Rochester Hills Legistar System

Committee discussed the expiring Pathway Millage noting the following:

* There are three (3) possible options to consider:

* Renewal of Pathway Millage

* Request a lesser amount

* Request an increased amount

* A possibility may be to remove the Park Funding from the General Fund and request a

millage to fund park operations to include pathways as well.

* The original Pathway proposal only identified pathways along major roads; a

successful program would provide next generation linkages from the pathways to the

schools and activity centers etc. It was mentioned that ballot language would require a

change for the renewal to include additional pathway segments.

* The City Attorney would need to advise the City how much deviation from original

language allows City to do initial construction, major maintenance and rehabilitation.

* Currently Pathway Millage has $2.5 million in fund balance.

* A renewal millage at .18581 would generate approximately $661,000 annually.

Ms. Jenuwine stated there were not supporting expenditures to levy the full amount in a

prior year. She further stated that City Charter states the city cannot levy more than

what it needs.

Mr. Rosen stated that the first priority of the City should be placing pathways on at least

one side of every road with linkages/connections being secondary. He further stated

that if a Renewal Millage can accomplish both goals, Renewal Millage language should

state exactly that; this could conflict with the current policy; therefore a recommendation

to change the policy would be needed as well. Mr. Rosen expressed the necessity of

precise straight forward language.

Mr. Kaszubski agreed with good vision/clarity of language and expressed concern with

other millages coming forward where Pathways Millage may become a nicety. He noted

unclear language could result in a Pathways Millage failure.

Committee discussed possible options as follows:

* When the Pathways Millage expires, do no more new paths.

* Renew at a lower rate and change the policy to one side of the major roads.

* Renew at the present rate with a possible policy change to one side of the major

roads and linkages to secondary uses.

* Renew at original rate of .2 calling it a Headlee override to the original amount which

would allow for pathways on both sides and add linkages to secondary uses.

* Renew at an even higher rate to complete the pathways faster and linkages to

secondary uses.

Ms. Jenuwine stated that current projects in the CIP will deplete the Pathway Millage

fund balance to approximately $700,000.

Mr. Hartner mentioned a new State program initiative called "Safe Routes to Schools"

where they have studied several district subdivisions and found that they do not have

sidewalks or access points.

A motion was made by Rosen, seconded by Kaszubski, that this matter be

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting.

Resolved that the Community Development & Viability Committee recommends

City Council approve placing the renewal of Pathway Millage at its present rate

of.18581 on the ballot to continue the non-motorized pathway plan to complete

the next group of major sections and to link pathways to major areas.

Be It Further Resolved that Community Development & Viability Committee

requests City Council delay sending the request for ballot language to the City

Attorney pending the outcome of the Joint Financial Services, Public Safety and

Community Development & Viability Committee meeting to be held on Saturday,

July 22, 2006 to discuss millages.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Youth Council Members Ms.Pawlowski and Ms.Hurst mentioned how much they

enjoyed being on the Youth Council and expressed excitement about how much

knowledge they had gained throughout the year regarding City Operations. They also

mentioned that although they found the topics discussed at Community Development &

Viability very interesting, occasionally they had a difficult time following and fully

understanding the discussion that took place.

Mr. Anzek mentioned a past practice mentor program which assigned every youth

member to a Council or Staff member to be a resource to call with questions.

Mr. Rousse asked if they found the information packet helpful.

Ms. Pawlowski thought the larger packets were a waste of paper.

Ms. Hurst stated that she did read some of the information.

Mr. Anzek mentioned that a letter was forthcoming from Dykema Gossett Law Firm

regarding the Eaton Corporation's request for a Lot Split. The letter will request City

Council to consider selling a City owned thirty (30) foot piece of land to gain access to a

particular piece of property located in the proximity of the Public Safety complex. Mr.

Anzek requested that the letter be brought forward to the Community Development &

Viability Committee for Committee review due to the physical aspects associated with

the property. He further stated that the Fire Chief's input should be sought before

considering the Lot Split request.