve as a crew leader on assigned projects. This vacancy creates a severe hardship on all aspects of the departments function at this location and is essential to meeting the needs of the buildings occupants. We have over 209,000 square feet of building to maintain, average about 1,300 work orders per year, we do various types of construction projects in-house, meeting room set ups, recycling, etc. Also, now we currently have a vacant position at HSB that has not been filled so we are short staffed as it is. This position is not slated to be cut and funds are available in the General Fund. The 2008 salary range for this position is $31,236 - $37,484 which does not include fringe benefits. This position requires a well trained individual with the skills and abilities to handle complex mechanical and building related repairs. The service impact to the facility and the departments would be greatly hindered by not filling this position. Though I could contract the service work to a private contractor and the cost for contracting would be about the same as the salary, my preference is to fill the position. Our ability to provide timely and prompt response to service request if contracted would be negatively impacted, as well as our ability to adequately maintain the facility. I respectfully request your consideration to fill this critical position that is needed at the VMC/GPB. Signed, Richard Terrill Richard Terrill Ingham County Facilities Director

AGENDA ITEM #_

Tonatzin M. Alfaro Maiz

1738 Sorg Road

Williamston, MI 48895

February 22, 2009

Larry R. Smith, Chair

Board of Ingham County Road Commissioners

Austin E. Cavanaugh Administration Building

301 Bush Street, P.O. Box 38

Mason, MI 48854-0038

Dear Mr. Smith:

RE: Ingham County Drain Commissioner, Deer Creek, Holt Road Branch Drain

For the sake of expediency, this letter is addressed to you. However, due to limited resources, I

am unable to send individual letters addressed to every governmental entity and current property

owner affected by this project, i.e., liable for an assessment. It is my intent that each of the

parties copied below should view this letter as if it was addressed to them directly.

I am writing this letter because of the enclosed January 31, 2009 letter from Dave Solberg,

Project Coordinator for the Office of the Ingham County Drain Commissioner (ICDC) which I

received on February 13, 2009. (Exhibit 1) The letter states that the ICDC is responding to- &r.

petition for construction of a storm water drain through my property1. I contacted the Office ofthe ICDC for a copy of the Petition. I was provided a copy of a April 13, 1995 Petition and

Board Resolution from the Ingham County Road Commission, a June 26, 1996 Notice of

Meeting of Board of Determination from the Office of the Ingham County Drain Commissioner,

and a July 11, 1996 Order ofNecessity. (Exhibit 2)

I have also enclosed my Objections and response to the January 31, 2009 ICDC letter, the 1995

Petition, and the 1996 Order of Necessity, in a letter dated February 22, 2009 and addressed to

Attorney Kristin Bellar, legal counsel for the Ingham County Drain Commissioner. (Exhibit 3)

My primary objections are that there is no legal authority for the ICDC to proceed on this project

due to the lengthy delay, ten to thirteen years; to execute his responsibilities pursuant to the

Drain Code as it relates to the 1995 Petition and 1996 Order of Necessity, and violation of due

process rights. .. . ... . - —

11 purchased my property in August 2006. Ten years after the Notice and Order ofNecessity

intended to be executed in a timely manner. ■ .

It is apparent that due process has not been provided to the property owners and governmental

entities liable for an assessment in 2009 or 2010, when the proposed project is based on a 1995

Petition and 1996 Order of Necessity. The assessment addressed in the 1996 Notice and 1996

Order of Necessity should have occurred at or near that time, not in ten to thirteen years later in

2009. The Drain Code requirements for Notice regarding Petitions and Orders are intended to

safeguard due process rights as they relate to the ICDC's authority to take "immediate action." In

the instant case, all parties affected by this project (liable for an assessment) based on the 1995

Petition, the 1996 Notice, and the 1996 Order of Necessity are being denied their due process

rights. The ICDC failed to take "immediate action" on this project as required by the Drain

Code, thus, the ICDC cannot rely on the 1995 Petition and 1996 Order of Necessity as the

underlying authority to proceed with this project in 2009.

Unless, the affected parties liable for an assessment and denied due process, based on the invalid

1995 Petition, 1996 Notice, and 1996 Order of Necessity, properly object to this project - their

silent acquiescence will be interpreted as outright approval.

The specific purpose of my letter is to inquire whether the Ingham County Road Commission

(and all governmental entities and current property owners affected by this project - i.e. liable

for an assessment) share and adopt the objections stated in my Febmary 22, 2009 letter (Exhibit

3), or have other legally valid objections. It is my position that the 1995 Petition and the 1996

Order of Necessity'do not provide a valid legal basis for this project. In these tough economictimes, it is unacceptable to silently acquiesce to an assessment that has no legal validity. If all

parties liable for an assessment, a majority of the parties liable for an assessment, or even some

of the affected parties liable for an assessment cooperate and jointly pursue legal action to put a

stop to this project, the benefit of no assessment for this project by the ICDC will be shared by

all.

Please advise whether you are interested in a cooperative effort to stop this project that-i-s based

on a stale and invalid 1995 Petition, 1996 Notice, and 1996 Order ofNecessity. Time is of the

essence in this matter, as the ICDC expressed his intent to begin on or after Febmary 15, 2009.

You may reach me at 517-775-1721,517-655-6191, or send correspondence to 1738 Sorg Rd,

Williamston, MI 48895. In the interim, if you object to this project, I recommend that you

immediately contact the Office of the ICDC and advise them of your objections verbally and by

documented correspondence.

Thank you in advance for your due consideration of this proposed group effort.

Respectfully,

Tonatzin M. Alfaro Maiz

Enclosures

c: William Conklin, Ingham County Road Commission, Managing Director

Joe Guenther, Ingham County Road Board of Commissioners

Shirley Rodgers, Ingham County Road Board of Commissioners

Bruce Stark, 1996 Board of Determination

Helen LeBlanc, 1996 Board of Determination

Bud Mills, 1996 Board of Determination

Ingham County Clerk

Wheatfield Township Clerk

Wheatfield Township Supervisor

DebDeleon, Board of Ingham County Commissioners, Chairperson

Attached List of Property Owners liable for an assessment

Ingham County Drain Commissioner

PO Box 220

707 Buhl Avenue

Mason, Ml 48854-0220

Phone: (517)676-8395

Fax: (517)676-8364

January 31,2009

Ms. Tonatzin M. Alfaromaiz

1738 Sorg Drive

Williamston, MI 48895

Ingham County

Drain Commissioner

Carla Florence Clos

Deputy Drain Commission

Cecelia Kramer

Deputy Drain Commissioner

Sheldon Lewis

Administrative Assistant

RE: Deer Creek, Holt Road Branch Drain

Dear Ms. Alfaromaiz:

The faghara County Drain Commissioner is responding to a petition for construction of a storm water drainin the tile/open channel drain that runs under, through and/or across a portion of your property. This will decreaseand prevent flooding throughout the watershed in which your property is located. Pursuant to the prov,sions of theDrain Code the Drain Commissioner has acquired and recorded easements for the necessary surveys, inspection,

construction and maintenance work associated with constructing the proposed drain. By this correspondence, theDrain Commissioner wishes to provide advance notice of this work and provide general information regarding the

nature of the work to be performed.

The Drain Commissioner is currently preparing plans and applications for required permit(s) from theMichi-an Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") for the construction of the drain. Part of this process

requires Drain Commissioner staff, consultants and/or MDEQ personnel to access your property and performsurveying, inspecting, construction and maintenance work within the recorded easements and the road right-of-ways The Drain Commissioner intends to begin work in the easement areas on or after February 15 , 2009, andcontinuing until such preparatory work is complete. This work will be performed during daylight hours and in anon-disruptive manner to determine wetland limits and to mark the areas where the drain will be constructed.Enclosed please find a map indicating the location of the easements in which Drain Commissioner's staff,consultants or associated personnel may be present, and information regarding the parties who will be onsite for the

work.

hesitate to contact my office at (517) 676-8361 or my mobile phone at (517) 719-4898. The Drain Commissionerlooks forward to working cooperatively with you and the other property owners in the Drainage District on this

project. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Respectful ly,.,

f

DaveSolberg

Project Coordinator

cc: Jeff Friedle, Ledy Design Group,

Blair Webster, Water and Woods Ecology,

Randy Abbott, Maintenance Crew Leader, ICDC

Kristin Bellar, Clark Hill Law Firm

STATE OF MICHIGAN

OFFICE OF THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER

In the Matter of:

DEER CREEK, HOLT ROAD BRANCH County Drain

ORDER OF NECESSITY

A meeting having been held by the Board of Determination, composed of Helen

LeBlanc, Bud Mills, Bruce Stark at 5:30 P. M, o'clock, on July 11, 1996, at the

southwest corner of Holt and Williamstopn Roads, then reconvene at Wheatfield Township

Hall, 985 Holt Road, Williamston,Michigan, being the lime and place fixed in the Notice of

the Meeting of Board of Determination, notice was duly served, published and posted as

required by law; and at said meeting U-^jiiT.tv. --K P !^>t>./a/* ...was elected Chairpeson and foi\!l&L- ^i^J'X.Secretary, and all persons owning lands liable to assessment for benefits, or whose lands

shall be crossed by said drain and any district or municipality affected having been given an

opportunity to appear and be heard on the question being considered of whethe^ the drai;rjin

-j ' ' d' .V'i'f* . is necessari'land conducive to public health, convenience

or welfare in accordance with Sections 72 and 91 of Act No. 40, PA 1956, as amended;

and the Board of Determination after having heard the evidence offered and having made its

determination upon the necessity of the drain and whether the same is necessary and

conducive to public health, convenience or welfare;

It is Hereby Ordered and Determined that the drain set forth in the Petition

[ (XjHi/' ( ■$ /"9^:'<as necessary and conducive to public health,convenience and welfare.

It is Further Ordered and Determined that the drain set forth in the Petition

is necessary for the /prpteption of the public health in the following

municipalities: IlH^cIKa^IC-7 " lotVv -

and that a portion of the cost thereof, except that which may be apportioned for benefits to

highways, shall be apportioned to said municipalities at large.

It is Further Ordered and Determined, pursuant to Section 197 of Act No.

40, PA 1956, as amended, that the addition of lands to the drainage district, as specified at

the hearing of the Board of Determination and as set forth in the attachment thereto, is

necessary and conducive to the public health, convenience or welfare.

/"I BOARD OF DETERMINATION

ember)

Rev. 7-93

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF MICHIGAN )

) SS.

COUNTY OFINGHAM )

I, Beverly J. VanHouten of the Ingham County Drain Commissioner's

Office of Ingham County, in said County, being duly sworn deposes and

says that on the 27th day of June 1996, she served one copy of the

Notice of Board of Determination of which the annexed is a true copy,

upon:

FIRST CLASS MAIL

SEE ATTACHED LIST

Bruce Stark

Helen LeBlanc

Bud Mills

CERTIFIED MAIL

Ingham County Clerk, Mike Bryanton

Ingham County Road Commission

Wheatfield Township Clerk, Kathleen Webster

Wheatfield Township Supervisor, Harold Curtis

The persons owning lands liable to an assessment on the Deer Creek, Holt

Road Branch Drain by delivering to; and further Deponent says not.

Beverly J. VanHouten

Subscribed and sworn before me this

1996.

J-tlM:

day o f

Jotary Public

Ingham County, Michigan

My Commission Expires: /Oftijerthe.? &, 19

G7-14-30Q-0Q7

ALLEN ROBERT £ IRENE2050 WILL.IAMSTON RDHILLIAMSTON! MI 4 889 5-0000

ANORIAKUS JOE

1689 HGLT RDWILLIAMSTON MI 43S95~0QOC

07-23-200-017

3.PER, MARK A!758 HOLT RDJILLI AMSTON MI 438?

07 07-14-400-007

9IDIGA/1VE BARBARA A SARMSTRONG VICKI L1761 HOLT ROWILLIAMSTON HI 43S95-C000

07-23-200-007 07-23-200-001

lARPENTER DENNIS R 8 BONNIE JI876 E HOLT RDJILLI AMSTON HZ 48895-0000

DENNIS CEKETERY ASSN

00000-0000

17-23-200-020 07 07-14-400-010

;ANN JOHN E S COLLEEN 5834 HOLT RDIILLIAMSTON HI 48895-0000

FEDEWA, BRUCE G & SUSAN L

WILLIAMSTON MI 48895-0000

07-14-400-006 07 07-24-100-014

IELD GARY

'061 UILLIAMSTON RDilLLIARSTON MI 48S95-Q000

FISHER JEFFERY L ft KIK J2086 HOLT ROADWILLIANSTON KI 48895-0000

07-14-300-003 07 C7-14-4C0-011

LECK WILLIAM S BIRUTE706 SORS DRILLIAHSTON MI 48S95-000

GOODEflOOT GARY 0 8, JILL R1919 HOLT ROADWILLIAPSTON MI 48895-Q00G

07-24-100-013

RAHAM ALIC

843 HOLT RDILLI AMSTON RI 4389 5'

HARRIS ROBERT 01950 WILLIAMSTON RDWILLIA^STON MI 48895-000C

7 07-24-100-019 07 G7-24-100-015

EIM J OHM F JR ID44 ROWLEY RDI LLI A IMS TON MI 4389 5

HILL JOHN E S AIDA 8

1906 WILLIAMSTON SDWILLIALSTON MI 48895-0000

07 07-14-400-012

ETCH COCK SCOTT L 8 KARENH1 NOBLE RD[LLIAMSTOfJ m 4 8 59 5-030 C

HOEFFNER TIMOTHY H S ROSARIA1775 HOLT ROADWILLIAMSTON MI 48395-OOOC

07-23-200-010

WILLIAKSTON MI 43895

07 07--1 4-400-013

L£ LAIDIER MAURICE F & LINDA1829 HOLT ROAD

07 07-23-200-011

PA8IAN ROBERT J I JOYCE1905 S WILLIAM3T0N RDWILLIAKSTON HI 48895-OQC

J7 07-23-200-025

1ICHARD30N DANIEL L1960 E HOLT ROJILLIAMSTON MI 4 839 5

37 07-14-300-004

30 RG WALTER L JRf 7 38 SORS DRIVE,'ILLIAMSTGN HI 43395-0000

)7 0 7-24-100-002

■HORNTON DALLAS N & KATIE L030 HOLT ROILLIAHSTON HI 48895-0000

UILLIAf"STON MI 48895-000C

07 G7-23-2C0-021

MOHRE 6ARE W 6 CINDY D1340 HOLT RDWILLIAKSTON MI 48895-000C

07 07-23-200-024

PENNONI MARTIN J &SAIRO-PENNONI ALICE M1910 HOLT ROttlLLIALSTON HI 43395

07 07-24-100-001

RUHLIG EMIL C S ALICE2016 HOLT ROWILLIAKSTON MI 48895-0000

07 07-23-200-012

SUBU JULIAN I1377 kILLIAMSTON RDWILLIAMSTON HI 43395-0000

'7 C7-24-100-003

VAN CAMP WAYNE W S SYLVIA 02042 E HOLT ROADWILLIAMSTON MI 48895-0000

STATE OF MICHIGAN

OFFICE OF THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER

In the Matter of:

Deer Creek, Holt Road Branch

NOTICE OF MEETING OF BOARD OF DETERMINATION

Notice is Hereby Given to you as a person liable for an assessment that the

Board of Determination, composed of Bruce Stark, Bud Mills and Helen LeBlanc, will

meet on July 11, 1996, at 5:30 p .m. at the southwest corner of Holt and Williamston

Roads,and then to reconvene at Wheatfield Township Hall, 985 E Holt Road, Willimaston,

MI 48895 at 6:00 p.m., to hear all interested persons and evidence and to determine

whether the drain in Drainage District No. D0603 known as the Deer Creek, Holt Road

Branch Drain, as prayed for in the Petition to clean out, relocate, widen, deepen,

straighten, tile, extend, or relocate along a highway and adding a branch and improving the

drain, dated April 13, 1995, is necessary and conducive to the public health, convenience

or welfare of Wheatfield Township in accordance with Sections 72 and 191 of Act No. 40,

P.A. 1956, as amended, and for the protection of the public health of the following cities,

villages and townships: Wheatfield Township . And further, to determine whether it is

necessary to add lands to the Drainage District pursuant to Section 197 of Act No. 40, PA

1956, as amended.

Proceedings conducted at this public hearing will be subject to the provision of the

Michigan Open Meetings Act and you are further notified that information regarding this

meeting may be obtained from the County Drain Commissioner. Persons with disabilities

needing accommodations for effective participation in the meeting should contact the

County Drain Commissioner at the number noted below (voice)or through the Michigan

Relay Center at 1-800-649-3777 (TDD) at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting to

request mobility, visual, hearing or other assistance. Minutes of the meeting will be on file

in the following offices: Ingham County Drain Commissioner's Office, 707 Buhl Ave.,

Mason, Michigan 48854.

You are Further Notified that persons aggrieved by the decisions of the Board

of Determination may seek judicial review in the Circuit Court for the County of Ingham

within ten (10) days of the determination.

DATED:

Patrick Lindemann

Ingham County Drain Commissioner

707 Buhl Ave., PO Box 220

Mason, Michigan 48854

(517)676-3562

Rev. 7-93

PETITION FOR CLEANING OUT, RELOCATING, WIDENING,

DEEPENING, STRAIGHTENING, TILING, EXTENDING OR

RELOCATING ALONG A HIGHWAY FOR A COUNTY DRAIN

TO THE COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER OF THE COUNTY OF INGHAM:

Petitioner hereby petitions for cleaning out, relocating, widening, deepening,

straightening, tiling, extending or relocating along Holt Road west of

Williamston Road, of the drain known and designated as the Deer Creek Drain,

located and established in the Township of Wheatfield in the County of Ingham,

State of Michigan.

Petitioner is a public body and this petition has been authorized by its governing

Board as evidenced by the attached resolution. The petitioner is a public body

corporate which will be liable for a portion of the assessments at large for at

least a percentage of the total amount to be assessed for the cost of the

proposed drain.

Your petitioner further shows that the said drain needs cleaning out, relocating,

widening, deepening, straightening, tiling, extending or relocating along a

highway for a county drain for the reason that: Holt Road has periodic flooding

causing a safety hazard for motorists and the said cleaning out, relocating,

widening, deepening, straightening, tiling, extending, or relocating of such drain

is necessary and conducive to the public health, convenience or welfare and

safety of the motoring public traveling on Holt Road.

INGHAM COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION

O/ David 0. Sheathelm

Its Chair. As authorized by its governing body

on April 13, 1995.

The Board of Ingham County Road Commissioners met for a regular meeting on

Thursday, April 13, 1995, at 6:15 PM at the Ingham County Road Commission

located at 301 Bush Street, Mason, Michigan.

Present: David 0. Sheathelm, Chair and June H. Pallottini, Vice Chair.

Absent & Excused: Michael B. Farrell, Member.

The following resolution was offered and unanimously carried.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FILING OF A PETITION WITH THE INGHAM

COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION TO CLEAN OUT, RELOCATE, WIDEN, DEEPEN,

STRAIGHTEN, TILE, EXTEND OR RELOCATE ALONG A HIGHWAY FOR A

COUNTY DRAIN.

RESOLUTION #079-95

Moved by Commissioner Sheathelm, Supported by Commissioner Pallottini.

2 yes, 1 excused. Resolution carried.

BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Managing Director, the

Board authorizes filing a petition with the Ingham County Drain Commission to

Clean Out, Relocate, Widen, Deepen, Straighten, Tile, Extend or Relocate Along

a Highway for a County Drain for the Deer Creek Drain located and established

in the Township of Wheatfield, Ingham County, Michigan. Staff of petitioner

Road Commission state that Holt Road west of Williamston Roads has periodic

flooding causing a safety hazard for motorists and that the said drain needs

cleaning out, relocating, widening, deepening, straightening, tiling, extending,

or relocating and it is necessary and conducive to the public health,

convenience, welfare and safety of the motoring public traveling on Holt Road

and to the residents of Wheatfield Township. Petitioner Road Commission

acknowledges that it is responsible for an assessment at large for at least a

percentage of the total amount to be assessed for the cost of the proposed

drain along Holt Road west of Williamston Road.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COUNTY OF INGHAM

I, Deborah L Bellows, Administrative Assistant to the Board of Ingham County

Road Commissioners hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy

of a Resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Board held on Thursday,

April 13, 1995, and that the same is a true transcript therefrom and of the

whole thereof.

Dated at Mason, Michigan, this 17th day of April, 1995.

Deborah L. Bellows, Administrative Assistant

Tonatzin M. Alfaro Maiz

1738 Sorg Road

Williamston, MI 48895

February 22, 2009

Attorney Kristin Bellar

Clark Hill PLC

212 E. Grand River Avenue

Lansing, MI 48906

Dear Ms. Bellar:

RE: Ingham County Drain Commissioner, Deer Creek, Holt Road Branch Drain

This letter is in response to the Ingham County Drain Commissioner's (ICDC) letter to me. dated

January 31, 2009, which I received on February 13, 2009. The letter advised that the ICDC was

responding "to a petition for construction of a storm water drain in the tile/open channel drain

that runs under, through and/or across a portion of your property." It further stated that he

intended to begin work on or after February 15' 2009.

The Office of the ICDC was closed on Monday, February 16, 2009. Thus, on Tuesday, February

17, 2009,1 spoke with Deputy Paul Pratt at the ICDC Office regarding the "lack of adequate

notice," I received. He assured me that because of the lack of notice, work on my property

would be delayed to provide me the 2-week notice per the January 31, 2009 letter. I advised Mr.

Pratt that in late 2007 or early 2008, Mr. Dave Solberg, ICDC staff, walked my property with me

to discuss this same project. At that time, I asked about the reason for the work and a copy of the

Petition authorizing the work. Mr. Solberg advised that the work was being done at the request

of a farmer whose farmland was flooding. I never received a copy of the Petition. However, on

February 17, 2009, Mr. Pratt provided me a copy of the 1995 Petition (Petition) and 1996 Order

of Necessity (Order). The basis of the 1995 Petition and 1996 Order was not - the flooding of

farmland.

Subsequently, on Tuesday, February 17, 2009,1 received a call from you, as counsel1 for theICDC, inquiring if I had any further questions. You advised that you would be attending a Drain

Conference, but that I could leave a voicemail with any concerns.

11 addressed this letter to you as counsel for the ICDC. I suspect that the Ledy Design Group

and Water and Woods Ecology are under contract with the ICDC for this project. Since I do not

know the legal relationship between these entities, they have not been copied them on this letter.

If they are independent contractors, please advise so they can be properly served.

I reviewed the April 13, 1995 Petition, the June 26, 1996 Notice of Meeting of Board of

Determination providing notice to persons liable for an assessment, the July 11, 1996 Order of

Necessity issued by the Board of Determination, and the Drain Code of 1956, 40 PA 1956 (Drain

Code).

The purpose of this letter is to voice my Objection to any work being performed on my property

by the ICDC based on the April 13, 1995 Petition and July 11, 1996 Order of Necessity, which

are invalid, stale and not authorized by law, for the following reasons:

1) The ICDC does not have a current valid Petition or Order of Necessity. The 1995 Petition

requested action at that time - 1995, and provided an opportunity for objections to persons liable

for assessments at that time. Now, approximately thirteen (13) years after the Petition and

issuance of the 1996 Order, the ICDC is preparing to proceed on the 1995 Petition and 1996

Order. The ICDC must have a current and valid Petition and Order ofNecessity to perform work

authorized pursuant to the Drain Code.

2) The Drain Code requires the ICDC to "act immediately" on Orders of Necessity. Under any

circumstance, a thirteen-year delay does not qualify as "immediate" action. The ICDC's failure

to immediately proceed on the 1995 Petition and the 1996 Order as required by the Drain Code

negates the validity of the 1995 Petition and 1996 Order as authority for the "construction of the

storm water drain" on my property.

3) The Drain Code requires Notice to be provided to persons liable for an assessment, and

further requires "immediate action" by the ICDC upon issuance of an Order of Necessity. The

rationale for the Notice requirement and immediate action by the ICDC, in the Drain Code and

legal principles of due process, is to insure that persons liable for an assessment have the

opportunity to be heard before "immediate action" is taken by the ICDC on the project, i.e., the

right to due process. The 13-year delay in this case is prejudicial to me and any other new

property owners, and denies us our due process because it effectively eliminates and negates the

Drain Code requirement to provide Notice to persons liable for an assessment.

4) A right-of way easement for my property was executed on March 16, 1999. Using the March

16, 1999 date the ICDC has still failed to perform his statutory obligations based on the 1995

Petition and 1996 Order for ten years. A ten-year delay under any circumstance cannot be

considered "immediate action." Moreover, the effect of the ten-year delay is to eliminate and to

negate the Drain Code Act's Notice requirement and due process to persons liable for an

assessment. Current property owners liable for an assessment are entitled to due process and

should be provided the Notice required by the Drain Code. Reliance on the June 26, 1996 Notice

of Meeting of Board of Determination is inadequate to satisfy due process requirements and the

Drain Code Act's Notice requirement to current property owners for a project on which no action

has been taken for 10 to 13 years.

5) Since the original Petition is approximately fourteen-years old (14), the ICDC is prohibited

from proceeding on the invalid and stale 1995 Petition and 1996 Order. The circumstances call

for the filing of a new and current Petition from the Ingham County Road Commission to

establish that the issue raised in the 1995 Petition still exists, and thus is still a necessity, i.e.,

there is periodic flooding of Holt Road causing a safety hazard.

6) Although, the previous owners ofmy property provided a Release of Right of Way Deer

Creek, Holt Road Branch Drain (easement) to the ICDC, the easement specifically states:

"The Right of Way hereby conveyed and released is for the sole

and only purpose of constructing and maintaining over and across "

said premises the Deer Creek, Holt Rd Branch Drain, petition for which in

writing was made on April 13,1995, by the Ingham County Road

Commission, and the necessity for which has been determined by the

said Board of Determination hearing date July 11,1996. "(Emphasis added)

Because the sole and only purpose of the easement was the 1995 Petition and 1996

Order, which I submit are invalid and stale, the ICDC does not have a valid easement.

Absent a valid easement, the ICDC staff has no right to trespass on my property. Moreover, I

have asked and am renewing my request to be advised of the scheduled work plans of the ICDC

staff, consultants, and contractors as it regards my property, so I can be present.

Please be advised that I am not giving ICDC permission to trespass on my property based on the

invalid and stale 1995 Petition and 1996 Order, nor, am I WAIVING my objections to this

project or claims of trespass by the ICDC staff and consultants or contractors on my property

pursuant to the invalid 1995 Petition and 1996 Order. I intend to consult counsel about the legal

remedies available to me, including actions of trespass based on an invalid 1995 Petition and

1996 Order.

Respectfully,

Tonatzin M. Alfaro Maiz U

c: Ingham County Road Commission

Bruce Stark

Helen LeBlanc

Bud Mills

Ingham County Clerk

Wheatfield Township Clerk

Wheatfield Township Supervisor

See Attached List