Rochester Hills Legistar System

Community Development & Viability Non-Voting Members Present: Ed Anzek,

Kristina Hurst, Kelley Kosuda

Community Development & Viability Non-Voting Members Absent: Scott Cope, Roger

Rousse, Pratyusha Yalamanchi

Financial Services Non-Voting Members Present: Julie Jenuwine

Financial Services Non-Voting Members Absent: Kurt Dawson, Angie Jackson,

Richard Yoon

Public Safety Non-Voting Members Present: Chief Ron Crowell, Captain Robert Smith,

Adam Lomasney, Paras Patel

Public Safety Non-Voting Members Absent: Andy LeBlanc

Others Present:

- Mayor Bryan Barnett

- Jane Leslie, City Clerk,

- John Staran, City Attorney,

- Bob Grace, MIS Director,

- Gerard Verschueren, Citizen Representative, Administration & Information Services

Committee

- Deanna Hilbert, Citizen Representative, Leisure Activities Committee

Members Rosen and Kinker provided previous notice they would be unable to attend

and asked to be excused.

Chairperson Holder asked if any residents would like to speak about topics not on the

agenda.

Mr. Verschueren questioned the status of opening Tienken Road through Auburn Hills.

Mayor Barnett reported that the Auburn Hills City Council voted 4 to 3 to remove the

barrier and they are working on an aggressive timetable which should have the road

opened by November 15, 2006.

Ms. Hilbert asked why the decision was made now to take down the barrier on Tienken

Road.

Mayor Barnett highlighted factors that Auburn Hills Council members considered which

included the following:

* Dutton Road is now open as another east / west corridor through Auburn Hills

* Walton Boulevard is scheduled next year to be widened through Auburn Hills

* A traffic study was done to show that removing the barrier on Tienken Road would

have a minor impact on traffic increase in Auburn Hills

* Residents in Auburn Hills were evenly divided on the decision to remove the barrier on

Tienken Road.

Chairperson Holder opened the floor for discussion on the Police Millage issue.

Ms. Julie Jenuwine, Finance Director, gave a brief background of the difference between

a Voted dedicated millage versus a Charter millage and noted the following:

* A voted dedicated millage would have an expiration term to coincide with the Special

Police I millage or for a shorter duration. It would require approximately 2.2 mills overall,

but would need to be voted again before expiring.

* A Charter millage would typically have no expiration date and would possibly

be-examined in approximately 20 years if the Charter is re-examined. It would also

require a higher number of approximately 3.6 mills to include adding 13 deputies, the

estimated Headlee reductions, conservative taxable values, and possible increases in

the Oakland County Sheriff Department (OCSD) contract.

Mr. Lee Zendel, 1575 Dutton, questioned how the existing Police millage that goes

through 2014 would affect asking for a Charter millage. Mr. Staran, City Attorney noted

there is some uncertainty whether a prior vote of residents can be undone by a Charter

millage which would be voted on by the residents. Currently there is no State law that

speaks to this situation. Opinions from the Attorney General are nonbinding. However,

the Attorney General's office reviews charter amendments before they are presented to

residents for the voting process. Caution should be used regarding levying a millage

that could be challenged.

Capt. Smith explained that the additional 13 deputies is a conservative assessment for

the next 15 to 20 years. Ms. Jenuwine offered to rework a different millage request to

reflect a non-conservative approach if that was the desire of this Committee.

Member Hooper offered the following suggestion:

* To have an election in the spring of 2007 to renew Police II millage for seven (7) more

years so it would sunset at the same time as Police I. The in the fall of 2007 have an

election for a new Police III millage for 7 years for the additional thirteen (13) officers

and eliminate the General Fund Subsidy. If they pass, then in 2014, offer the residents

a Charter millage for police needs at that time.

The Committee discussed Mr. Hooper's suggestion and noted the following:

* A November 2007 election would have a high turnout, but would also be risky. If

voters did not pass the renewal, there would not be another opportunity for an election

before the renewal expired in 2007.

* If Police I and Police II expired in 2014, there may be a need to factor in contract

negotiations with OCSD and also the projected Headlee rollbacks.

* A 3.6 millage request may be an uphill battle. It has to be the right balance between

the costs and what the residents are willing to pay.

Mayor Barnett encouraged the Joint members to discuss all ideas and that Council

needs to decide which idea to move forward because time is of the essence.

Member Yalamanchi explained his apprehension for a tax increases in the next two (2)

to three (3) years because of the current Michigan economy and people losing their

jobs. He suggested that his first preference would be to create a plan that could sustain

the current police services for the next three (3) to four (4) years in hopes that the

Michigan economy will turn around. He suggested that perhaps Ms. Jenuwine could

provide a financial projection of the next three (3) to four (4) years on how to sustain the

current police services relative to new developments, revenues, etc. that may be in the

pipeline.

Ms. Ann Mathison, 749 Cambridge Dr. suggested exploring the possibility of forming

a partnership with the City of Rochester since they have budgetary struggles too.

Member Ambrozaitis reported recent conversations with various local representatives

regarding regionalization of city and municipal services as a way for cities to grow into

the future.

Member Yalamanchi stated that city governments will be faced with downsizing in the

future just as the private sector is facing today. Local officials must be innovative and

proactive by looking at different alternatives such as regionalization. He suggested his

second preference would be for the Mayors and Department Directors of neighboring

municipalities to have a dialog and explore ways to partner and combine services to

reduce costs.

Chairperson Holder reported that there has been positive dialog through the Sister

City/Auburn Hills Committee, but have not been successful with the Sister

City/Rochester Committee.

Mr. Paul Miller, 1021 Harding agreed that innovative and creative ways of

intra-community services could be very beneficial. There may be an issue of

intra-community cooperation but there are ways at reducing costs that should be

considered.

Chief Crowell briefly explained the cost-savings mutual aid agreements that exist

between neighboring fire departments for EMS services as well as fire training.

Capt. Smith stated that a contracted police department represents good government at

its best because of economies of scale and reduction of duplicated services.

Member Duistermars advised that a cautious approach should be used when thinking

about combining departments of different cities.

Member Yalamanchi stated that his third preference would be to do a Charter

amendment taking the 2.5 mills dedicated to Fire and adding it to the cost for Police to

create one combined millage for 4.7 for Police and Fire.

Mr. Zendel stated the reality is telling the residents of this City that they are undertaxed

compared to the surrounding communities.

It was noted that the Older Persons Commission (OPC) and Rochester-Avon Recreation

Authority (RARA) are good examples of one organization providing services to three (3)

communities. Currently there are discussions regarding the creation of a district library

in lieu of the Rochester Hills Public Library.

Member Cosenza stated that someone has to define the services that could be

combined.

Member Raschke questioned how to sell a new millage proposal in light of all the failed

millages in the past.

THE COMMITTEE RECESSED FROM 8:48 PM TO 9:07 PM

Chairperson Holder cautioned that residents are looking at the "wants versus needs" of

the City. An example is the Museum and the Environmental Center. Many residents

feel that the City should not fund them.

A motion was made by Raschke, seconded by Hooper, that this matter be

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting.

Whereas the Joint Members of the Community Development & Viability, Financial

Services and Public Safety Committees have discussed the matter of the expiring

Police II Millage at their meeting on July 22, 2006 and September 27, 2006, and

Resolved that the Joint Members recommend the following proposal be

presented for discussion at a future City Council Meeting:

1. Renew the expiring Police II Millage for seven years or whatever time

appropriate so that it sunsets with Police I Millage,

2. Create a Police III Millage proposal for an appropriate millage rate that would

equal the subsidy from the General Fund used to fund 13 OCSD deputies and

sunset with the Police I & II millages,

3. Suggested election dates are May 2007 for the renewal of Police I and

November 2007 for the new Police III.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Chairperson Holder introduced Mr. Steve Sucher, Board President of the Avondale

School District.

Capt. Smith offered a brief history regarding the program which included the following:

* Avondale School District had a program with one officer from the Auburn Hills Police

Department and one deputy from the Oakland County Sheriff's Department (OCSD).

Three years ago, there was a unilateral decision made to discontinue the OCSD deputy

but maintain the Auburn Hills Police officer. The district has come to the conclusion that

one officer can no longer carry the workload and would like to reinstate the OCSD

deputy.

* When the OCSD contract was discontinued with the Avondale School District, the

deputy remained in the Rochester Hills substation budget and was integrated into the

shift work. However, if the position is to be reinstated for the Avondale School District,

then two (2) things must be considered:

1. A deputy position cannot be removed from the current substation shift work

without an increase in overtime to cover scheduled days off such as weekends,

vacations, sick leaves, etc.

2. Avondale School District paid 12% toward an OCSD deputy, while Rochester

Schools pay 19.7%. Parity should be discussed.

* It is difficult to utilize part-time OCSD employees because of a historical record that

the liaison position was a bargaining member's job.

Joint Committee Members commenced discussion which included the following:

* The City's budget would increase approximately $85,000 to reinstate a deputy to the

Avondale School District. This financial model would be different than the other police

liaison programs that are currently in place.

* The school liaison officer's main role is to provide age-appropriate education for

prevention and role modeling. As society has changed, the officer's role is being

stretched to go beyond the administration's disciplinary process and includes other

processes such as investigations, meetings with parents, and probate court actions, etc.

* The prevention of short-term criminal activity in schools has a positive effect and is

money well spent, but is something that cannot be quantified.

* The shared cost of an additional officer was discussed.

* Currently the cost for the officers for the Rochester Schools Police Liaison Program is

funded by 19.6% from Rochester Schools, 10% from the City of Rochester, 19% from

Oakland Township and 51.4% from the City of Rochester Hills.

* A compromise in funding must be met to avoid an increase in the City's budget.

Mr. Sucher stated that the current Auburn Hills Police officer covers the Avondale

School buildings that lie within the City of Auburn Hills. Avondale Schools does share

the cost with the Auburn Hills Police Department, but he did not know the figure. He

offered to provide that information for discussion at a future Council meeting. He also

mentioned that the school population of Avondale School District is comprised of

students not only from Auburn Hills and Rochester Hills, but included Troy and

Bloomfield Township.

The Committee was not ready to make a recommendation at this time, but would like to

this topic to the Financial Services Committee for further discussion.