Rochester Hills Legistar System

Committee members discussed the Street Lighting Policy noting the following:

Mr. Rousse, DPW Director, stated that he drafted a formal rationale using the Astro

Standard for design rough draft supplied in determining the policy for installing street

lighting. Mr. Rousse stated that he is seeking additional comments from the Financial

Services Committee members so that revisions can be made before the final draft is

brought forward to City Council for their adoption.

Mr. Rousse stated draft policy language as follows:

...that the policy shall be known as the City of Rochester Hills Street Lighting Policy

here and to referred to as ... the purpose of this Policy is to protect the health, safety

and welfare of the residents.

* Street Lighting Policy would provide the City with a formal policy and procedure.

* Policy would only apply to those street light requests that are for major roads.

* Subdivisions that request street lights are responsible for the installation costs, etc.

* Currently the community has a total of sixty-five (65) major road street lights, thirty (30

) are paid for by the City, twenty-nine (29) are paid for by the subdivisions and four (4)

are paid for by the Road Commission.

* Installation cost is approximately $3,000 and annual operating cost is $250.

* Before installation, City considers the following criteria:

* Geometrics of the intersection

* Sight distance

* View obstruction

* Existing traffic light

* Traffic counts

* Other street lights

* Level of illumination

* Existing Pathway

* School area

* Crash data

* City does not have an official "system of warrants" to determine where street lights

should be installed.

* A formal policy would provide a guideline to evaluate requests before requests are

forwarded onto Traffic Safety and Advisory Board evaluation.

* Once a policy or guidelines are developed, it then becomes an internal operation in

which the Engineering Department would perform a traffic study and forward request on

to the Traffic Safety and Advisory Board, citizen representation, who would ultimately

make the final decision and/or approval.

* It is the City's responsibility to provide illumination in the right-of-way.

Committee members agreed that policies are adopted by City Council but enforced by

the Administration and should remain under their responsibility.

Committee member expressed concern that every subdivision will request entrance

street lights. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Street Lighting Policy

reflects that subdivision entrances do not apply. It was noted that requests from

subdivisions for street lighting at entrances would have a subdivision assessment.

Roger Rousse, DPS Director, discussed proposed 2005 DPS equipment replacement of

Loader and Flail Mower noting the following:

* Replace two (2) pieces of equipment with one (1) piece of equipment.

* Saves on purchase price.

* Increases utilization and saves on maintenance costs.

* Flail Mower and Front End Loader Equipment are fully depreciated and beyond their

life cycle replacement.

* Old equipment has cost $22,000 in repairs over the past two (2) years.

* The mower is $62,000 and the loader is $86,000 and by combining them saves the

City $30,000 ($8,000 in cost plus $20,000 in needed repairs).

Mr. Rousse explained that by renting this piece of equipment hourly for major roads and

renting it from the City itself, generates approximately $16,000 in annual revenue.

Committee member expressed concern regarding the break down of this one (1)

combined unit and what the cost would be to maintain effective operations.

Mr. Rousse verified that the City has a good maintenance department with highly skilled

vehicle maintenance and repair employees. He confirmed that the monies were in place

in the fleet fund to purchase this unit.

Mr. Rousse, DPW Director, discussed replacement of the Tap Crew Truck noting the

following:

* Current Tap Crew Truck is an underpowered multi-use utility vehicle used to tow

heavy equipment.

* Over the years, equipment has gotten heavier and bigger and creates an unsafe

towing problem for the Tap Crew Truck.

* Tap Crew Truck is fully depreciated.

* Cost is $78,000 for the new GMC Tap Truck which purchase price will be offset once

old vehicle is sold.

Committee members discussed the Police Millage it was noted that December of 2006

will be the last levy for Special Police II Millage which provides funding for the fiscal year

2007.

Ms. Jenuwine presented the following three (3) Millage requirement scenarios as

requested by Public Safety:

* What would be the required Millage if City continues as usual.

* What would be the required Millage if additional officer added each year beginning

in 2008 through the year 2015.

* What would be the required Millage if all eight (8) Deputies hired immediately.

Committee member expressed concern with supplementing Police Millage with available

unexplainable fund balance and further questioned when this fund is depleted if General

Fund would then be the subsidy for it. Committee member stated that the Millage

should be great enough to hold a constant.

Ms. Jenuwine stated 1.3268 is needed to stop a subsidy from the General Fund. She

further stated the following:

* If City had all eight (8) officers, City would need 2.2857.

* If City had all eight (8) officers and only added them one (1) per year, City would

need 2.258.

* If City were status quo, remaining at fifty-eight (58) through 2014, City would need

2.0445.

Committee members thanked Ms. Jenuwine for the update.

Ms. Jenuwine, Finance Director, reported that for the 2006 fiscal year budget the monies

under the Solid Waste Fund will be transferred to reflect under Ordinance and the

Ordinance Budget which is in the General Fund. She noted the following:

* The appropriate fund is the Special Revenue Fund which accounts for a tax levy or a

special assessment for purposes of providing garbage and rubbish collection.

* This transfer of funds is to eliminate the smaller funds and have one (1) fund and one

(1) line item.

* If the City decides to go with a single Solid Waste hauler, it would be an Enterprise

Fund, self supporting, and would be under the Enterprise area of the budget.

Committee members agreed that Solid Waste Fund is a high end concern of the citizens

and by eliminating the fund and transferring monies under ordinance would create

confusion. Members will continue discussion at budget workshops.

Committee discussed the Rewold Drain Phase II Improvements, Series 2005 Bonds -

Continuing Disclosure noting the following:

* Resolution is asking to add a Continuing Disclosure Statement to the petition of 1984.

* In 1984 the bonding rules did not call for Continuing Disclosures but is now required.

Ms. Jenuwine stated that annually she must provide Continuing Disclosure to all the

Federal and State surveillance agencies/organizations who review and monitor bonds

and make sure the City is worthy of the ratings that we have. She further stated that

she is bringing Continuing Disclosure language to City Council for their approval.