Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes - Final

Police and Road Funding Technical

Review Committee

Don Cline, Jr., John Dalton, Dale Hetrick,

Tim Jacobson, Walter Johnson, Nancy Soisson

Council Members: Greg Hooper, Michael Webber

Youth Member: Ishan Patel

6:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, February 4, 2010

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Michael Webber at 6:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

John Dalton, Greg Hooper, Don Cline, Walter Johnson, Nancy Soisson and

Michael Webber

Present

6 -

Tim Jacobson and Dale Hetrick

Absent

2 -

Others Present:

Others in Attendance:

Ted Zellers

INTRODUCTIONS

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

DISCUSSION ITEM

2010-0063

Police and Road Funding Discussion

Police Road Recom 030711(1)(1).pdf

Rochester Hills Road Video outline (3).pdf

Rochester Hills Road Video outline-tlz-dah - r1 (3).pdf

Rochester Hills Road Video outline-tlz-r1 (2).pdf

2010_PQI_Map_Locals.pdf

Gravel_Roads.pdf

Street_Jurisdiction (2).pdf

Assesrol.xls

CC MTG_1994-01-25.pdf

Decling Rate Methodology_1988-02-24.pdf

Flyer from 1998.pdf

Local Rd Guidelines_1993-02-03.pdf

Local Rd Improvement Policy_1998-04-29.pdf

Local Rd Improvement_1998-05-08.pdf

Local Rd Policy Purpose and Intent_1998-05-08.pdf

Paving Gravel Stds_1998-04-29.pdf

Questions_Local Rd Forum_1997-05-14.pdf

Road Repair Costs.xls

SAD Apportionment Ltr_1990-05-23.pdf

SAD Checklist.pdf

SAD Info_Jan-2001.pdf

SAD Practices in MI_1994.pdf

2010 Survey SAD.pdf

Preliminary Millage Forecast #2.pdf

Spreadsheet Sorted by CC Ranking.pdf

Spreadsheet Sorted by Area.pdf

Spreadsheet Sorted by Timing.pdf

Spreadsheet Sorted by No Action Needed.pdf

Purpose and Charge.pdf

Mayor's memo w attachments.pdf

Attachments:

The meeting was called to order by Michael Webber at 6:00 p.m. and a

meeting agenda prepared by Mr. Webber was distributed to the attendees

(attached).

Introductions were completed and Mr. Webber explained that there is a vacancy

on the committee but that City Council will have a nomination process at its

Monday, February 8, 2010 wherein the vacancy will be filled. He stated his

expectation of having a full committee by the next committee meeting.

Mr. Hooper stated that he had some proposed ballot language regarding

funding of maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and reconstruction of local roads.

He stated that it is his intent to get feedback from the committee before bringing

the proposed ballot language before City Council. He said the Special

Assessment District Policy (SAD Policy) would also be coming before City

Council for discussion and that it would be more appropriate to have the

committee review the SAD Policy first.

Mr. Webber added that as the committee reviews the spreadsheets attached to

the meeting agenda, the committee would remember the 22 recommendations

that had been submitted in spring 2009 to make a determination as to which

recommendations the committee would continue working on. He asked if any of

the committee members had any additional recommendations to the list.

Mr. Johnson stated his desire to review the SAD Policy and possibly combine

it with the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and research usage of that

combination as an alternative to the usage of the millage extension.

Mr. Hooper stated that Mr. Dalton's suggestion could be added to the SAD

Policy discussion.

Mr. Webber commented that because of its high rating, he would like Mr. Roger

Rousse to give a presentation to City Council about the SAD Policy.

Discussion ensued by the committee members regarding the advantages of

having funding readily available for local road maintenance rather than reliance

upon the annual millage.

Mr. Webber stated that Mr. Keith Sawdon, the City's Finance Director, had

attended several of the committee's meetings and had prepared the

spreadsheets to forecast what is to come if there are no changes to the

millages.

Mr. Hooper clarified that the spreadsheets are a start forecast, reflecting the

entire nation's economy and this is to enable the committee in being proactive in

its financial planning for the future.

Mr. Johnson asked about the total taxable rate for the City.

Mr. Hooper responded that the spreadsheets do not reflect dollar amounts but

rather the value of what a mill is worth.

Mr. Webber stated that Council adopted the 2010 Budget and put together a

two-year budget proposal with a five-year outlook similar to Oakland County.

He explained that as Council goes into budget discussions, they can always be

looking ahead at the forecasts to make the necessary adjustments.

Mr. Webber and Mr. Hooper discussed that one of the recommendations of

the committee would be to combine police and road funding into a single public

services millage, make it a part of the City Charter so that it would automatically

be a part of the Budget for a set period of time and therefore, it would not be

necessary to keep bringing the millages for a vote from the residents.

Discussion evolved around the Charter amendment process to include a single

public services millage, if this would include fire services and the impact of

commercial tax abatements. The discussion then moved to whether the City

has a reserve for tax tribunal cases and Mr. Hooper responded that between

the City's conservative taxable value approach and the Board of Review

resolving most of the cases resulting in very few tax cases going to the State

Tax Tribunal level.

Mr. Webber suggested that the discussion move to the next several

spreadsheets organized by levels of recommendation, City Council's ranking,

sorted by area, timing and no further action needed. Discussion ensued

regarding the various rankings of the recommendations: the completed

recommendations, ongoing recommendations and the recommendations that

have stalled. He discussed the recommendation of the establishment of a

Parks/Bond/Millage Committee to research the possibility of a dedicated Parks

Millage which would allow more revenue to be used for police and local road

costs. He stated this recommendation had been sent back to the committee for

discussion. Then he briefly described the challenge of optimizing the police

contract with the Oakland County Sheriffs Office in spite of the language

revision. He stated that this challenge resulted in discussion among Council

Members about the exploration of a Request for Proposal being submitted to

investigate other police contract options.

Discussion among committee members commenced whether there are City

restrictions that prohibit the use of other county law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Webber stated his belief that the Michigan State Police Department is not

allowed by the State of Michigan's constitution to perform contract law

enforcement services. He then discussed that the City directs the Oakland

County Sheriffs Office as to what level of law enforcement services it requires

and that compared to other communities, we do not employ as many officers for

the size of the City's population.

Mr. Dalton, a former police chief of Auburn Hills, shared his knowledge of the

cost to Auburn Hills and the number of law enforcement officers. He stated that

the City of Rochester Hills is experiencing a cost savings by contracting with

the Oakland County Sheriffs Office, additional officers could be provided quickly

in the occurrence of a major crime and if there is a bad officer inciting citizen

complaints, it is easier to remove an officer under the contract with the Oakland

County Sheriffs Office than an officer employed by a city.

Discussion commenced between committee members regarding:

- The cost of law enforcement

- Determination of the size of the millage needed to pay for law enforcement

- Reliance on the voters would result in 28 officers instead of 60 officers

- No money no services and concern that fire services will also be impacted

- Concern about calls from cell phones to 911 not being tracked adequately or

categorized as 'fire', 'police' or 'emergency'

Mr. Hooper responded that the incoming 911 calls from cell phones are

registered.

Mr. Zellers was asking about the itemization (i.e. Fire, EMS and Police) of the

types of the 7,340 calls reported in 2009.

Mr. Hooper responded that the Fire Department has that specific information.

The discussion moved to the fact that currently, Oakland County Sheriffs Office

takes the 911 calls as part of their contract but that there is a Request For

Proposal process regarding the City's dispatch service.

Mr. Zellers asked if there were two separate call dispatch centers and what is

the cost of having two.

Mr. Webber clarified that he thought the question really being asked in terms of

calls received, is how is funding for these services divided and allocated

between fire and police. He stated further that the recommendation was to go

out for bids to evaluate different options, one of which is the Oakland County

Sheriffs Office. He reported that currently, if the Oakland County Sheriffs Office

gets the call, they will direct the call and that Fire Station One also receives

emergency calls. He stated that there are two people on staff at Fire Station

One and that about seven to eight people staff it throughout the day throughout

the week at roughly $1,000,000.00.

Mr. Hooper reported that it is $540,000.00 in 2010. The cost savings would

come in by contracting for dispatch because it would not include health care

costs.

Mr. Webber stated that the committee could look into these recommendations

and make side comments but that he thought Council wanted the committee to

discuss the parks bond millage committee and the formation of such and

optimize the Oakland County Sheriffs Office contract. He suggested that the

committee move on to the proposed ballot language that was distributed for the

committee's review and discussion.

Mr. Hooper stated that he had brought Proposed Ballot Questions A and B for

the committee's input, opinions, clarification suggestions, and for their

preference of Council Member Yalamanchi's Proposed Ballot Question Option

A or the Proposed Ballot Question Option B. Option A does create a fluctuation

increase in the expiring, previously-voted bond debt millage of up to 1.14879

mills in the years 2017 through 2020 wherein Option B replaces the expiring,

previously-voted bond debt millage and the tax levy is limited to up to 0.3545

mills through year 2020.

There seemed to be a consensus of the committee that Option A of the

proposed Ballot Question was very confusing and would not pass with the voters

for that reason. Various committee members asked about the wording of the

proposed Ballot language and Mr. Hooper explained that City Attorney Staran

had stated that the Ballot Question has to ask for a specific millage rate for a

specific year and report what the dollar amount is in each year. It was

discussed that the Option A and Option B Proposed Language would be

presented at the February 22, 2010 City Council meeting for discussion

regarding the August 2010 Primary Ballot. It was reported that the Older

Persons' Commission will have a note of renewal on the same ballot.

Mr. Webber asked if the Option B Ballot Question would be dedicated for the

parks so that parks would benefit from the general funds since it is a parks bond

that is expiring.

Ms. Soisson stated that pursuit of such recommendation might result in

conflict.

Mr. Webber stated that he is comfortable with it remaining for the local roads.

There was more discussion on the specific questions in the Public Opinion

Survey that was performed through Oakland University and represents an

accurate representation of what the population of Rochester Hills' response to

the questions. The question was asked regarding how the estimated rates along

with the possibility of decreased taxable values were determined.

Mr. Hooper stated that City Council could choose to not levy the full amount

which led to Mr. Johnson asking how this would work because of the

assumption that values are decreasing while the millage would be increasing.

Mr. Hooper directed them to look at and question the millage rate calculation as

determined by the Board of Review and that City Council would review millage

rates during Budget discussions and could determine to not levy the full

amount.

Mr. Johnson responded that if the 'up to' provision is in there, the residents will

assume that the full amount will be used.

Mr. Hooper did not agree stating that there is a tenth of a mill left in General

Fund and a tenth of a mill left in Fire.

Discussion turned to the presentation of Option A and Option B - proposed

Ballot Questions and which would produce the best result for the care and

maintenance of the City's local roads. It was stated that Roger Rousse would

be necessary to aide in the educational component of the voters before the

primary. It was suggested that the educational component be very simple, very

graphic and very specific. It was discussed that if the monies were available

presently, the road conditions could be thoroughly repaired instead of having to

wait every other year when the millage comes in.

Mr. Hooper added that the cost of patching intersections for 2010 will be

approximately $2,500,000.00; the residents love their lower tax rate compared

to other communities and do not want to pay more taxes.

Discussion turned to the GORB Series - 1998 - bond debt millage that will

expire after its ten-year term and the possibility of having a longer bond term

period with the proposed Option B Ballot Question.

Mr. Hooper reported during the discussion about the wording of the Ballot

Question that, according to City Attorney Staran, the use of 'replace' must be

accompanied by the specific purpose of the millage and to provide a source of

matching funds to support the special assessment and grant programs.

Discussion then turned to the fact that the local City issues are always placed at

the end of Election Ballots. There was discussion about where the Older

Persons' Commission issue would be placed on the ballot and it was noted that

the library may be placing an item on the ballot as well.

Mr. Webber turned the discussion back to the spreadsheets to report that

some of the recommendation items were in mid-process and that the

committee is to report back to City Council by May 2010. He added that a

preliminary report could be prepared and a request for additional time, if

necessary, be made at that time. He stated that the committee would request

the City Staff to e-mail a link of the full public survey for the committee

members to review.

Mr. Johnson asked for an update on the Road Commission for Oakland

County's (RCOC) acceptance of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the

widening of Tienken Road.

Mr. Hooper and Mr. Webber explained the difference between 'widening' and

the description of through lanes and center turn lanes and the possibility of the

construction of a round-about at Tienken and Livernois which would aide to the

congestion on Tienken Road but still maintain the three lane option. They

reported that there will be discussion and feedback from the residents before a

final plan is approved.

Mr. Webber spoke about the Friends of Tienken Road and Dan Keifer meeting

with the RCOC to express their concerns and that it appears that the City is not

going to lose the funding for the project at this time.

Mr. Hooper reported that the EA has been sent to the Federal Highway

Administration for their review.

Ms. Soisson directed the committee back to the Public Opinion Survey, page

12, regarding streets and noted that participants had selected 'millage' for road

improvements such as street paving/reconstruction and long-term maintenance

projects, yet every time a millage question is placed on the ballot for those

items, it gets turned down.

Mr. Johnson commented that the important question missing from the Public

Opinion Survey is whether the survey participants had voted in previous

elections.

Mr. Webber commented that when a neighborhood comes together (such as

Shadow Woods) for a road improvement or street paving project, they are

paying the bulk of the cost and discussed if the benefits that could be realized

from a millage.

Mr. Hooper noted that Ms. Soisson lives in Shadow Woods.

Ms. Soisson responded that property values increase for improved roads, a

tax rebate is realized on the participants' individual taxes and compared it to

senior citizens still paying school taxes as part of maintenance of their property

values.

Mr. Dalton thanked Mr. Webber for his notes and made a motion to support the

Option B Ballot Question and have it taken before City Council for their

discussion and approval. Mr. Cline seconded his motion.

Mr. Hooper reported motion by Dalton, support by Cline and it received a

unanimous vote in favor of this motion.

Mr. Johnson questioned the ten-year term length and should it be for a longer

term. Numbers were tossed around by committee members such as 15 or 20.

Mr. Hooper shared that a couple of years ago, when the pathway renewal was

discussed, it had been his suggestion to change the term to twenty years rather

than having to put it to a vote at five or ten years. He reported that it had

passed with a twenty-year period. He has received e-mails stating that the

twenty-year term is too long and does not allow for economic flexibility.

Ms. Soisson responded that in these situations, not everybody will not be

pleased.

The committee concurred and discussed their desire for this to pass, whether it

is for a ten-year term or a twenty-year term and that the educational process will

play a big part in the success of this Ballot Question. It was asked if Council

Members can speak as an advocate for this Ballot Question.

Mr. Hooper stated that the City Attorney cautions the City Council Members

against telling the residents to vote yes/no on an election issue at City Council

meetings. He did state, however, that in speaking with people on a one-to-one

basis, he can share his personal opinions about how residents should vote.

Mr. Johnson asked if the same Ballot Question could be placed on the ballot

with the option of a ten-year term or a twenty-year term and Mr. Hooper

responded that there would be too confusing.

Mr. Cline responded that the 'yes' votes would split on either question and the

'no' votes would vote both down.

It was discussed by the committee to leave the length of the term period to

Council's decision.

Mr. Webber suggested that this could be discussed at the next meeting after

discussion at City Council's February 22nd meeting and Mr. Sawdon and Mr.

Rousse would be in attendance as well.

Mr. Hooper stated that he liked Mr. Johnson's idea of a community charge

spearheading the community educational campaign and could be part of the

discussion at the committee's next meeting.

2010-0067

Election of Chairperson

Resolution.pdf

Attachments:

Mr. Webber suggested that the committee could possibly meet in the last week

of February and that the discussion should move to the election of a

Chairperson for the committee.

Mr. Dalton nominated Don Cline for Chairperson of the committee and the

decision was unanimous in favor of Mr. Cline being the Chairperson for the

committee.

It was discussed and decided by the committee to wait to elect a Vice

Chairperson until all the committee members could be in attendance.

Appointed.

Resolved, that Don Cline is appointed Chairperson of the Police and Road Funding

Technical Review Committee for 2010.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Discussion ensued regarding the date of the next committee meeting and a

consensus was reached. It was agreed that the focus of the next meeting would

be to discuss the outcome of the committee's motion of Option B - Ballot

Question at City Council's February 22nd meeting, discuss bonding and SAD

Policy with Keith Sawdon, Director of Finance and Roger Rousse, Director of

DPS/Engineering to the next committee meeting, discuss the community

educational campaign

Mr. Webber announced the next proposed meeting date as Wednesday,

February 24, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before the committee, Mr. Webber adjourned

the meeting at 7:35 p.m.

_____________________________________________

Michael Webber, City Council Member Representative

Prepared by Christine A. Wissbrun

Administrative Secretary, City Clerk's Office