CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Holland, Michigan COUNCIL MEETING ... barrier liner surrounding the fuel oil...

CITY COUNCIL MEETING City Hall – 270 River Avenue

November 6, 2013 AGENDA

5:30 P.M. Pre‐Council Meeting (Council review of Agenda Items, No Action Taken) 7:00 P.M. Council Meeting (Action to be taken by Council on the following agenda items)

1. ROLL CALL 2. Opening Prayer – Mayor Dykstra 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Consent Agenda – All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and have

previously been reviewed by Council, and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or a member of the audience so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence:

A. Announcement of above by the Mayor B. Summary of the Consent Agenda by the City Clerk C. Requests to remove items D. Motion to approve Consent Agenda Items – ROLL CALL

*5. Approval of Minutes: To amend the October 2, 2013 minutes previously approved on Oct. 16, 2013. *6. Absences Excused: Motion to excuse, if any. 7. Special Presentations and Recognitions by the Mayor and / or Council Members. 8. Special Order of the Day: Public Hearings

A. Revocation of the Public Lodging License for the Economy Inn at 409 NB US‐31. B. PA 198 Abatement for JMS of Holland, Inc., 1010 Productions Ct. (1) Report from Staff (2) Mayor Declares Public Hearing Open for Comment (3) Mayor Declares Public Hearing Closed (4) Motion to adopt resolution – ROLL CALL

9. Unfinished Business: A. On‐Street Overnight Trial Parking Program – Motion to remove from table.

10. Adoption of Ordinances: A. Rezoning 51 and 61 Country Club Rd. from the R‐1 One Family Residential District to the PRD Planned

Residential Development District – Motion to remove from table. (1) Report from Staff (2) Mayor Declares Public Hearing Open for Comment (3) Mayor Declares Public Hearing Closed (4) Motion to adopt resolutions – (2) ROLL CALLS.

*11. Written Petitions and Communications: A. Oaths of Office.

12. Communications from the Audience 13. Reports from Special Committees: None 14. Reports from Boards and City Officers:

A. Board of Public Works: *1. WWTP Secondary Clarifier No. 5 Repairs ‐ Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL

CALL. *2. Special Counsel Services for New Power Plant ‐ Motion to adopt recommendation ‐ ROLL

CALL. *3. Real Property Purchase – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. B. Planning Commission: None C. City Attorney: None D. City Clerk: *1. Claims Filed Against the City ‐ Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. *2. Un‐Official Results of the November 5, 2013 Local Election – Motion to accept as

information.

E. City Manager: 1. Community & Neighborhood Services: *1.1 Amendments to Chapter 19: Inappropriate Storage of Items in Unenclosed Areas of

Residentially Used Properties – Set a Public Hearing for November 20, 2013 – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL.

2. Parks, Recreation and Transportation Services: 2.1 Windmill Island Gardens –Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Grant Application for $419,131.24 ‐ Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL.

3. Fiscal Services & Purchasing: *3.1 Finance Department ‐ September Financials – Motion to accept as information – ROLL

CALL. *3.2 Finance Department – Quarterly Investment Report – Motion to adopt recommendation

– ROLL CALL. *3.3 Finance Department – Annual Adjustments of Interest Rates for Certain Special

Assessments – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. *3.4 Purchasing – Centralized Vehicle/Equipment Fund – Award Bids for Vehicles – Motion to

adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. 4. Public Safety Services: None 5. Management & Administrative Services: 5.1 Gifts – Motion to accept with appreciation – ROLL CALL. *5.2 Change in November Meeting Schedule – Cancellation of the Nov. 13th and 27th Study

Sessions ‐ Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. *5.3 Human Resources ‐ 2014 Health Insurance Rates ‐ Motion to adopt recommendation –

ROLL CALL. *5.4 Human Resources – Technology Services Re‐Classification – Motion to adopt

recommendation – ROLL CALL. *5.5 Renaming the Community Energy Strategies Steering Committee to the Community

Energy Plan Steering Committee and Adoption of a Community Energy Plan – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL.

*5.6 Appointment of a City of Holland Energy and Sustainability Manager – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL.

5.7 Statement Regarding Council Policy and Direction on the Home Energy Retrofit Task Force’s Activities – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL.

*5.8 Human Resources – Municipal Employees’ Retirement System (MERS) Closed Division Transfer Resolution – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL.

6. Internal Services: None. 15. Communications from the City Manager 16. Communications from the Mayor 17. Communications from Council Members 18. Motions and Resolutions by Council Members 19. First Reading of Ordinances: *A. Amendments to Chapter 19: Inappropriate storage of items in unenclosed areas of residentially used properties ‐ – Motion to accept for first reading – ROLL CALLS. 20. Adjournment

PLEASE NOTE AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION:

In addition to addressing the Council during public hearings and under “Communications from the Audience”, members of the Audience may address the Council, on items under “Reports from Boards and City Officers”, after a motion is pending on a particular item (except for items on the Consent Agenda), by approaching the microphone and waiting to be recognized by the Mayor. Audience participation shall be five minutes or less per item.

HEARING ASSIST DEVICES: Hearing assist devices are available upon request in the Control Room near the lighted display case. The City Council Chambers is equipped with the Induction Loop System. Please adjust your hearing aid to the T‐coil setting to enhance reception of the amplified sound.

CELL PHONES: Please be courteous and turn cell phones off during the meeting.

Habla Español, See Anna Perales, Deputy City Clerk.

Proposed Minutes Holland City Council Meeting

Holland, Michigan, October 2, 2013

The City Council gathered at 5:00 p.m. in the Employee Lounge for supper and then met at 5:30 p.m. in the Training Center of City Hall, 270 River Avenue, for a special meeting and reviewed items on the agenda for this meeting.

Members Present: Mayor Dykstra, Council Members De Boer, Trethewey, Peters, Burch, Vande Vusse, Hoekstra, Whiteman and Klomparens

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: City Manager Cotton, Assistant City Manager Robinson, Deputy City Clerk Perales and City Attorney Mulder

Others Present: City Planner Dye

13.532 A motion was made by Council Member Hoekstra, 2nd

by Council Member De Boer, To enter into closed session to review legal opinions

Upon ROLL CALL the motion carried unanimously

13.533 A motion was made by Council Member Hoekstra, 2nd

by Council Member De Boer, to conclude the closed session. Upon VOICE VOTE, the motion carried. 13.534 A motion was made by Council Member Trethewey, 2

nd by Council Member De Boer,

to conclude the special meeting session. Upon VOICE VOTE, the motion carried. The City Council gathered at 6:40 p.m. in the Employee Lounge for supper and then met at 5:30 p.m. in the Training Center of City Hall, 270 River Avenue, for a study session and reviewed items on the agenda for this meeting. The City Council met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall and the meeting was called to order by Mayor Dykstra. Assistant City Manager Robinson led in opening prayer. 13.535 Consent Agenda After review, a motion was made by Council Member Trethewey, 2


To approve the consent agenda items which included the following Council Action numbers: 13.536 – 13.538, 13.540 – 13.550, 13.553 – 13.555, 13.557 – 13.559, 13.561 Upon ROLL CALL, the motion carried unanimously. 13.536 Minutes Approved Upon motion by Council Member Trethewey, 2


The minutes of the September 18 regular meeting and September 24, 2013 study session were approved.

Written Petitions and Communications 13.537 Oaths of Office The following executed oath of office were presented and filed: Laurie Franklin Morna Hallsexten Filed.

babinec

Typewritten Text

5.

2

13.538 Tax Abatement Applications (2) PA198 for Magna Mirrors of America, Inc., 414 East 40th

Street, and Paramount Tool Co., Inc., 136 West 64

th Street

Council accepted for study and report two PA198 tax abatement applications for Magna Mirrors of America, Inc., 414 East 40

th St., and Paramount Tool Co., Inc., 136 West 64

th St.

Communications from the Audience

13.539 General Matters Mary Whiteford, 7258 Beverly Dr., South Haven announced that she is running for the open 80

th District State

Representative and reviewed her background and reasons for running for congress.

Reports from Boards and City Officers

13.540 Contract for Cathodic Protection System Repairs for 48th

Street Power Plant

Board of Public Works report was presented advising that the cathodic protection system at our 48th Street location is

failing and not providing corrosion protection to our underground piping. Thirty one anodes will be replaced to improve that protection. The existing galvanic cathodic protection system was installed during original construction in 1992. During the annual survey of the voltage readings that are indicative of the level of protection, we are seeing the voltage levels rising above the industry accepted criteria of -0.85 volts when measured with a copper-copper sulfate half-cell. Voltage readings should be more negative than -0.85 volts. Since the anodes of a cathodic protection system are sacrificial in nature this decline in protection is expected and the anodes will need periodic replacing. Our galvanic anodes have lasted 21 years. The life of an anode is a function of the quality of coating on the pipe it is protecting, the length of pipe is it protecting and any unrepaired damage from nearby construction activities. The contract with Corrpro Companies, Inc. will provide material, labor and equipment to replace thirty one of the existing 60 anodes in our system. They will install magnesium anodes into a vacuum excavated hole and tie the anode lead wire into the existing test station. Vacuum excavation has been specified to eliminate unwanted damage to other underground facilities. A geotextile containment barrier liner surrounding the fuel oil tanks will be penetrated to access the tank anodes. Included in Corrpro’s price below is a $5000 allowance added to Corrpro’s base bid to subcontract the barrier liner repair to MPC Containment International, the manufacture of the liner. Final in-service testing will also be performed to verify the protection level has been returned to an acceptable level. Corrpro Companies, Inc. is the recommended contractor on this project based on evaluation of the bids received from four contractors. Cost results are listed below.

Mears Group, Inc. $88,581.38 Corrpro Companies, Inc. $79,325.00 National Pipeline Services Declined to bid Cathodic Protection Management Declined to bid

It was recommended to approve a contract with Corrpro Companies, Inc. in the amount of $79,325.00, with a 10% contingency of $7,932.00, for a total of $87,257.00 pending approval as to form from the City Attorney.

A motion was made by Council Member Trethewey, 2nd

by Council Member De Boer, To adopt the recommendation

Upon ROLL CALL, the motion carried unanimously.

13.541 Service Contract with Siemens

Board of Public Works report was presented advising that the HBPW is required by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to perform regular maintenance on breakers on the 138kV system. The breakers on the 138kV system must be inspected, rebuilt, or replaced every 20 years. Maintenance work like this is performed every year throughout our system, but this is the first time we are performing the work on three breakers simultaneously. Due to the specialized nature of the equipment and its criticality, we have deemed this a sole source project and have the manufacturer perform the work. We have not found another vendor that has an equivalent level of expertise or equipment. It was recommended to approve the Service Contract with Siemens to perform maintenance on three Siemens Type TCP Power Circuit Breakers for a total cost of $54,051.00, pending City Attorney approval of the terms and conditions.




3

13.542 Demolition of Atmospheric Processing Plant at 110 Fairbanks

Board of Public Works report was presented advising that demolition of the Atmospheric Processing plant at 110 Fairbanks needs to be accomplished prior to beginning construction of the new Energy Center. As there are numerous environmental issues, regulations, and requirements that will need to be addressed when deconstructing this facility, HBPW staff have concluded that having a firm such as ERM manage the demolition will provide the most cost effective and risk adverse approach to dealing with this property. ERM has managed demolition projects on environmentally impaired projects for over 20 years and will bring their experience and expertise to bear on this complex project. It was recommended to enter into a professional services purchase order with Environmental Resources Management, for $50,900, to provide demolition management services for the building and associated assets located at 110 Fairbanks Avenue, Holland, Michigan.




13.543 Unit 7 & Unit 8 Control System Replacement

Board of Public Works report was presented advising that Combustion Turbine Generating Units 7 & 8 were installed in 1992 and have been serving the HBPW in a peaking capacity since commissioning. General Electric, the OEM, has discontinued support for both the turbine and generator controls and declared them obsolete. Third party repairs and components are available for the generator controls; however they have not proven to be a reliable solution. Combustion Turbine Units 7 & 8 were installed in 1992. They have the original control systems that were supplied with the units from General Electric. The control systems have functioned well throughout their life but are at the end of their life cycle. The reliability of the systems has been decreasing. The turbine control systems have experienced some failures during the past few peaking seasons resulting in lengthy forced outages. Over the last 20 years, microprocessors and electronic technology have advanced so much that the original manufacturers of the components that make parts for the General Electric Speedtronic Mark IV control system no longer make or supply those parts. This has forced GE to discontinue production of the Mark IV control system and made it nearly impossible for them to continue the parts support. Due to General Electric’s lack of support for the existing control system, HBPW has been forced to seek out third party control system card repair shops and vendors. These cards and repairs have proven to be unreliable as oftentimes rebuilt cards do not work. Currently, HBPW does not stock every card or processor in the system; but HBPW researched the cost of purchasing a set of used or new old stock (NOS) cards for inventory. Purchasing a partial set for inventory to reduce downtime caused by card failures would cost approximately $110,000. By having inventory it would not reduce the number of failures or trips, but would reduce the length of time the unit is out of service--from weeks to a day or two. General Electric has provided a solution to customers, which includes upgrading all of the processing cards and electronics to the latest SpeedTronic Mark Ve Control System and the latest EX2100e Generator Control system. This is a viable option but has a significant cost. Due to the cost and proprietary nature of the system, other options have also been evaluated. Siemens and Emerson Process Management were invited to provide proposals for a cost effective turnkey control system replacement solution for both units. Siemens and Emerson both provided bids for a Distributed Control System (DCS) that would control the turbine and Generator/Excitation control systems. Typically DCS-type control systems are used in large, more complex systems such as coal fired power plants or combined cycle power plants. These systems are medium-priced options that offer a good solution but are not a perfect fit. Emerson’s bid was the lowest. The Emerson proposal did not include a historian, remote support capability, spare parts pricing, or training for the excitation system. The estimated cost of adding these is significantly more than the next competitive bid provided by TTS. The best option for the HBPW on cost, completeness, and technology is the proposal provided by Turbine Technology Services Corporation (TTS). The processors are made by Allen Bradley and are utilized across numerous process control and manufacturing industries. This means there is a large support network and replacement components can be procured locally. The Generator Control TTS is proposing are still industry specific, however, Basler Electric’s DECS400 system is a very popular aftermarket solution that has been proven on numerous generators in the industry, including HBPW’s Unit 4, 5 & 6 generators. TTS was contracted to supply and install a new control system on Unit 6 combustion turbine generator in 2001. Replacing the aged control system will provide HBPW an opportunity to integrate numerous system improvements and upgrades. Following is a brief overview of those upgrades and added functionality that will increase reliability and work efficiency:

1. Sequence of Events / Historian a. The new system will be purchased with a historian that records all of the critical values while the turbine is

online. When an issue occurs, the data can be recalled and studied to pinpoint issues and identify corrective actions that may be needed. Currently this capacity is very limited and mostly non-existent.

2. Standard Industry Control Components and Programming Language

4

$/Both Units $/unit

Base Price 1,250,000.00$ 625,000.00$

Selected Features

Remote Support Capability 2,108.84$ 1,054.42$

Inlet Fogging Integration 12,072.93$ 6,036.47$

Historian 19,892.52$ 9,946.26$

Dual Redundant Processors 50,946.29$ 25,473.15$

Contract Amount 1,335,020.58$ 667,510.29$

Budget Amount 1,750,000.00$ 875,000.00$

Difference 414,979.42$ 207,489.71$

Requested Contingency 111,289.40$ 55,644.70$

% Contingency of Total Contract 8.3% 8.3%

Spare Parts - To be Expensed 65,808.38$ 32,904.19$

Turbine Technology Services Detailed Pricing

a. The new control system will utilize many common components and a programming language that is not proprietary to one industry or piece of equipment but is instead common and found in numerous industries where controls and automation are used. This will mean that support from local vendors, suppliers, and technicians will be easier to procure and result in quicker, lower cost responses should an issue arise.

3. NERC Compliance a. The new control system will be compliant with NERC CIP and PRC standards from the beginning. Upgrading

the relaying, excitation, and generator controls will allow for reduced maintenance frequencies and cost to maintain compliance with NERC Standard PRC-005, Testing and Maintenance of Protective Systems. The new control system will also be compliant with NERC Cyber Security Standards. Locating, understanding, and reporting equipment malfunctions to NERC will be much more accurate and reduce HBPW’s non-compliance risk.

4. Digital Relaying and Excitation a. TTS has included in their proposal Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories digital generator protective relaying.

These new relays will replace dozens of electro-mechanical relays with a couple of modules. The new relays will be capable of trending sequences of events and recording what happened should a disturbance occur on the electrical grid and cause a generator issue. This ability will increase the ease of NERC compliance.

5. Operator & Technician Training a. This project has included training for operators, technicians and plant staff. The visual user interface of the

new turbine control system will improve operator’s and technician’s ease of operating and working on the turbine generators.

6. Life Cycle Points of Note a. The existing control system will have lasted 22 years at the time of the upgrade. b. Unit 7 and Unit 8 Turbine Generators have an anticipated remaining life of 20+ years based on the life of

peaking Unit 6. c. The new control system is anticipated to last 20+ years. d. The original control system on Unit 6 lasted 26 years. e. The TTS control system installed in Unit 6 is 12 years old now.

The bids were evaluated on contractor experience, equipment evaluation, proposal detail, completeness, and cost.

Table 1 outlines the evaluated bids that have been normalized to include all of the features and equipment the HBPW requires. A complete tabular overview of the bid analysis is included with this recommendation as an attachment.

Table 1: Bid Result Summary

Contractor Evaluated BidsMeets

Specifications

Final Assembly

Location

Siemens 1,477,248.28$ Yes Alpharetta, Georgia

General Electric 2,085,774.00$ Yes Longmount, Colorado

Emerson Process Management 1,279,283.00$ No Clifton Park, New York

Turbine Technology Services 1,335,020.58$ Yes Orlando, Florida

Turbine Technology Services’ proposal has been evaluated to be the best evaluated bid for this project. Table 2 shows TTS’ detailed pricing. HBPW asked for pricing on various features within the RFP and has included with some pricing to aid in evaluating. In addition to the contracted amount, $65,808.38 will be expensed utilizing a standard Purchase Order for spare parts that will be put immediately into inventory.

Table 2: Detailed Pricing

5

It was recommended to approve a contract, pending City Attorney approval, with Turbine Technology Services Corporation (TTS), the lowest evaluated bidder, to replace the turbine and generator control systems on Combustion Turbine Generating Units 7 & 8 for an amount of $1,335,020.58 and approve a contract contingency in the amount of $111,289.40 (8.3% of contract cost) for this project that was budgeted for this current Fiscal Year (FY2014) in the amount of $1,750,000. Approve a Purchase Order in the amount of $65,808.38 to Turbine Technology Services for procurement of spare parts inventory for the new Control System.




13.544 Real Property Purchase

Board of Public Works report was presented advising that this recommendation is for the procurement of additional real properties that will comprise the area identified as the home to the community’s newest electric generating resource. While the Atmospheric Processing, Inc. property will provide a significant portion of the footprint needed for the power plant project, additional properties are required to meet design requirements. Each Offer of Just Compensation (OJC) was prepared by the City Attorney with appraisal services provided by Van Noord and Associates. Each residential property that is owner occupied is provided an additional 25% compensation as required by statute. If a residential owner was willing to commit to our offer within 30 days, an Offer of Compromise (OC) equal to 15% of the OJC was given as an incentive. For commercial properties the OJC is the appraised value of the property and the OC equals 5% of the OJC. Relocation expense reimbursement is provided as required by Michigan law. Please note that additional OJC’s will be brought to the Board as they are executed by property owners. It was recommended to approve the included Offers of Just Compensation, as prepared by the City Attorney, for several parcels of land. Additionally, provide authorization for the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk to sign each Offer of Just Compensation.




Planning Commission

13.545 Rezoning of 51 and 61 Country Club Road from the R-1 One Family Residential District to the PRD Planned Residential Development District with Final Reading to be held on October 16, 2013

Planning report was presented advising that Covenant Development LLC has requested that 51 and 61 Country Club Road be rezoned from the R-1 One Family Residential District to the PRD Planned Residential Development District. This property comprises the uplands area of the old Holland Country Club and is approximately 25 areas in size. The applicant requests the rezoning of the subject properties to the PRD District in order to create a 68 unit zero-step residential condominium community with clubhouse, pool and associated amenities. The applicant has also requested and the Planning Commission has conditionally approved the Villas of Holland Development Plan through a Resolution describing the plan as approved with a variety of conditions. However, said Plan approval by the Planning Commission is only valid if City Council approves the requested rezoning. The Villas of Holland Development Plan is briefly described and summarized with the following:

- Sixty-eight (68) single-family “zero step” attached dwelling units in the form of fifteen 4-unit buildings and four 2-unit buildings.

- One clubhouse and outdoor pool and patio area. - Overall proposed residential density of 2.73 dwelling units to the acre (gross), and 3.78 dwelling units per acre

(net, minus wooded ravine area). - 6.9 acre private woodland preserve. - Private street system that will align with Legion Park Drive at the Country Club Road intersection. It was

recommended that the intersection become a four-way STOP (requires subsequent traffic control order approval from Council).

- Public sidewalk/trail access to the Ottawa County Macatawa Greenspace via a dedicated easement to the City. On September 10, 2013 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed rezoning. There were six residents that spoke during the public hearing and four letters were received and entered into the public record. Numerous questions were posed by area residents and Commissioners to the applicant and staff primarily regarding drainage and water quality issues and soil geo-technical issues. The Planning Commission then tabled any action on the proposed rezoning and development plan until the September 24 meeting to provide staff and the applicant adequate time to provide answers to the various questions and to finish work on the Resolution that is meant to govern

6

the many aspects of the Plan. During the September 24 meeting, the applicant provided answers to several questions that were posed from the previous meeting. Staff reviewed their reports and recommendations and reviewed a proposed Resolution regarding the Villas of Holland development plan. The Commission then allowed additional public comment regarding the proposed rezoning and development plan. Comments included making sure the developer provides adequate landscaping and buffering around the site and its perimeter; encouraged use of stormwater best management practices; questions regarding the impacts on area street and utility infrastructure and impacts on property values; a statement that one resident had visited the developers’ Villas at Rivertown development and is supportive of this request; and comments that PRD zoning should not be used for this development and it should not be approved. The Commission also received several letters that were entered into the record. The Planning Commission then noted the detailed staff report that recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. Following Commission discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend the rezoning to City Council. Their conditional approval of the Development Plan followed their approval of the rezoning recommendation. It was recommended by the Planning Commission that City Council accept and placed on first reading the proposed zoning ordinance amendment to rezone 51 and 61 Country Club Road from the R-1 One Family Residential District to the PRD Planned Residential Development District with the final reading to be held on October 16, 2013 Council regular meeting.




City Clerk

13.546 Claims Filed Against the City of Holland

City Clerk report was presented advising that the following claims was filed against the City:

Darren VanOrder

It was recommended that the claims be referred to the City Attorney and City’s Insurance Carrier for consideration.




City Manager

13.547 Downtown Parking Operations & Maintenance Assessment – Resolution to Schedule Public Hearing on Assessment for October 16, 2013

City Manager report was presented advising that following is a report required by Section 15.10 and 15.11 of the City Charter regarding the annual special assessments for operating and maintaining City-owned and leased off-street parking facilities in the Downtown area. The parking assessment district includes properties within 400 feet of a public parking lot and generally within the area bounded by 5

th Street on the north, Columbia Avenue on the east, 11

th Street on the south,

and Pine Avenue on the west. The parking assessment policy as amended in 2008 changes the base formula from a building’s front footage to its square footage. 5% of the base assessment is then levied for each upper level that is vacant or used for storage; 60% for upper levels used for offices; 100% for upper levels used for retail or restaurants; and 15% for upper levels used for overnight sleeping rooms in a hotel or inn. Non-profit uses, unless otherwise exempted by the policy, are assessed at a rate that is 50% of the typical assessment. Residential uses are exempt in the revised policy. The policy provides a $100 credit against the assessable amount for each private parking space provided; up to 70% of the total assessment. The amount assessed during FY2013 was $181,248.51 (base first floor square footage rate of $.322) a 3% increase over the previous year. The assessment for FY2014 begins with a base first floor square footage rate of $.330 and the total assessment is $188,182.79. The assessment will apply to 146 properties. The increased total amount is due to an approximate 3% adjustment to revenue and adjustments to property uses changed within the past year. This percentage increase has been the practice over the recent past in order to avoid large periodic increases. It was recommended that City Council adopt a resolution scheduling a public hearing for October 16, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall to consider the final roll for Downtown Parking Operations and Maintenance Assessment; and that the Deputy City Clerk be instructed to publish and mail the required notices.




7

13.548 Downtown Principal Shopping District (PSD) Assessment – Resolution to Schedule Public Hearing on Assessment for October 16, 2013

City Manager report was presented advising that following is the report required by Section 15.10 and 15.11 of the City Charter regarding the annual special assessments for the Principal Shopping District (PSD). The PSD was created by ordinance in 1998 with the purpose of providing a comprehensive, coordinated approach to promotional activities in the downtown as well as a stable funding mechanism for these activities. The PSD assessment policy, as approved by City Council, is based on building square footage and the assessment rates for FY 2014 are proposed to be the same as for FY 2013. The FY 2013 assessment generated $181,080.19 in revenues and the FY 2014 assessment will generate $179,733.20. This assessment will include 178 properties.

Assessment Per Square Foot Core first floor $.22 Upper floor retail or restaurant .22 Upper floor other uses .08 Edge first floor .14 Upper floor retail or restaurant .14 Upper floor other uses .08

On September 18, 2013, the City Council held the public hearing of necessity and approved the necessity of this assessment and directed the development of the final assessment roll. It was recommended that City Council adopt a resolution scheduling a public hearing on the final roll for the Downtown Principal Shopping District Assessment for Wednesday, October 16, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at City Hall; and that the Deputy City Clerk be instructed to publish and mail the required notices.




13.549 Downtown Snowmelt Operations Assessment – Resolution to Schedule Public Hearing on Assessment for October 16, 2013

City Manager report was presented advising that following is the report required by Section 15.10 and 15.11 of the City Charter regarding the annual special assessments for operating and maintaining the downtown snowmelt system. In accordance with the snowmelt policy, assessments are levied against any properties receiving direct or incremental benefit from the system. The assessment area includes properties along both sides of 8th Street from Maple Avenue to Columbia Avenues. In 2006, the area was expanded to include the properties along both sides of River Avenue between 7th and 12th Streets that have snowmelt beneath the adjacent sidewalk. Some of these River Avenue properties had new snowmelt constructed as part of the River Avenue improvement project. Other properties had been linked to a private boiler system and are now connected to the public system. During the spring of 2009, the snowmelt system was expanded to 7th Street between College and Columbia Avenue and along College and Columbia between 7th and 8th Street. This extension primarily serves the new Downtown Parking Deck, the sidewalk on the north side of 7

th Street; and

the sidewalk that connects the 8th Street Plaza. The snowmelt assessments are all based on property front footage and

there are two (2) front footage rates that are applied within the assessment area. The first rate is for properties adjacent to sidewalks and streets that have snowmelt beneath them. This applies primarily to properties along 8th Street. The second rate is for properties adjacent to sidewalks that have snowmelt, but the adjacent street does not. These properties are primarily along Pine, River, 7

th Street and along the avenues between 7

th and 9

th Street. The snowmelt system also

serves a number of public spaces such as downtown parking lots and deck, the large circle area of the 8th Street Market Place, the parking lots and parking deck behind the Police / Court Complex on 8th Street, and radiant floor heat in the Police Complex. These areas are not special assessed, but are charged a lump sum annual fee based on a per square foot cost. The proposed rate for FY 14 is $.2233 per square foot. This is 5% above the FY 13 rate. The FY 14 front footage rate for snowmelt provided beneath sidewalks and streets is proposed to be $14.0514, a 5% increase from the FY 13 rate, primarily due to anticipated increased energy costs and the need bring fund revenues more in-line with expenses. The FY 14 rate for snowmelt provided beneath only sidewalks is proposed to be $4.6799 which is about 1/3 of the base rate. This is also a 5% increase above the FY 13 rate. The total assessed amount is $109,525.79. There are 135 properties in this special assessment district. On September 18, 2013, the City Council held the public hearing of necessity and approved the necessity of this assessment and directed the development of the final assessment roll. It was recommended that City Council adopt a resolution scheduling a public hearing on the Downtown Snowmelt Operations Assessment Roll for Wednesday, October 16, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at City Hall; and that the Deputy City Clerk be instructed to publish and mail the required notices.

8




13.550 2014 City Calendar – Printing Bid Approval

City Manager report was presented advising that on September 5, 2013, bids were solicited for printing and mailing services of 10,000 City calendars (2014). Four (4) bids were received. Council approval of the low bid from Holland Litho Services at a cost of $6,778.15 plus approximate postage costs of $2,720 for a total cost of $9,498.15 is requested. Results are as follows:

Bidder Printing 10,000 units Mailing Services Total Holland Litho Serv. $6,436 $342.15 $6,778.15 Spartan Graphics $7,050 $395.00 $7,445.00 Grandville Printing $6,543 $643.00 $7,186.00 The Printery $8,258 $587.00 $8,845.00

The 2013 budget for the calendar was $9,000.00. $6,937.00 was spent, not including postage. The 2014 budget for the calendar is $9,000.00. As noted above, $6,778.15 will be spent representing a decrease of $158.85. Postage will be an additional cost. Based on the estimates for mailing 8,500 pieces, the cost of postage is anticipated to be in the range of $ .28 to $ .32 per piece. This totals between $2,380 and $2,720 for the actual postage, for a projected maximum grand total of $9,498.15. Funds for the calendar are paid from the Solid Waste Fund. Our plan is to have the calendar at the printer by no later than October 4, 2013. It was recommended that City Council approve the bid from Holland Litho Services for the printing and mailing of 2014 City calendars at a cost of $6,778.15 plus estimated postage costs of $2,720 for a total cost of $9,498.15 for a total cost to be paid from the Solid Waste Fund.




13.551 Calendar Year 2014 Rental Housing Program Fee Schedule Adjustments

City Manager report was presented advising that Council is being requested to approve a new fee structure for the City’s Rental Housing program. Typically all City Fees for Services are approved by City Council in one motion later in the calendar year. However, this year, staff is asking City Council to address the Rental Fees as a separate motion to ensure that staff has sufficient time to distribute the annual rental Invoices to the appropriate billing parties as well as address ongoing issues with multiple re-inspections. This distribution normally occurs at the end of October. Included is the proposed Rental Housing Schedule of Fees for calendar year 2014. Staff is requesting increases to several of the fees associated with the City’s Rental program. These increases are needed to fully fund and staff the City’s Rental program, including rental inspectors, support staff, prosecution and overhead costs as discussed at your September 25, 2013 Study Session. Specifically, the following fees are proposed to be increased:

- The Comprehensive Annual Rental Fee for the first dwelling unit will be increased to $150 and the fee for additional dwelling units will be increased to $55 (units on one property). This means that the owner of a single family rental will pay $150 a year to be in the rental business and the owner of a two family rental will pay $205 a year to be in the rental business.

- The re-Inspection fees are being doubled to $200 for the first re-inspection, $400.00 for the second re-inspection and $600 for the third re-inspection. These increases are being implemented to better deal with landlords who continually violate our housing codes and require more attention from City staff.

- Staff is introducing a new administrative fee to cover the costs when we must engage the City Attorney on repetitive problem properties. This fee is $600 and will work to cover the costs of the City Attorney.

It was recommended that City Council approve the proposed fee schedule for the Calendar Year 2014 Rental Housing Program Fee Adjustments as discussed at the City Council study session on September 25, 2013.


by Council Member Vande Vusse To recuse Council Member Hoekstra due to conflict of interest

Upon VOICE VOTE, the motion carried unanimously

A motion was made by Council Member Vande Vusse, 2nd

by Council Member Burch, To adopt the recommendation

9

Mayor Dykstra declared the public hearing open for comment.

David VanderSluis, Laketown resident is a landlord in the city and expressed opposition to the increased fees and feels it is discrimination. He supports the rental inspection program as it is today. Len Prelesnik, 284 ½ Fairbanks also opposed the increased fees and agrees with the previous comments from Mr. VanderSluis. Eric Davis, 621 W. 32

nd Street

expressed opposition to the increased fees.

Mayor Dykstra declared the public hearing closed.

A motion was made by Council Member Whiteman, 2nd

by Council Member Trethewey To table the recommendation for discussion at the next scheduled study session and place on agenda for the next regular council meeting October 16, 2013.

Upon VOICE VOTE, the motion carried as follows: Ayes: Council Members De Boer, Trethewey, Peters, Burch, Vande Vusse, Whiteman and Klomparens Nays: Mayor Dykstra

13.552 Windmill Island Gardens Fundraising Report and Capital Pledges from the City of Holland and Holland Charter Township

City Manager report was presented advising that The City Council reviewed the following report at the pre-Council meeting on September 18, 2013 and referred to the September 25, 2013 Study Session for review and discussion. On September 25, 2013, the following questions were discussed:

1. Does the City Council want to allocate some of the new Legacy Funds to the Windmill Island Strategic Plan realization (a share of $600,000); and

2. What percentage of the above target should be the City of Holland’s responsibility and what portion should be shared with Holland Charter Township?

The information below is intended to answer these questions for Council consideration. The Township Manager and Township Supervisor concur with the cost share model as recommended in this report. The City Council approved a Windmill Island Gardens Strategic Plan on February 20, 2013 inclusive of three (3) parts:

DeZwaan Windmill and Dutch Artifacts Restoration $ 825,000 Pathways to DeZwaan from South 450,000 Bridge and Paths across the Macatawa River 850,000

Total $2,125,000

City Council approved a consulting services agreement with John Nordstrom to assist with a Windmill Island Gardens fundraising campaign on May 15, 2013. Activity has been robust. The State of Michigan is now preparing a grant. As of September 18, 2013, the status of the fundraising campaign is as follows:

HZCF * City of Holland

Anonymous Donors

Sub-total Total

Cash $94,734 $39,675 $134,409

Pledges 53,800 $200,000 253,800

State Appropriation (pending) 375,000

Others: Organ Donation 25,000 25,000

Others: Prince Bernhard Grant 7,000

Others: Carousel Donations 5,660 5,660

Total Funds $800,869

* Holland/Zeeland Community Foundation

These donations are designated by the donors as follows:

Organ $25,000

Carousel 6,060

Path(s) 16,900

Bridge to Holland Charter Township 1,250

Undesignated and Designated for Windmill Restoration * 751,659

Total $800,869

* Undesignated funds are recommended to be used for the DeZwaan Windmill Restoration. This does not include funds to purchase the temporary milling equipment ($9,900) and other appropriations.

10

More Fundraising Needed per Each Strategic Plan Element:

The number highlighted in yellow above of $600,000 is the reason for this Study Session. We arrived at this number for several reasons:

1. It is less than originally expected by each of the municipalities; 2. It recognizes that significant fund-raising already occurred; 3. It is within the means of both Holland Charter Township and the City of Holland; 4. It is thought that this use of Legacy Funds for a City of Holland icon like Windmill Island Gardens is appropriate

as per prior Council discussions about the use of Legacy Funds; 5. Cost sharing these generational improvements will be good for intergovernmental cooperation; these

improvements will figuratively and literally bring our communities closer together; and 6. This is a lower Legacy Fund amount than was once thought to be necessary.

I met with Don Komejan, Township Manager today and looked at three models to divide up the pro-rata shares of this $600,000. Our conclusion is to recommend a model that has each community splitting the bridge costs to the north at 50% each and sharing 25% of the connecting pathway costs in the other’s community. The path work in the City that would be cost shared would be the City’s southern entrance onto Windmill Island Gardens. The path work in Holland Charter Township that would be cost shared includes the pathway from the Bridge to Scott’s Drive. The total percentage to each than becomes a 59% to 41% split respectively -- based on the amount of work in each other’s community.

This breaks down into a possible City Share of $357,000 and a Holland Charter Township share of $243,000. (These numbers assume fundraising will provide for another $725,000 and no Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant as noted more above.)

Alternative Cost Share Models:

An alternative formula would have the City and Township to share 50% on the bridge and nothing else. This would lead to a 62%/38% split of the total dollars needed to do this bridge and pathway project as per a spreadsheet to be provided at the meeting. A final alternative is to share the bridge and connecting walkways 50% for both. This would lead to a 56%/44% cost share. You can see that the recommended share of 59% - 41% above is in-between the above two approaches and is therefore recommended. (The total estimated Legacy Fund balance as of June 30, 2014 is currently $1,143,435.) It is recommended that City Council accept the Windmill Island Gardens Fundraising report as information; as per cost sharing with Holland Charter Township according to the 59% to 41% model; and as per the three-year pledge programs (and other fundraising activities) to secure the remainder of $725,000. A motion was made by Council Member Trethewey, 2


To accept as information Upon ROLL CALL, the motion carried as follows: Ayes: Council Members Trethewey, Peters, Burch, Vande Vusse, Whiteman, Hoekstra, De Boer and Mayor Dykstra Nays: Council Member Klomparens

Funds Needed

3/1/2013 Secured

9/13/2013 Difference 9/13/2013

DeZwaan Windmill & Dutch Artifacts Restoration $825,000 $782,719 $42,281

Pathways to DeZwaan from South 450,000 16,900 433,100

Bridge and Paths across the Macatawa River 850,000 1,250 848,750

Sub-total $2,125,000 $800,869 $1,324,131

Remainder Needed NA NA $1,324,131

Less Expected Municipal Capital Grants (7/1/2015)

Holland City and Holland Charter Township 6-Year Budgets $600,000

Remainder Needed from Fundraising and Future Grants ** $724,131

** A Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund of $300,000 could be submitted in March 2014 for possible award in December 2014. The bottom line remainder could therefore decline to $425,000, if the Trust Fund grant is competitive.

11

13.553 Technology Services – Bids for Video Server City Manager report was presented advising that bids have been requested for an Ultra Nexus video server and PEG Vault video appliance as part of the Fiscal Year 2014 budget. This equipment will dramatically improve the workflow and efficiency of the City’s public television broadcasting. This new server will allow staff to record video directly into the broadcast system, pull real time content (weather, news, etc.) from the internet, and stream video back to the web. It will also give staff the ability to better brand City channels with the logo on the screen and a lower graphic to display what is playing. Most importantly, the system provides the ability to broadcast live video, making the system extremely portable. One bid was received for this equipment and this was from BlueWater Technologies in the amount of $18,584.55. This equipment will be funded through the public television fund. It was recommended that City Council accept the bid received from BlueWater Technologies in the amount of $18,584.55 for the public television equipment described in this report; and that this equipment be funded through the CATV Public Access TV Fund.




13.554 City Hall – Bids for Parking Lot Improvements

City Manager report was presented advising that on September 26, 2013, the City of Holland’s Transportation Department opened bids for the construction project referenced above. A total of two (2) bids were received. The engineer’s estimate for the entire project was $82,043. The following is a summary of the bids:

Company City Hall Lot Herrick District Library Lot

Bid Alternate #1 11

th St. Driveway

Improvements 1. Black Gold Transport, Inc.

$45,097.85 $25,391.50 $7,550.00

2. Michigan Paving & Materials

$45,808.96 $33,660.31 $13,580.00

Work at the City Hall parking lot will include milling and resurfacing the HMA pavement within the lot, reconstruction of two (2) of the catch basin inlets and restoration around these two (2) inlets with pervious concrete. Two (2) existing catch basins will remain, as they appear to be in good condition and the two (2) new catch basins will be leaching type. Work under bid alternate #1 includes some rework of the 11

th Street driveway approach to improve drainage and the ride quality

of the approach. Work at the Herrick District Library parking Lot will include milling and resurfacing the HMA pavement within the lot. There is one (1) area, near the drop box, where there appears to be some underlying distress in the pavement. The work does include a provision to address that area. Both lots will be finished off with new pavement markings. While more bidders for the project would have been welcome, staff believes the bids received were both fair and competitive. HMA pricing can vary significantly depending on a number of factors including the price of oil and even though we may have a more favorable bidding environment this coming spring, Interim Director of Transportation Services Dept. Brian White recommends that the City proceeds with the project, including the bid alternate, this fall to avoid a possible increase in HMA pricing this spring. Herrick District Library is in agreement with recommendation and City staff plans to invoice them for their share of the project at completion. A budget for the project is included which includes the Herrick District Library’s contribution as well as the contribution from the City. It was recommended that City Council award the City Hall and Herrick District Library Parking Lot Resurfacing project to the low bidder Black Gold Transport, Inc. in the amount of $78,039.35; that the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary documents on behalf of the City; that the included budget be approved; and the project be funded as indicated above.




13.555 Finance – August Financials

City Manager report was presented advising that included are the monthly reports for the August 2013 financials as prepared by the Finance Department and as reviewed by this office. This report represents 16.67% of the 2014 Fiscal Year (July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014). The monthly financial reports include the following:

- Summary of General Fund Revenues by Account Classification; - Summary of General Fund Revenues and Expenditures by Department;

12

- Summary of All Funds Revenues and Expenditures (including Capital Projects); - Fund Equity Changes Report; and - Capital Projects Report.

It was recommended that the August 2013 Monthly Financial Reports be received and filed.




13.556 Gifts

City Manager report was presented advising that the City Manager’s office is pleased to report the receipt of the following gifts:

Public Safety Services Department: $54.46 has been received from Exit 76 Corporation in support of the Community Kick Back Program.

Parks & Recreation: Donations resulting from the 2013 Softball Tournament in support of the Sal Perez Scholarship Fund:

Matt Urban Concessions Close Out Cash $343.75 Anonymous $14.00 Wings Nineteen, Inc. $250.00 In-Kind Donations:

Superior Sports – 2 Plaques valued at $70.00 Buffalo Wild Wings – 2 Gift Certificates $50.00

Net Proceeds to Sal Perez Scholarship Fund $1,651.75

It was recommended that the donation be accepted with appreciation and the Finance Director be authorized to credit the amount to the proper account.

Upon motion by Council Member Trethewey, 2nd

by Council Member De Boer, The recommendation was adopted.

Upon VOICE VOTE, the recommendation was adopted.

13.557 Tax Abatement – PA198 Abatement for BuhlerPrince, Inc., 670 Windcrest Drive – Schedule Public Hearing for October 16, 2013

City Manager report was presented advising that BuhlerPrince, Inc. at 670 Windcrest Drive has filed an application for tax abatement that is currently under review by City staff. BuhlerPrince, Inc. produces highly customized die cast equipment and offers one of the widest selections of high pressure die casting machines and systems in the world. This manufactured equipment serves the automotive, consumer appliances, telecommunications, recreation, lawn and garden and hand tools industries. The real estate portion of this project consists of building modifications for machine foundations and floor preparation. The personal property improvements include a new boring mill and conveyor updates. The project period is expected to be from April 1, 2013 until September 30, 2013. Their application is for:

Land and Building Improvements $ 447,940 Machinery, equipment, furniture and fixtures $4,675,363 TOTAL $5,123,303

Three (3) new jobs are expected to be created at this site within two (2) years of project completion; two (2) machinists at approximately $20-$24 per hour, and one (1) manufacturing technician at approximately $68,000 per year. It was recommended that a public hearing on the requested PA 198 tax abatement for BuhlerPrince, Inc. at 670 Windcrest Drive be scheduled for Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall; and that the Deputy City Clerk be instructed to mail the required notice.




13

13.558 Tax Abatement – PA198 Abatement for Magna Mirrors of America, Inc., 414 East 40th

Street - Schedule Public Hearing for October 16, 2103

City Manager report was presented advising that Magna Mirrors of America, Inc. at 414 East 40

th Street has filed an

application for PA 198 tax abatement that is currently under review by City staff. The principal business of Magna Mirrors (formerly known as Donnelly Corporation and Magna Donnelly) is the design and manufacture of automotive mirrors, mirror glass, rear vision components and related assemblies. This project is located at 414 East 40

th Street and the

project period is expected to be from April 1, 2013 until December 31, 2014. The application is for:

Machinery, equipment, furniture and fixtures $5,987,111 Total $5,987,111 The project for which exemption is sought is the acquisition and installation of equipment necessary for the applicant to expand production capacity and capabilities to remain competitive in the world market. 94 existing jobs are to be retained, and 24 are expected to be created because of this project. The 24 new jobs have skill level ranges from moderate to highly technical to supervisory level. Pay ranges will be from $10-$30 per hour depending on skill, education and experience requirements. It was recommended that a public hearing on the requested PA 198 tax abatement for Magna Mirrors of America, Inc. at 414 East 40

th Street be scheduled for Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council

Chambers in City Hall; and that the Deputy City Clerk be instructed to mail the required notice. A motion was made by Council Member Trethewey, 2


To adopt the recommendation Upon ROLL CALL, the motion carried unanimously. 13.559 Tax Abatement – PA198 Abatement for Paramount Tool Co. Inc., 136 West 64

th Street - Schedule

Public Hearing for October 16, 2013 City Manager report was presented advising that Paramount Tool at 136 West 64

th Street has filed an application for tax

abatement that is currently under review by City staff. Paramount Tool recently relocated from the Saugatuck area to an existing vacant building in the City. The applicant designs and builds machinery, special equipment and work tool holding fixtures that meet a variety of manufacturing needs. In business since 1967, Paramount Tool serves a variety of industries including automotive, food processing, marine, medical, die cast, office furniture, fuel injection, heavy trucks and more. This project will be located at 136 W. 64

th Street and the project period is expected to be from June 5, 2013 until June 5,

2015. Their application is for:

Land Improvements and Building Improvements $ 65,000 Machinery, equipment, furniture and fixtures $896,987

Total $961,987 The project for which exemption is sought is the acquisition and installation of equipment necessary for the applicant to expand production capacity and capabilities. 30 existing jobs are expected to be retained, and 15 new jobs are expected to be created directly because of this project. The 15 new jobs would be mid to high skill levels in manufacturing and engineering with a pay range of $45,000 to $80,000 annually. It was recommended that a public hearing on the requested PA 198 tax abatement for Paramount Tool at 136 West 64

th Street be scheduled for Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at

7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall; and that the Deputy City Clerk be instructed to mail the required notice. A motion was made by Council Member Trethewey, 2


To adopt the recommendation Upon ROLL CALL, the motion carried unanimously.

Communications from the City Manager

General Matters City Manager Cotton reported that there are a number of pending items scheduled for the next study session and he may adjust some of these items scheduled to discuss the rental re-inspection fee. Mr. Cotton also announced that Halloween will be scheduled Thursday, October 31 from 6 – 8 p.m.

14

Communications from the Mayor General Matters Mayor Dykstra encouraged residents to visit www.cityofholland.com for contact information and to share with council their thoughts on various issues. Mayor also commented that the city is one week away, October 9, 1971 from the anniversary of the Holland fire in which most of Holland burned. 13.560 Council Appointments, Reappointments and Resignations

Resignations: Please accept the resignation of Derek Johnson from the Parks and Recreation Commission effective September 16, 2013 A motion was made by Council Member Whiteman, 2

nd by Council Member Trethewey,

To accept the resignation Upon VOICE VOTE, the motion carried unanimously.

Communications from Council Members General Matters

Council Member Burch reported that Holland has 26 artists participating in Art Prize in Grand Rapids. Council Member Trethewey invited citizens to attend the Fire truck Parade in connection with Fire Prevention Month. The parade takes place in downtown Holland, and will end at the Civic Center on October 4 at 7 p.m. Mayor stated that City Manager Cotton and Council Member Trethewey are parade marshals.

First Reading of Ordinances

13.561 Rezone 51 and 61 Country Club Road from the R-1 One Family Residential District to the PRD Planned

Residential Development District Upon motion by Council Member Trethewey, 2


Council accepted for First Reading of Ordinances an ordinance amendment to (fill in info) 13.562 Adjournment Upon motion by Council Member Peters, 2

nd by Council Member Trethewey,

The Council adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Robinson Assistant City Manager

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL

HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Public Hearing – Revocation of the Public Lodging License for the Economy Inn, 409 US 31 South Summary A new Public Hearing on the revocation of this Public Lodging License was set for the November 6, 2013 meeting. A new inspection was conducted on October 31, 2013. Attached is the revised list of previous violations found at this property. Seventeen (17) out of eighty (80) rooms were found to be in compliance. Background On December 11, 2012, an inspection was conducted of the entire Economy Inn facility. On December 14, 2012, a 22 page violation letter was issued. Since then, progress on correcting the violations has been spotty at best. Plumbing permit 130051 for fixture replacement has expired without final inspection. Police calls continue, and the rooms remain deteriorated, filthy, and insect infested. Several follow‐up inspections have been conducted where some corrections have been made but full compliance has not been achieved. After review of the file regarding the licensing of the Economy Inn at 409 NB US 31 and the lack of progress on compliance with our ordinances, the Department of Community and Neighborhood Services came to the conclusion that there is no choice but to suspend the public lodging license for the Economy Inn at 409 NB US 31. Notice of this suspension (attached) was served to the owner on August 29, 2013. On September 18, 2013, City Council scheduled a public hearing for October 16 to hear public comments and to consider the revocation of the public lodging license. Another facility inspection conducted on October 9, 2013 revealed numerous violations and unsanitary conditions persist. A communication to the owner including a nine‐page list of outstanding violations is attached. In addition, during this period, police calls have persisted. A copy of the list of police calls is also attached.

8A

Section 17‐20 of the Holland City Ordinance describes the appeal process. This public hearing has been scheduled at the request of the property manager, to appeal the decision to suspend the license and avoid revocation of the license by City Council. Recommendation It is recommended that City Council revoke the Public Lodging License for the Economy Inn at 409 NB US‐31 and direct the City Manager to take the appropriate actions to post the motel for no occupancy until 100% compliance is achieved. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager The following attachments have been labeled and placed in Dropbox for City Council review and in the City’s website www.cityofholland.com for public review: 2013.11.06 Attachments to CC Report 8A: Economy Inn Inspection Update, 2013.11.01 Appeal Letter‐ Hearing request from Perry Michaels. Letter to Owner dated 8‐29‐13 including suspension. City Ordinance sections 17‐18 to 17‐20. August 29 FAX re: violations. December 14, 2012 letter with 22‐page list of violations. FAX Communication to Owner with 9‐page Updated List of Outstanding Violations dated

10‐10‐13. Photos October 9, 2013. Crime calls. Complaints received.

Report prepared by: Phil Meyer, Director, CNS and Tricia Dreier, Code Enforcement


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Public Hearing ‐ PA 198 Abatement, JMS of Holland, Inc. ,1010 Productions Ct. Summary JMS of Holland, Inc., 1010 Productions Court, has filed an application for tax abatement that is currently under review by staff. Founded in 1994, JMS evolved from a small tool and die facility to a high quality resource for deep‐drawn parts, progressive die components and assemblies. JMS offers value‐added processes such as heat‐treating, plating, painting, sub‐assembly and other secondary operations. JMS serves a wide range of companies within the automotive, appliance, and hardware industries. This project will be located at 1010 Productions Court. The project period is expected to be from November 1, 2013 until April 30, 2014. Their application is for: Land Improvements and Building Improvements $ 2,000,000 TOTAL $ 2,000,000 The project is for the construction of a steel‐framed, engineered building to be an addition of approximately 31,000 square feet to the existing facility. This addition will further enhance the growth and expansion of JMS’s metal‐stamping and manufacturing capacities. Five new jobs are expected to be created within 2 years of project completion; 85 existing jobs are expected to be retained. Recommendation The Deputy City Clerk has prepared a resolution approving an Industrial Facilities Tax Exemption Certificate for JMS of Holland, Inc., 1010 Productions Court, for twelve (12) years from the State Tax Commission approval date, and its adoption is recommended. Respectfully Submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: IFT Application, Tax calculations Report prepared by: Tim Vagle Director of Finance.

8B

R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Holland established an Industrial Development District consisting of property located at 1010 Productions Court in the City of Holland, pursuant to Michigan Public Act 198 of 1974, which district was established by a resolution adopted on January 1, 1995 and WHEREAS, JMS of Holland, Inc., has applied for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate on building improvements, machinery, equipment, furniture and fixtures at the above location, and WHEREAS, after due notice, a public hearing was held on this day and approved by the Holland City Council on November 6, 2013, in accordance with said statute, and WHEREAS, the application for the Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate appears to meet with the requirements of Section 9 of said Public Act 198, and WHEREAS, the Company has executed a written agreement with the City of Holland in accordance with the requirements of Act No. 334 of the Public Act of 1993, and WHEREAS, the state equalized valuation of property to be exempt under the said application, considered together with the aggregate state equalized valuation of property exempt under certificates previously granted and currently in force in the City of Holland, exceed 5% of the current State Equalized Valuation of the City of Holland, and WHEREAS, the granting of the Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate considered together with the aggregate amount of Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificates previously granted and currently in force, will not have the effect of substantially impeding the operation of the City of Holland or impairing the financial soundness of any affected taxing unit, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council hereby approves said application for a period of twelve years; authorizes the signatures of the Mayor and City Clerk to the written agreement; and directs the Clerk to forward the same to the Michigan State Tax Commission for consideration. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted by the Council of the City of Holland at a regular meeting held on November 6, 2013. Anna Perales Deputy City Clerk

8B Attach Resolution

Date: October 14, 2013 Industrial IndustrialTotal Tax Rates Real Estate Personal Property4

Company: JMS of Holland, Inc Ottawa-Holland 58.7884 34.7884County and School District: Allegan/Hamilton Ottawa-Zeeland 57.6184 33.6184Total Project Allegan-Holland 60.3294 36.3294Completion Date: March 25, 2014 Allegan-Hamilton 56.2394 32.2394

REQUESTED IMPROVEMENT COSTSEquipment/Furniture The following assumptions are being accepted as true:

2015 purchases 1. The current tax rates will remain constant for the years projected2014 purchases 2. The Real Estate value of the IFT property remains constant for the entire projection2013 purchases -$ 3. The Personal Property depreciation factors being used are this year's State recommendationsTotal -$ 4. An amendment to MCL 380.1211 (ref PA 37-40), in conjunction with MBT changes, reduced

Real Property Industrial Personal Property millages by 24 mills. The assumption is made that this reduction Land Improvements will remain in effect for the duration of this abatement.Building Improvements 2,000,000$ Total 2,000,000$ Combined TOTAL 2,000,000$

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12

Personal Property estimated Assessed Value -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Real Property estimated Assessed Value 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$

TOTAL ESTIMATED Assessed Value 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$

Taxes WITHOUT Abatement Real Estate Pers. PropCity Millage 13.6910 13.6910 -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,422.75$ 6,845.50$ 10,268.25$ 13,691.00$ 13,691.00$ 13,691.00$ 13,691.00$ 13,691.00$ 88,991.50$

Pers Prop Non-City Millage 18.5484 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Real Estate Non-City Millage 42.5484 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 14,387.10$ 23,774.20$ 33,161.30$ 42,548.40$ 42,548.40$ 42,548.40$ 42,548.40$ 42,548.40$ 304,064.60$

Total Millage 56.2394 32.2394 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 17,809.85$ 30,619.70$ 43,429.55$ 56,239.40$ 56,239.40$ 56,239.40$ 56,239.40$ 56,239.40$ 393,056.10$

Taxes WITH Abatement (PA 198)City Millage 6.8455 6.8455 -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,711.38$ 3,422.75$ 5,134.13$ 6,845.50$ 6,845.50$ 6,845.50$ 6,845.50$ 6,845.50$ 44,495.75$

Pers Prop Non-City Millage 9.2742 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Real Estate Non-City Millage 24.2742 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 7,193.55$ 11,887.10$ 16,580.65$ 21,274.20$ 21,274.20$ 21,274.20$ 21,274.20$ 21,274.20$ 152,032.30$

Total Millage 31.1197 16.1197 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 8,904.93$ 15,309.85$ 21,714.78$ 28,119.70$ 28,119.70$ 28,119.70$ 28,119.70$ 28,119.70$ 196,528.05$

Total Tax SavingsCity -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,711$ 3,423$ 5,134$ 6,846$ 6,846$ 6,846$ 6,846$ 6,846$ 44,496$ PP Non-City -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ RE Non-City 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 7,194$ 11,887$ 16,581$ 21,274$ 21,274$ 21,274$ 21,274$ 21,274$ 152,032$ Total 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 8,905$ 15,310$ 21,715$ 28,120$ 28,120$ 28,120$ 28,120$ 28,120$ 196,528$

Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.

PA 198 ABATEMENT ESTIMATED TAX CALCULATIONS

babinec

Typewritten Text

Attacments to 8B


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: On‐Street Overnight Trial Parking Program Summary Since City Council gave the directive to move forward with an overnight on‐street parking program for the summer of 2014, discussions have been occurring with staff and others on the best way to implement this. Following is a summary of where we stand with the various elements of the pilot program.

1. Ordinance revisions: Attached is a proposed ordinance change that will allow certain

vehicles to park on the street overnight from May 15 – September 30, 2104.

a. May 15 will avoid potential conflicts with Tulip Time. The September date will

create challenges for Hope College students who will be able to park on the

street for 4 or 5 weeks of school and then not thereafter.

b. Only licensed and operable passenger vehicles, motorcycles and trucks not

exceeding 2 tons (consistent with zoning ordinance language) can park on the

streets overnight.

c. Since this is a pilot program, the ordinance terminates on September 30, 2014.

2. Signs: Also attached are the proposed signs that will be located at the 30 +/‐ entrances

to the City and the between 15 and 20 signs defining the downtown no‐parking zone.

These signs will be placed at entry points to the downtown. It is estimated that it will

cost about $10,000 to make and install the signs.

3. Staff work: Assistant City Manager Greg Robinson has met with streets, planning and

police staff to review their comments and what changes they may need to make in

order to conduct their work.

4. Committees: Greg has also reviewed the overnight parking plans with the Downtown

Development Authority (DDA), Neighborhood Improvement Committee (NIC) and City

Planning Commission. The DDA is fine with the plans, provided that much of the

downtown is excluded (map attached). There were mixed comments from the NIC, but

they were asked only for comments, not to vote on the matter. The primary reasons for

9A

meeting with these groups were to be sure they are aware of the plans and to provide

an opportunity to comment.

5. Timing: The intent is to have Council approve the ordinance revision in

October/November 2013, so that it is effective by the end of 2013. This will provide

staff the time to order the signs, install them and provide information to the public.

6. Public information: Staff has not defined the details of this yet, but an information

campaign will need to be conducted in the spring and then again in fall 2014.

7. Evaluation Criteria: This is the most subjective element of the program. Some possible

criteria could be –

a. Comparison of the number of tickets issued.

b. Police activity.

c. Citizen comments.

d. Staff comments.

e. Hope College comments.

f. Neighborhood Improvement Committee comments.

g. Observations of the number of cars parked on the street and whether this is a

positive or negative.

Recommendation It is recommended that City Council place on First Reading an ordinance that will allow a pilot overnight on‐street parking program from May 15, 2014 through September 30, 2014; provided that the described downtown area be excluded. Respectfully Submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Proposed ordinance change. Downtown exclusion area. Proposed sign changes. Report prepared by: Greg Robinson, Assistant City Manager

ORDINANCE NO._____

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF HOLLAND, BEING ORDINANCE NO. _____ OF THE CITY OF HOLLAND, BY AMENDING SECTION 18-27 OF CHAPTER 14 OF SAID CODE.

THE CITY OF HOLLAND ORDAINS: That the Ordinance Code of the City of Holland, Michigan, is hereby amended by amending Section 18-27 of Chapter 18 to read as follows: Sec. 18-27. - Prohibited in specified places or times. (1) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with law or the

directions of a police officer or traffic-control device, a person shall not stop, stand or park a vehicle in an of the following places:

(a) At any place where official signs prohibit stopping, standing or parking.

(b) In any place where the parked vehicle would significantly impede or obstruct United

States mail delivery, street cleaning, plowing, maintenance, waste removal, or similar municipal functions.

(c) Between the sidewalk lines of any street between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. of

any day; except that this prohibition shall not apply to physicians, ambulance drivers or undertakers on emergency calls.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1)(c), currently licensed and operable 1-12 passenger motor

vehicles, motorcycles and trucks not exceeding 2 tons in carrying capacity may park between the sidewalk lines of any street between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. on any day from May 15 through September 30, 2014, provided that:

(a) There shall be no parking during such hours of trailers or non-motorized recreational vehicles (whether or not attached to a passenger vehicle or truck) between the sidewalk lines of any street;

(b) There shall be no parking during such hours between the sidewalk lines on the

following streets: 6th Street from River Ave. to Columbia Ave.; 7th and 8th Streets from Lincoln Ave. to Maple Ave.; 10th Street from Pine Ave. to Lincoln Ave.; Pine and Lincoln Avenues from 7th to 10th Streets River, Central, College and Columbia Avenues from 6th to 10th Streets; and Maple Ave. from 7th to 9th Streets.

Formatted: Superscript




babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

Attachments to 10B

(c) There shall be no parking during such hours in a manner that impedes the flow of

traffic or where official signs prohibit stopping, standing or parking.

(d) There shall be no parking on sidewalks or between sidewalks and curbs. All other provisions of Chapter 18 shall remain in full force and effect. Adopted: __________________ Effective: __________________

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", No bullets ornumbering

PLANNING COMMISSION CITY HALL

HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

Planning Commission Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Rezoning of 51 and 61 Country Club Road from the R‐1 One Family Residential

District to the PRD Planned Residential Development District with Final Reading to be held on November 6, 2013

Summary

The Report provided to the City Council previously for the October 16 meeting remains the appropriate background and recommendation. That recommendation is provided again below. At the Planning Commission’s October 22 meeting, the Commission voted to amend the Resolution approving the development plan for the project in two areas following further work with staff on drainage issues and in accordance with the developer’s willingness to further limit the number of rentals that could be occurring within the development at any one time. The revised Resolution as approved is attached. Those amendments are found in Section 4.i.5 regarding Surface Water Drainage and Section 4.r regarding the Rental of Dwelling Units. This is provided for Council information but requires no further action. Additional information A number of further questions and comments were raised during the Public Hearing at the last Council meeting. Answers are provided below:

1. One individual voiced that the PRD Planned Residential Development District should not be used in this case when seemingly nothing would prohibit land development pursuant to the existing R‐1 District requirements. This is a rationale that has been raised before yet it does not push the developer or the Planning Commission and City Council to work together for a more refined level of land development that will provide better outcomes for all players, be them the developer, adjacent property owners, residents that will live in the new development and the larger City. An example of this in the Villas of Holland plan is allowing a transfer of development rights from the seven (7) acre wooded ravine area to the other area of the site. The PRD zoning process provides a legal means for the preservation of the high slope environmentally sensitive wooded area that has a high public benefit, while also

10A

providing a legal means and economic incentive to the developer to preserve the seven (7) acre wooded area by being able to build the dwelling units on other areas of the site.

The PRD rezoning and specifically the development plan process also provides the City with an opportunity to request certain amenities such as a public pedestrian connection to the Ottawa County park, storm water quality improvements that exceed the base Ottawa County drainage standards, additional landscaping requirements, etc., that otherwise we could not realistically request of the developer through a customary subdivision plat approval procedure.

2. Another comment spoke to a potential “bait and switch” scenario where the land owner

or developer promises one thing, and does another. While many of us believe that happened, albeit due to changing residential market conditions 5‐6 years ago with a certain PRD development on 16th Street, that scenario cannot take place now with this Villas of Holland project unless the City allows it.

What does that mean?

If the PRD zoning is approved, thereby validating the development plan that has already been approved by the Planning Commission, the land owner (Macatawa Bank) and the developer (Covenant Development) are locked into building the development as approved. If for some reason development does not commence, and the development plan expires after 18 months of non‐activity, then the land remains zoned PRD District. This is the point in this scenario where some residents get anxious because any other developer theoretically can pick up the property and make application to the Planning Commission for any permitted use in the PRD District, which allows everything from single family detached homes to high‐density apartments. The residents are worried that a future Planning Commission may not be as sensitive to adjacent residents as the existing Commission, and they are worried that the Commission may view itself as having its hands tied regarding allowable uses, because the PRD District says the full range of residential uses are permitted. While theoretically this scenario could occur, staff submits that a future Planning Commission if not legally bound to only allow the same or very similar permitted uses per the original approval, is certainly duty bound to do the same and not to do an end run around the original approvals and the Master Planning designations for this area. Additionally, should the development plan expire without any activity having taken place, the Planning Commission and/or City Council carry a large “hammer” as they have the ability to initiate the rezoning of the subject property back to the R‐1 District, therefore compelling adherence to the City’s approved vision for development in this area.

3. Another individual questioned the proposed housing density, believing it is too high for

the site and the density allowance being considered is flawed as it is based on an R‐1 District “by‐right” plan that inflates the number of dwelling units that can actually be built on the site.

Staff and the Planning Commission reviewed the R‐1 District “by‐right” subdivision plan that the developer submitted early in the review process to help guide the Planning Commission in establishing the allowable housing density for this site. That plan (it is in the developer’s narrative information) covers the entire site with residential lots and streets/right‐of‐ways, which is completely allowable under the R‐1 District zoning and the City Subdivision Ordinance. The developer came up with 71 lots, which over the subject 25 acres, equates to 2.72 dwelling units per acre. While staff did not do a comprehensive and exhaustive review of this by‐right plan, we did spend a considerable amount of time reviewing it for compliance with the R‐1 District requirements and those of our Subdivision Ordinance. The “by‐right” plan exercise provided the Planning Commission with a housing density target of 2.72 dwelling units per acre that they were comfortable with and was ultimately recommended to City Council.

4. Another individual discussed saving the trees on the developable portion of the

property and asked that the rezoning be denied so as to save the trees and hopefully work with another developer that would fully integrate the existing trees into a development plan.

Hundreds of trees will be permanently saved from development loss in the seven (7) acre wooded ravine area by allowing the developer to transfer development rights from that area to the more developable area of the site. Note: The City does not have a local tree removal ordinance that applies to private property. Private property owners have the right to remove trees on their own property with the possible exception of tree removal in regulated wetland areas. Please also take note of the many trees and other vegetation that will be planted by the developer.

5. A couple of individuals noted that the Outdoor Discovery Center Macatawa Greenway made an offer on the property a year or so ago and the owner turned it down. The impression was given that if the ODCMG would have been successful in acquiring the property, that there then would have been more open space on the site and it may have developed in a totally different character. Staff believes the rationale of some residents who bring this point up then follows that if City Council denies this PRD rezoning, that the current owner may then be more willing to accept another offer from the ODCMG, thus assuring a different character of development that some area residents would rather see. The City Council does not control the sale of this private property. This commentary is not meant to rebut the October 16th public hearing comments, yet it is meant to provide Council members with the rationale and criteria used by the Planning Commission and supporting staff in reviewing this development.

Recommendation It is recommended that City Council adopt the proposed zoning ordinance amendment rezoning 51 and 61 Country Club Road from the R‐1 One Family Residential District to the PRD Planned Residential Development District as recommended by the Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager The following attachments have been labeled and placed in Dropbox for City Council review and in the City’s website www.cityofholland.com for public review: 2013.11.06 Attachments to CC Report 10A: Amended Resolution regarding the

approved development plan. Rezoning map Ordinance amendment Resolution Approving Dev. Plan Planning map

Site and building elevation plans Villas of Holland Narrative Report to Planning Commission (PC) Sept. 10 PC meeting minutes Letters & emails from area residents

Report prepared by: Phil Meyer, Director of CNS, and Mark Vanderploeg, Senior Planner

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS

HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

To: Mayor Dykstra and the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: WWTP Secondary Clarifier No. 5 Repairs

OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT Introduction: This recommendation is for the transfer of funds from contingency for the emergency repair of the drive on Secondary Clarifier No. 5 at the Holland Area Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Recommendation: Approve a transfer from contingency in the amount of $33,618. Description: Secondary Clarifier No. 5 is one of four units that provide settlement of solids following aeration at the WWTP’s West Plant. Solids that are settled in the clarifier are moved by a rake arm supported and moved by a drive assembly on the center column of the clarifier. The rake arm assembly is equipped with suction lines that draw up sludge from the bottom of the tank as necessary for the biological process. If solids are not handled in this manner, they will accumulate at the bottom of the tank where they go septic and/or overflow the weirs, upsetting the treatment process. In late August, the rake arm on Secondary Clarifier No. 5 was found to have failed and the tank was taken out of service. Initially the failure was suspected to be a shear pin failure and a replacement pin was ordered. When the drive was placed back into service with the new shear pin in early September, it was quickly noted that the problem was more severe. At that time Allied Mechanical was called to the site to remove the drive for further investigation. The removed drive was found to have a seal failure and badly worn bearings.

14.A.1*

Once the issues with the clarifier were identified the drive was sent to Emerald Tool for repair. The drive was sent to Emerald in early September and returned to the site on October 11th. The drive was reinstalled by the mechanical contractor on October 17th and returned to service by staff on October 18th. Costs associated with the emergency repair are as follows:

Contractor Service Anticipated Cost

Allied Mechanical Removal and Reinstallation of Clarifier Drive

$12,000.00

Emerald Tool Clarifier Drive Repair $21,618.00

Total: $33,618.00

With proper maintenance, the refurbishment of the drive is expected to last 10+ years. Respectfully submitted, David G. Koster General Manager Strategic Objective: 2.03 Repair, replace and enhance infrastructure in a manner consistent with reliability and cost of service objectives Report prepared by: Joel Davenport, WWTP Superintendent


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN To: Mayor Dykstra and the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Special Counsel Services for New Power Plant BUSINESS SERVICES DEPARTMENT Introduction: The HBPW will be directly purchasing equipment and negotiating contracts for the CCGT power plant. The total value of purchases and contracts will exceed $150 million. Recommendation: Enter into a Special Counsel services contract with Barnes and Thornburg LLP, on a time and material basis not to exceed $350,000, to provide legal services for various commercial activities related to the new natural gas fired combined cycle power plant. Description: The HBPW will be making significant purchases and entering into contracts with large firms that have experienced and sophisticated personnel on their side of the contract/purchase order negotiations. Additionally, it is imperative that the coordination of these contracts, warranties and purchase orders is completed in a manner that eliminates any gaps or confusion as to responsibility. To mitigate the overall risk exposure generated by these activities, HBPW staff and the City Attorney recommends engaging an attorney/firm that has demonstrated experience specifically within the electric utility industry and the construction of large power projects. Over the last three months, HBPW staff has interviewed four law firms capable of performing this work. We believe that Barnes and Thornburg provides the best economic and technical solution. Respectfully submitted, David G. Koster General Manager

14.A.2*

Strategic Objective: Resources, 2.03 Repair, replace and enhance infrastructure Attachments: 2013‐10‐28 Barnes & Thornburg Proposal Report prepared by: Daniel E. Nally, Business Services Director

babinec

Typewritten Text

Revised Attachment to Item 14D2*

Holland Board of Public Works btlaw.com | 1

Holland Board ofPublic WorksSpecial Legal Counsel Credentialsand Proposal for Generating FacilityConstruction Project

October 18, 2013


Why Barnes & Thornburg?What makes Barnes & Thornburg LLP stand out from the crowd? Ourexperience, our passion, and our desire to succeed on your behalf. Barnes &Thornburg offers clients important and distinctive advantages: value, efficiency,responsiveness and technical experience. We understand from our priorenvironmental and employment representations of the City of Holland Board ofPublic Works (HBPW) that high-quality legal representation at a reasonable andpredictable cost is very important to you.

Barnes & Thornburg Has Directly Relevant Project Experience

Barnes & Thornburg’s qualified and capable attorneys have worked on facilityconstruction contracting, equipment procurement, and design/build joint ventureprojects similar in size and scope to the 120 MW facility proposed by the HBPW.As you will see from our relevant experience highlighted in this proposal, we notonly have experience working on utility projects of more than 500 MW in size, butwe have also worked on numerous construction projects with value in excess of$200 million.

Our attorneys have substantial knowledge of combined-cycle gas combustionturbines and have worked on similar acquisition and joint-venture projects for theCity of Chicago, Indianapolis Power & Light and BP. In addition, our skilledconstruction law attorneys have relevant experience on facility design/buildprojects, construction liens and related claims, and have backgrounds aspracticing architects.

We do not overstaff matters, but have the depth to call on skilled and capableprofessionals when large projects and client timing require a broader team.Depending upon size and complexity, most matters may be staffed with two orthree attorneys, along with a limited number of relevant subject-matter expertswho will be closely managed by the team leaders. At the start of planning on aspecific matter, we can discuss the requirements and the associated complexityand co-create a budget that will help you gain an understanding of the overallcost of a matter.

Representative Construction Experience

Our Construction Law Practice Group represents owners, developers, generalcontractors and other clients in connection with virtually any aspect of aconstruction project.

We are currently the construction claims counsel for one of the largest privateconstruction projects in the United States, and we are counsel for the City ofChicago Department of Aviation for large airport construction-related claims. Wealso handle construction claims related to residential high-rise apartment andcondominium towers, multi-building residential projects, university housing, andcommercial structures such as warehouses, parking garages and other facilities.

Our core practice is related to construction claims and these claims are handledby a group of top-tier construction attorneys. We distinguish ourselves fromother construction groups by the depth of our ability to address and pursueinsurance coverage in the construction claim context on behalf of our clients aspolicyholders.

Our experience includes:

Lead counsel in connection with the acquisition of a limited liability companydeveloping a 550 MW facility in Michigan. Representation included thedrafting and negotiation of acquisition agreements, development

We not only haveexperience

working on utilityprojects of morethan 500 MW in

size, but we havealso worked on

numerousconstructionprojects with

value in excessof $200 million.


agreements, offtake agreements, site lease and an interconnectionagreement.

Represented Indianapolis Power & Light in negotiating, drafting andreviewing EPC agreements for the new $631M, 650 MW Eagle Valleycombined-cycle gas-fired power plant, slated to begin construction in 2014

Represented Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. in negotiating, draftingand reviewing EPC agreements for:

o The installation of four selective catalytic reduction devices andthe replacement of an electrostatic precipitator at A.B. Brownstations I (265 MW) and II (265 MW)

o A $400 million investment in wet-flue gas desulpherizationequipment at the 755 MW Warrick Generating Facility

o The installation of four selective catalytic reduction devices at the369 MW F.B. Culley Generating Station

Worked with engineers and attorneys supporting the Government of Iraq’sefforts to negotiate contracts on numerous electrical generation projects.This included the purchase and installation of over $6 billion in equipment aswell as contracts to secure construction and financing. These projectsranged from constructing new base load gas combustion and dual fuelturbine electrical generation facilities, redeveloping old existing facilities aswell as new distributed generation projects. The legal work also includednegotiating and drafting secure contracts to acquire various gas and dual fuelcombustion generation equipment and equipment for balance of plantoperations, but also securing water, fuel and transmission lines.

Worked with teams of attorneys, engineers, and business representatives forenergy companies and various independent power producers to constructbase load and peaker, simple and combined cycle, gas combustion turbinesin the U.S.

Represented Constellation Energy on numerous matters including evaluatingpotential Greenfield projects, development of base load and peaker gascombustion turbine plants, acquisition of existing facilities, and financingissues. Successfully worked on all aspects of the construction and financingof a 665 MW base load generation facility in Shelby County, Illinois, as wellas a 300 MW peaker facility in University Park, Illinois.

Represented American Titanium Works in negotiating, drafting and reviewingEPC agreements for furnaces and rolling mill pieces for $429M titanium millin South Carolina.

Lead counsel in connection with a joint venture to develop, finance andconstruct a 300 MW gas-fired power plant in New Mexico. Representationincluded the drafting and negotiation of an LLC agreement and a powermarketing agreement with the joint venturer and the negotiation of contractswith various third parties, including an interconnection agreement and turbinepurchase agreements.

Our group was lead counsel for design and program management claimsamounting to approximately $30 million against 15 parties related to the Cityof Chicago’s $8 billion runway expansion project at O’Hare InternationalAirport.

The City wanted to avoid litigation if possible because the large runwayproject was ongoing and the City needed to continue to work closely with theparties involved. Our solution, which the City of Chicago approved, was to


devise and negotiate an agreement for a creative and highly structuredmediation process that included in-depth, merits-based informationexchanges before the parties attempted to negotiate any settlement. Theprocess worked. We were able to resolve all claims and obtain a largerecovery for the City of Chicago in approximately 18 months without havingto litigate any of the claims.

The claims also involved complex issues related to a large “wrap up”professional liability insurance policy, and we were lead counsel with respectto all such issues.

Our group was hired by the City of Chicago/Department of Aviation to handleclaims and anticipated litigation arising out of a $200 million contract toengineer, build and operate the central heating and cooling plant/facility forMidway Airport in Chicago, Illinois. At present, the parties have agreed toattempt to resolve the claims through mediation. If that effort is notsuccessful, the claims will be litigated.

We are lead counsel in a $20 million dispute with a contractor that performeda major turnaround maintenance project at our client’s refinery. We areassisting our client in its investigation, audit, and response to amountsclaimed under the construction contract, as well as with respect to our client’scounterclaims. If negotiations are not successful, the claims will proceed toarbitration with our group as lead counsel.

We are lead counsel in connection with litigation pending in California arisingout of the design and installation of emissions reduction equipment for anelectrical plant at the largest construction project in the U.S. at this time atour client’s refinery. In conjunction with attorneys in our Los Angeles office,we are both defending against a vendor’s claims and prosecutingcounterclaims worth several million dollars.

We are co-counsel with respect to a high dollar-value claim against steelsuppliers, fireproofing fabricators and fireproofing suppliers related to allegeddefects in the structural steel fireproofing that was installed at the Whitingrefinery. The claim involves more than six other parties located in variousstates, and now involves pending litigation in Louisiana and Indiana federalcourt.

We are lead counsel in a dispute with a refinery supplier of heatercomponents that involves over 100 backcharge claims. We conducted aninvestigation and analyzed these complex and diverse claims against thesupplier at issue. Based on our assessment of the claims, we recently filedlitigation on behalf of our client and will be prosecuting these complex claimsin multi-party litigation in federal court.

Representative Energy and Utility Experience

Our Energy, Telecommunications and Utilities Practice Group works closely withthe firm's Corporate, Tax and Real Estate departments to provide representationfor utilities in all types of financing transactions, including public offerings andprivate placements. We have represented clients in utility- and transportation-related acquisitions and mergers and in the formation of holding companies. Thepractice group provides legal services that include advice on compliance withreporting requirements of federal and state securities laws as well as onresolution of federal-state jurisdictional conflicts.

The group keeps abreast of rapid changes in utilities law, including partial or totalderegulation of some traditional activities, to serve the legal needs of utilities sothat they may successfully meet the challenges of the future.


Our experience includes:

Represented Enron in assembling a team of attorneys to assist in theconstruction of several peaker power plants in Illinois. Legal work includedsecuring all the necessary land, permits and approvals, including pipelinecrossing of waterways and state property, as well as drafting agreements forEnron’s gas combustion turbine facilities in Illinois

Represented BP in the acquisitions of a fleet of tanker trucks and heavyequipment in transactions valued at ~ $10M each.

Lead counsel in connection with the negotiations of a LTSA for four gasturbines in California.

Lead counsel in connection with a joint venture to develop, finance andconstruct a 1,500 MW coal-fired, mine-mouth plant in Kentucky.Representation included preliminary structuring and drafting ofdocumentation for a project financing and the negotiations of a partnershipagreement, project development agreement, power marketing agreement,separate power plant and coal mine operating agreements, an EPC contractand a bridge loan agreement.

Lead counsel in connection with the acquisition of a limited liability companydeveloping and financing a 250 MW power plant in Washington.Representation included an LLC purchase and sale agreement.

Lead counsel in a bid to acquire 2614 MWs located in Pennsylvania andOhio. Representation included advising the client with respect to all legalmatters associated with the auction process, including with respect to duediligence, the proposed ownership structure and various documentssubmitted with the bid, including several asset purchase agreements andofftake agreements.

Lead counsel in connection with the sale of steam generated by, and thelease of facilities at, a power plant located in Massachusetts. Thisrepresentation included the leasing of facilities, the granting of easementsand licenses and the drafting and negotiation of a long-term steam supplyagreement.

Member of legal team in connection with the development of a gas-firedpower plant in Puerto Rico.

Represented an independent power producer in the development of a gas-fired power plant in California.

Proposed Key Team Members & Qualifications

Barnes & Thornburg has directly relevant capabilities and qualified lawyers whowill work with HBPW to develop an appropriate scope of work and budget,consistent with the needs and requirements of the project.

The core team members will be Bob Stead, Steve Dutton, Tom Engle, Eric Guthand Clif Shapiro. To assure the timely and efficient delivery of critical path legalservices on procurement, design/build and construction contracting, Barnes &Thornburg proposes to have Bob Stead serve as lead attorney for this projectand serve as the main point of contact for HBPW. This project management roleis included within our estimated costs for this proposal.

Robert Stead – a Grand Rapids-based partner in our Corporate Department

and former general counsel for a multi-billion dollar enterprise whounderstands the large capital asset process and the management oftransactions to achieve an objective


Steve Dutton – Renewable Energy Practice Group co-chair with recent

similar project experience for Indianapolis Power & Light

Tom Engle – a construction law attorney who was a practicing architect prior

to becoming a lawyer and remains active in AIA

Eric Guth – experienced in procurement of heavy equipment, includingmultiple transactions totaling millions of dollars each; negotiates andprepares transaction documentation including credit agreements, notepurchase agreements, collateral documents, commitment letters, andopinions

Clifford Shapiro – Construction Law Practice Group chair with relevantexperience from projects with the City of Chicago and BP

The other attorneys who may be involved in this project include:

Charles Denton – Environmental Law Department chair with relevantexperience directly related to serving the HBPW’s project needs

Michael Elam – a partner in our Environmental Law Department who brings

a substantial amount of experience with combined cycle gas combustionturbines and multiple energy projects, including in the Middle East

Scott Murphy – brings significant Michigan construction law experience,including design/build projects, construction liens, and related claims

More details and full biographies on these key attorneys are included later inthese materials. We also may involve other associates and paralegals asnecessary and appropriate to efficiently and effectively perform the legal servicesrequired for successful completion of this very important project for HBPW.


Proposal for Legal Services1. Background: Scope of Engagement

The Holland Board of Public Works (HBPW) has the need of a special counsel(beyond the City Attorney) in connection with the preparation and negotiation ofcertain agreements relating to a new 120 MW gas-fired combined-cyclegenerating facility. More particularly, we understand that the HBPW needsassistance in negotiating and drafting agreements relating to the:

acquisition of the combustion turbine generator (CTG),

acquisition of the steam turbine generator (STG),

acquisition of the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG),

acquisition of other equipment including the transformers, cooling tower,natural gas compressor,

balance of plant engineering, procurement and construction.

The HBPW and the Owner’s Engineer, HDR, are currently engaged in theRFQ/RFP process and the HBPW and HDR will select the vendors andcontractors for negotiation.

For purposes of preparing a preliminary estimate of effort required, Barnes &Thornburg makes the following assumptions regarding the scope of these speciallegal counsel services:

1. In connection with the procurement of identified equipment from aselected vendor, counsel will either be reviewing draft agreementsproposed by each vendor or reviewing each vendor’s comments toHBPW’s purchase order and general and special conditions. Counselwill also be participating in commercial negotiations and undertaking therevision of documents as necessary.

2. It will be Counsel’s responsibility to negotiate the legal/commercialaspects of the agreements to reflect the business understanding ofHBPW as it evolves during each negotiation and as it is communicatedto them by HBPW and its consultants. Counsel will not be responsiblefor the technical specifications, performance standards, permits,insurance requirements, site-related issues, other technical andscheduling project-specific exhibits or for dollar determinations.

3. Counsel’s Phase I task will be to comment on and revise, as necessary,the standard purchase order, general conditions and special conditionsthat are being prepared for acquisition of equipment for this project.

4. Counsel’s Phase II task will be to support the negotiation of equipmentagreements for the acquisition of the CTG, STG and HRSG.

5. Counsel’s Phase III work will be to support the negotiation of otherequipment agreements. The negotiation of these agreements can beexpected to involve fewer steps, be completed in less time, and requireless attorney effort, especially if the equipment is purchased from thesame vendor.

6. Counsel’s Phase IV work will involve the development and negotiation ofthe EPC Agreement.


2. Phase I Task: Comment on and revise, as necessary, the standardpurchase order, general conditions and special conditions that arebeing prepared for acquisition of equipment for this project.

In the first phase of the transaction, Barnes & Thornburg proposes to draft thestandard purchase order, general conditions and special conditions that shouldbe used for the acquisition of equipment for this project. This phase will involvethe following tasks, estimated hours and costs:

Estimate of Effort (Hours)

Estimation ofCostPhase I Step Low Estimate High Estimate

Understand project and business issues 20 40Low - $10,000

High - $20,000

Draft customized purchase order,general conditions and special conditionsfor acquisition of equipment

20 30Low - $10,000

High - $15,000

Total 40 70Low - $20,000

High - $35,000


3. Phase II Task: Support the negotiation of equipment agreements for theacquisition of the CTG, STG and HRSG, which support will involve thefollowing

In the second phase of the transaction, Barnes & Thornburg will support thenegotiation of equipment agreements for the acquisition of the CTG, STG andHRSG. While we anticipate HPBW using the Barnes & Thornburg-draftedequipment acquisition agreements, we recognize that HBPW may approve theuse of vendor drafted agreement as the negotiations proceed. We estimate thatPhase II will involve the following steps and associated costs:


Estimation of CostPhase II Step Low Estimate High Estimate

Initial review of either vendor comments toHBPW provided purchase order or thevendor draft agreement

15 20Low - $7,500

High - $10,000

Thorough discussion of agreement termsand negotiation position with HBPW andHDR teams

10 15Low - $5,000

High - $7,500

First negotiation session (telephonic) withvendor

15 20Low - $7,500

High - $10,000

Redraft of agreement and discussionswith HBPW and HDR

15 20Low - $7,500

High - $10,000

Additional telephonic negotiation sessionswith vendor

15 20Low - $7,500

High - $10,000

Additional document turns anddiscussions with HBPW and HDR

15 20Low - $7,500

High - $10,000

Review and comment on exhibits 5 10Low - $2,500

High - $5,000

Final document preparation and closing 10 15Low - $5,000

High - $7,500

Total 100 140Low - $50,000

High - $70,000


4. Phase III Task: Support the negotiation of other equipment agreements.

In the third phase of the transaction, Barnes & Thornburg will support thenegotiation of other equipment agreements. The negotiation of theseagreements can be expected to involve fewer steps, be completed in significantlyless time, and hopefully require less attorney time. We estimate that Phase IIIwill involve some of the same tasks as Phase II, but at a fraction of the time andcosts, particularly if HBPW elects to purchase all three turbines from the samemanufacturer:

Phase III Steps (for each additionalturbine)


Estimation of Cost

Estimate A:Based on UsingSame Vendor

Estimate B:Based on UsingDifferent Vendor

Initial review of either vendor comments toHBPW provided purchase order or thevendor draft agreement

4 10A - $2,000

B - $5,000

Thorough discussion of agreement termsand negotiation position with HBPW andHDR teams

3 10A - $1,500

B - $5,000

First negotiation session (telephonic) withvendor

4 13A - $2,000

B - $6,500

Redraft of agreement and discussionswith HBPW and HDR

4 13A - $2,000

B - $6,500

Additional telephonic negotiation sessionswith vendor

4 13A - $2,000

B - $6,500

Additional document turns anddiscussions with HBPW and HDR

4 13A - $2,000

B - $6,500

Review and comment on exhibits 2 8A - $1,000

B - $4,000

Final document preparation and closing 5 10A - $2,500

B - $5,000

Total 30 90A - $15,000

B - $45,000


5. Phase IV Task: Development and negotiation of the EPC Agreement.

In the fourth phase of the transaction, Barnes & Thornburg will lead developingand negotiating the EPC agreement. We estimate that Phase IV will involve thefollowing steps and associated costs:

Phase IV Steps


Estimation of CostLow Estimate High Estimate

Developing first draft 75 100Low - $37,500

High - $50,000

Discussions with HBPW and HDR 30 50Low - $15,000

High - $25,000

In-person and telephonic negotiatingrounds and document revisions

20 30Low - $10,000

High - $15,000

Revision of draft and further discussionwith HBPW and HDR

20 30Low - $10,000

High - $15,000

Final version preparation 20 30Low - $10,000

High - $15,000

Review and comment on exhibits 15 25Low - $7,500

High - $12,500

Final document preparation and closing 20 35Low - $10,000

High - $17,500

Total 200 300Low - $100,000

High - $150,000


6. Summary


Estimation ofCost*Phase Totals Low Estimate High Estimate

Phase 1 40 70Low - $20,000

High - $35,000

Phase 2 100 140Low - $50,000

High - $70,000

Phase 3 30 90Low - $15,000

High - $45,000

Phase 4 200 300Low - $100,000

High - $150,000

Project Management/Contingency 30 50Low - $15,000

High - $25,000

All Phases 400 650Low - $200,000

High - $325,000

These are estimates of future legal fees on a project with many variables, notfixed or not-to-exceed legal fees; HBPW’s actual legal fees could be more or lessthan these estimates, but will be based on the actual time spent by the Barnes &Thornburg legal professionals working on the necessary tasks to be performedon your behalf.

The cost estimates provided in this proposal are based on an average hourly rateof $500 calculated from the attorney team members’ 2013 discounted hourlyrates. We propose that these proposed rates will remain in effect through 2014.

Attorney Name Location Role(s) 2013 DiscountedHourly Rates

Robert SteadPartner

Grand Rapids Main Point ofContact, CoreTeam Member

$515

Stephen DuttonPartner

Indianapolis Core TeamMember

$545

Thomas Engle Indianapolis Core Team $445


Attorney Name Location Role(s) 2013 DiscountedHourly Rates

Partner Member

Eric GuthPartner

Chicago Core TeamMember

$465

Clifford ShapiroPartner

Chicago Core TeamMember

$495

Charles DentonPartner

Grand Rapids Supporting TeamMember

$500

Michael ElamPartner

Chicago Supporting TeamMember

$565

Scott MurphyPartner

Grand Rapids Supporting TeamMember

$410


Firm OverviewAs one of Barnes & Thornburg’s valued clients, you gain access to a firm of morethan 600 legal professionals throughout 12 offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Delaware,Indiana, Los Angeles, Michigan, Minneapolis, Ohio and Washington, D.C. Weare among the 100 largest firms in the nation and have experience in virtually allthe legal practice areas required to do business in today's global marketplace.

The attorneys at Barnes & Thornburg serve clients from more than 50 dedicatedpractice and industry areas. Our main areas of focus include litigation, intellectualproperty, labor and employment, white collar crime, corporate law, governmentalservices and finance, energy, telecommunications, transportation and utilities,environmental, real estate, health care, creditors’ rights and construction law.

ConstructionOur Construction Law Practice Group, which consists of over 85 attorneys,provides legal support for clients that are embarking on, or encountering disputesrelated to, virtually any kind of construction project or facility renovation.

The timely resolution of a legal dispute can determine the success or failure ofany construction project. So while we are more than prepared to go to court foryou, we also understand your need to avoid a prolonged and costly lawsuit. Tothat end, we’ll pursue any and all avenues to help you seek an early agreementon the best terms possible. Often, that means negotiating a favorable settlementon your behalf.

We often resolve construction claims through the use of alternative disputeresolution methods, including mediation and arbitration, and our attorneys alsoserve as construction-related mediators and arbitrators. If litigation is the bestcourse of action, however, we bring a strong track record and formidableresources into court with us.

As effective as we can be at resolving construction disputes, however, we preferhelping you stay out of them in the first place. Thus, as part of a comprehensiveapproach to meeting our clients’ needs, we help them assess their risks andadvise them on their rights, obligations, and options.

In addition, our group provides advice on how best to pursue insurance coveragein the construction claim context and, when necessary, we litigate insuranceclaims on behalf of our construction industry clients against insurancecompanies. We understand legal nuances of late notice provisions, thecomplexity of whether a claim involves covered “property damage” caused by an“occurrence,” and how to determine if potentially applicable policy exclusions orexceptions may apply. We often are able to obtain an insurance funded defenseand/or settlement when construction defect claims are brought against ourclients.

Additional Representative Experience

We recently served as lead counsel for a Michigan general contractor inconnection with construction claims and related insurance coverage issuesarising out of the design, fabrication and installation of a five-story rackingsystem in three large freezer warehouses located in Indiana. Thousands ofpallets of frozen food items were stored in the warehouses; the rackingsystem designed, supplied and installed by our client’s subcontractor wasfailing, and our client became involved in litigation and alternative disputeresolution proceedings involving six parties with claims worth millions ofdollars.

Clients say:"The firm is

highlyrespected and

has done agood job of

understandingour company's

businessobjectives andwhat we view

as a successfuloutcome"

Chambers USA2012


We helped our client successfully manage these serious claims by activelylitigating the matter, actively pursuing alternative dispute resolution at theappropriate time, and by actively pursuing coverage from insurance carriers.

We succeeded in settling the claim with the primary plaintiff at mediation, andproceeded with litigation against five other parties. We completed tworounds of mediation with parties from four states, and successfully settled allremaining claims. We also successfully concluded a final settlement with ourclient’s insurance carriers to recover most of our client’s defense costs andthe settlement amount paid.

We represented a major consumer appliance company in connection withclaims against its warehouse service provider arising out of the collapse of aroof at a facility located in Pennsylvania. Our investigation revealed that alarge amount of snow and ice had accumulated on the roof, and that this wasa concurrent cause of the roof collapse. We then successfully persuaded thearbitrator to reject the service provider’s argument that it was not liablebecause the roof collapse was also caused by a defect in the roof. Thearbitrator therefore awarded our client approximately $2.4 million, which wasthe majority of the damages sought.

We recently successfully concluded a matter for a Florida client that designsand installs exterior glazing products on high rise buildings. The complexcase involved breach of contract, acceleration, and disruption claims arisingout of the construction of a 28-story apartment building in downtownChicago. We also handled insurance coverage issues related to theseclaims, including litigation that was filed by the insurance company in Florida.

With respect to the construction claims, two separate lawsuits were filedinvolving the project owner, the general contractor, our clients, a primesubcontractor, and our client’s installation subcontractor. After resolvingcomplex procedural hurdles before the courts, the matter proceeded toarbitration before the American Arbitration Association. During thoseproceedings, we were able to settle the construction claims favorably for ourclient, including a significant payment. We then also resolved the insuranceclaims pending in Florida on favorable terms for our client.


Energy, Telecommunications andUtilitiesThe Energy, Telecommunications and Utilities Practice Group has a rich history.We represent a wide variety of energy, telecommunications, video, water, andwastewater clients. In recent years, we have appeared in hundreds ofproceedings before State Utility Regulatory Commissions. These cases haveincluded the prosecution of large hotly contested rate cases for public utilities andthe defense of rate investigations initiated by others. We have also appearedbefore federal agencies in Washington, D.C., and state and federal courtsthroughout the United States.

The broad scope of the department's practice is found in few law firms. We serveinvestor-owned, municipal, and other utilities; telecommunications companies;energy providers; large consumers, developers and property owners in a widearray of regulatory, adversarial, and transactional matters.

Administrative Litigation

The practice group regularly handles administrative litigation before federal andstate agencies. These matters typically include:

Rate cases

Technical conferences

Settlement conferences

Depositions and other discovery

Formal evidentiary hearings

Trackers

Petitions, briefs, motions, and proposed orders

The practice group frequently becomes involved in court appeals, declaratoryjudgment actions, injunction proceedings, condemnation cases, and otheractions related to regulatory issues.

Transactions

Our lawyers work closely with the firm's Corporate and Governmental Servicesdepartments and Construction practice group to provide representation forutilities, telecommunications companies, and energy providers in all types offinancing transactions, including:

Public offerings

Tax-exempt bond issues

Private placements

Credit facilities

Government grant and loan programs

Utility acquisitions and mergers is a very active area for our practice group. Ourservices include resolution of federal-state jurisdictional conflicts; the dividing linebetween regulated and non-regulated activities; affiliate relationships; preemptionissues; and commerce-clause issues.

We assist clients in preparing and negotiating contracts for the purchase, sale,transmission, and distribution of energy, telecommunications, water and

"They havebeen notonly very

responsive,but also have

been veryefficient in

providing theadvice that weneed withoutextraneousmemos and

research. Theyare good value

for money."Chambers USA

2013


wastewater products and services. We are actively involved in drafting andnegotiating wholesale energy master trading agreements and energymanagement agreements. We also negotiate EPC contracts for the constructionof energy facilities.

Deregulation

The practice group keeps abreast of rapidly changing laws and regulations withrespect to industry restructuring, customer choice, and competition. Many of ourclients have facilities in states where competition is now allowed in the provisionof energy and telecommunications services.

Legislation

Our office in Washington, D.C., gives us ready access to federal agenciesincluding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and FederalCommunications Commission. Our lawyers serve as outside counsel for utilitytrade associations. Our clients frequently call on us to assist them in legislativeand governmental affairs, including drafting of proposed legislation, preparingpolicy white papers, testifying at legislative hearings, and lobbying. We often callupon our Governmental Services Department to assist in these matters toprovide our clients with professionals experienced both in the substantive lawand the process for accomplishing legislative change.

Representative Clients

ACES Power Marketing

AT&T

Citizens Energy Group

Dry Prairie Rural WaterAuthority

Edison Mission Energy

Exelon Incorporated

Frontier CommunicationsCompany

Heartland Gas Pipeline

Hoosier Energy Rural ElectricCooperative

Indiana Municipal PowerAgency

Indianapolis Power & LightCorporation

Kinder Morgan, Inc.

Koch Industries, Inc.

Laidlaw Energy Group

Louisville Gas & ElectricCompany

Mercuria Energy Company LLC

MidAmerican Energy HoldingsCompany

MXEnergy

Republic Services, Inc.

Richmond Power & LightCompany

The AES Corporation

United Water EnvironmentalServices, Inc.

U.S. Signal Company, LLC

Vectren Corporation

Veolia Water

Viscom International, Inc.

Vodafone Americas, Inc.


Additional Representative Experience

Represented Southern Company in numerous transactions, including:

o A successful lease restructuring involving a 440 MW power plantlocated in Choctaw County, Miss. The lease restructuringinvolved numerous accounting constraints, tax issues, regulatoryissues, lease pricing issues, debt modifications, possiblebankruptcy and litigation issues, real estate and title issues, andnormal commercial/corporate issues involving five differenttransactions in one overall deal, as follows: (i) restructuring of$300 million debt (involving 10 lenders) and rental paymentsunder the lease transaction, (ii) significant cash equityinvestments to be made by Southern to upgrade and improveplant performance, (iii) a Southern entity becoming the new O&Moperator, (iv) a sale of the current lessee entity by Suez toPurEnergy I, LLC, and (v) a new refined coal facility beinglocated at the plant site (which will generate about $3.5 million innew annual revenue for the plant).

o A sale/leaseback transaction involving 30 MW geothermal powerfacility.

o Cross-border sale/leaseback transactions involving natural gaspower facility and gas distribution networks.

Lead counsel in connection with the joint development, financing andownership of a 555 MW facility in Arkansas and the subsequent sale of thefacility. The initial representation included various industrial developmentrevenue bond documents (including a sale/leaseback agreement,construction mortgage and payment in lieu of taxes agreement), LLCagreements, a senior credit agreement, a bridge loan, an EPC contract and ajoint development agreement. The subsequent sale of the project includedoverseeing an auction process for potential buyers and the negotiation anddrafting of a stock purchase and sale agreement, the settlement of variousdisputes and the assignment of numerous contracts, permits and realproperty rights.

Lead counsel in connection with the marketing of power from a coal-firedplant in Pennsylvania into the PJM market. Representation included anenergy marketing agreement supported by a hedge agreement, variouscredit enhancements, and an intercreditor agreement with the project’slender.

Lead counsel in connection with an auction to acquire certain nuclear assetsand related facilities in New York. Representation included providing adviceto in-house counsel with respect to the auction process, due diligence andthe review and negotiation of the acquisition agreement tendered with theRFP.

Represented a utility in Pennsylvania handling project development work,certificate proceedings and real estate and property tax issues.

Represented Mirant Corp. on issues ranging from evaluating potentialconstruction of new facilities, environmental compliance with existingfacilities, and the sale and financing of existing facilities.

Represented LS Power in the permitting of environmental and naturalresource issues related to new facilities, including new gas combustionturbine peaker plants and a base load coal plant. Counseled LS Power onpotential Greenfield projects and acquisition and disposition of existingassets.


Assisted Algonquin Power with a range of environmental regulatory andfinancial issues, including a troubled landfill gas facility in Illinois.

Counseled Wisvest on environmental compliance and strategy for ongoingoperations and financing.

Assisted with evaluation of potential strategic environment, energy, andnatural resource issues associated with a proposed clean coal to gas firedgeneration facility.

Renewable EnergyWith continued advances in technology and changes in public policy,opportunities for success in the world of renewable energy have never beengreater. Barnes & Thornburg brings sound advice and creative solutions that helpa growing and diversified group of clients capitalize on new opportunities andprepare for the future.

As green energy technologies evolve, our Renewable Energy Practice Groupapplies a think-tank approach, drawing from experienced attorneys withinterdisciplinary skills, to help clients commercialize technology, structure andfinance projects, clear regulatory hurdles and serve new customers.

The firm’s renewable/alternative energy clients include energy suppliers (solar,wind, biomass, biofuels and geothermal), project developers, investors, lenders,utility purchasers of power, land owners, equipment manufacturers,governmental entities, independent generators and distribution companies.

Our full-range of services includes:

Enterprise and Venture Structuring

Project Finance and Tax Issues

Mergers and Acquisitions

Energy Supply

Patent Procurement and Protection

Equipment Procurement

Real Estate/Project Siting/Construction

Legislative and Regulatory Advocacy (federal, state and local)

Environmental

Government/Community Advisory

Economic Development and TIF

Executive Issues (including compensation and non-compete)

Litigation

Our expanding team also brings deep experience working with alternative energyproviders including Independent Power Producers and Co-generation.

Barnes & Thornburg represents clients across the United States in the renewableenergy industry in a wide variety of tax-related transactions, including inpartnership investments, financings, leasing transactions, acquisitions and salesof energy related assets. We also represent investors in a range of tax credittransactions, including federal and state renewable energy tax credits, refinedcoal, synthetic fuel, and coke transactions.


Bio

grap

hies

for

Pro

pose

d T

eam


Charles M. Denton

Partner

616-742-3974

616-742-3999 Fax

[email protected]

171 Monroe Avenue N.W.

Suite 1000

Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503-2694

Charles M. Denton is a partner in the Grand Rapids office of Barnes &Thornburg LLP and is chair of the firm’s Environmental Law Department, whichwas recently recognized as Tier 1 for national environmental litigation in theannual "Best Law Firms" ranking by U.S. News and Best Lawyers. He focuseshis practice on environmental agency enforcement defense, toxic torts andclass action litigation, “Brownfields” redevelopment, compliance counseling,insurance coverage, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

Mr. Denton represents a broad range of industrial, municipal, institutional andindividual clients in judicial and administrative environmental proceedings atfederal, state, and local levels, as well as policyholders for environmentalcoverage claims and litigation. Mr. Denton also assists clients withenvironmental considerations in commercial transactions, mergers,acquisitions and divestitures, as well as ISO 14000 environmentalmanagement systems. This includes lender liability issues and environmentalaudits to assess potential facility contamination and regulatory compliance forthe acquisition and financing of real estate.

Mr. Denton is the author and co-author of several publications highlightingenvironmental law topics, and gives frequent presentations for the AmericanBar Association, Michigan Bar Association, and the ICLE, among others. Healso serves on the boards of Michigan Association of EnvironmentalProfessionals (MAEP) and NSF-International Strategic Registrations, as wellas chairing the Legal/Liability Committee of AWMA International.

Mr. Denton is listed in Who’s Who in American Law (1992-present) and TheBest Lawyers in America® (1995-present). Best Lawyers also named Mr.Denton as "Lawyer of the Year" in the Environmental Law section for GrandRapids. He is co-chair of the ABA’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee,and serves on the CPR Environmental Panel of Distinguished Neutrals. Mr.Denton is a former Detroit Bar Association Chairperson of the Year (1995-1996) and Chairperson of the State Bar of Michigan Environmental LawSection (2010-2011).

Mr. Denton is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court;the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th, 7th, and 11th Circuits, as well as theD.C. Circuit; and the U.S. District Courts for the Western and Eastern Districtsof Michigan, Northern District of Indiana, and Eastern District of Wisconsin. Heis admitted to practice in all Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin state courts. Heis a member of the Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin state bar associations.Mr. Denton received his A.B. summa cum laude from Ohio University, and hisJ.D from the University of Michigan Law School.

Bar Admissions

Michigan State BarAssociation

Indiana State Bar Association

Wisconsin State BarAssociation

Other Court Admissions

Indiana, Michigan, andWisconsin State Courts

United States Supreme Court

U.S. Court of Appeals for the6th, 7th, and 11th Circuits

U.S. Court of Appeals – D.C.Circuit

U.S. District Courts for theWestern and Eastern Districtsof Michigan, Northern Districtof Indiana, and EasternDistrict of Wisconsin

Education

J.D., University of MichiganLaw School, 1981

B.A., Ohio University, 1978


Stephen J. Dutton

Partner

317-231-7542

317-231-7433 Fax

[email protected]

11 South Meridian Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3535

Stephen J. Dutton is a partner of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, resident in theIndianapolis, Indiana office, where he is a member of the CorporateDepartment and co-chair of the firm's Renewable Energy Practice Group. Heconcentrates his practice on corporate matters. His practice includes publicand private company acquisitions, tender offers and public and privateofferings of equity and debt. He represents a number of software and otherhigh technology companies and counsels them and other business clients on abroad range of legal issues that affect their business and operations, includinginformation technology issues. Since 2003, he has been selected for inclusionin The Best Lawyers in America® in the areas of corporate governance andcompliance law, corporate law, and information technology law.

Mr. Dutton received a B.S. from the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicagoin 1965. He received his J.D. magna cum laude from Indiana University Schoolof Law – Indianapolis in 1969. He joined Barnes & Thornburg as a partner in2003. Mr. Dutton is admitted to practice in the state of Indiana.

Mr. Dutton is a past chair of TechPoint, the voice for Indiana’s technologycommunity, and continues to serve as a director. He is also a director andsecretary of the Greater Indianapolis Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., and a directorof TechPoint Foundation.

Bar Admissions

Indiana, 1969

Education

J.D., Indiana University -Bloomington, magna cumlaude, 1969

B.S., Illinois Institute ofTechnology, magna cumlaude, 1965


Michael H. Elam

Partner

312-214-5630

312-759-5646 Fax

[email protected]

One North Wacker Drive

Suite 4400

Chicago, Illinois 60606-2833

Michael H. Elam is a partner in Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Chicago office anda member of the firm’s Environmental Law Department, Global ServicesPractice Group and Federal Relations Practice Group.

Mr. Elam brings more than 30 years of experience in environment, energy andnatural resource law, policy and risk management to the firm. Mr. Elamfocuses his practice on securing permits, approvals and complex agreementsrelated to the development, remediation and financing of environmentallychallenged or controversial projects often involving sensitive water bodies orsources. He represents clients in complex litigation and enforcement actions,and is well known for securing creative and cutting-edge settlements for hisclients, particularly with respect to infrastructure or energy-related projects. Hehas significant experience with investigations and cleanups, as well as withrisk avoidance, risk allocation and dispute resolution, including negotiations,ADR and litigation. Mr. Elam is also highly effective in working with federal andstate regulatory agencies, as well as representing private-sector clientsseeking to secure approvals and financing for sensitive development projectsor to resolve significant environmental claims.

Mr. Elam's work involves all aspects of acquiring, selling, developing, financingand leasing of properties, businesses or projects that have environmentalconcerns, complex permits, regulatory oversight and approval issues, orcomplicated funding and sensitive public relations and political issuesassociated with them. His experience with all aspects of remediation andwater-related issues includes investigating, containing and treating subsurfacesoil, sediments and ground water, as well as dredging, capping, grouting,water impoundments and construction related to rivers, harbors, lakes, damsand water supplies. Mr. Elam has counseled clients and coordinated teamsaddressing the siting, permitting, construction, sale and financing of gas, coaland wind generation facilities, transmission lines, refineries and pipelines.

His understanding of and relationships with non-governmental organizations(NGOs), governmental agencies and capital markets facilitates securing sitingapprovals and air and water permits for clients, as well as financing for capitalprojects.

Globally, he has experience with substantial infrastructure projects andbusiness transactions in challenging countries, including Iraq, where heworked with the U.S. State Department and represented the Government ofIraq in negotiations with numerous corporations, countries and NGOs onmultibillion-dollar energy and infrastructure matters. Mr. Elam continues to

Bar Admissions

Illinois

Indiana

Education

J.D., Indiana UniversitySchool of Law - Bloomington

B.A., Macalester College


work on international transactions.

Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, Mr. Elam served as a partner at globallaw firm DLA Piper in Chicago. Before his private practice activities, he heldsenior legal and managerial positions at the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency’s (EPA) Washington, D.C., headquarters. He was special assistant tothe assistant administrator for enforcement, handling special projects for EPA,the Department of Justice and the U.S. Congress. He also served as actingDeputy Regional Counsel for the EPA Region 5, Chicago office. Prior tobecoming an attorney, Mr. Elam worked in a technical capacity for the EPA.

Mr. Elam is a frequent speaker on the topics of environmental, energy andnatural resource law, policy, transactional and litigation issues both public andprivate groups across the country and internally. He also has served as anAssociate Instructor at the Indiana University School of Law. In addition, hehas received recognition from numerous federal, state and local awards for hisachievements and work.

Mr. Elam is a member of the American Bar Association, Indiana State BarAssociation and Illinois State Bar Association.

Mr. Elam earned his J.D. from Indiana University Maurer School of Law andhis B.A. from Macalester College. Mr. Elam studied International Law atUniversite libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium and Water Resources atColorado College. He received Phi Beta Kappa and Martindale AV Preeminentpeer rating recognitions.


Thomas H. Engle

Partner

317-231-7499

317-231-7433 Fax

[email protected]

11 South Meridian Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3535

Thomas H. Engle is a partner in Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Indianapolis,Indiana office. He is a member of the firm's Real Estate and CorporateDepartments, concentrating on commercial real estate transactions, land useand zoning, and construction law matters. He also assists clients with historicpreservation law and serves as counsel to Historic Landmarks Foundation ofIndiana, Inc.

Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, Mr. Engle was a practicing architect with15 years of experience in commercial and institutional design and construction.He received his B.A. magna cum laude from Ball State University in 1981 andreceived the American Institute of Architects Student Gold Medal for being thetop graduate from the College of Architecture and Planning. Mr. Engle is aregistered architect in both Massachusetts and Indiana. He has taught anumber of seminars on construction law, law for architects, and historicpreservation.

Mr. Engle received his J.D. cum laude from Indiana University School of Law –Indianapolis in 1996, where he was an articles editor on the Indiana LawReview. Following law school, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable LindaL. Chezem, judge of the 4th District of the Indiana Court of Appeals, and as alaw clerk to the Honorable Margret G. Robb, judge of the 5th District of theIndiana Court of Appeals. He is admitted to practice law in Indiana and beforethe U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana.

Mr. Engle currently is treasurer and member of the board of directors of theIndianapolis Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. He is also amember of the American Bar Association (Construction Law Section), IndianaState Bar Association and the Indianapolis Bar Association.

Bar Admissions

Indiana, 1996


Indiana Northern DistrictCourt

Indiana Southern DistrictCourt

Education

B.A., Ball State University,1981

J.D., Indiana University -Indianapolis, 1996


J. Eric Guth

Partner

312-214-4802

312-759-5646 Fax

[email protected]


Suite 4400


J. Eric Guth is a partner in the Chicago office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP,where he is a member of the firm’s Corporate Department. Prior to joiningBarnes & Thornburg, Mr. Guth was an attorney with Winston & Strawn LLP inChicago.

Mr. Guth has represented public and private borrowers (both foreign anddomestic), equity sponsors and financial institutions in a variety of lendingtransactions including secured, unsecured and mezzanine debt facilities,securitizations and other structured products. His practice also includessignificant amounts of restructuring and reorganization work involving financialinstitutions and other companies – his work in that area ranging from creatingentirely new capital structures, to restructuring individual debt facilities, to salesof distressed individual loans, loan portfolios, and related collateral.Throughout his career Mr. Guth has worked with companies in a number ofdifferent industries, including chemicals, energy, finance, packaging,pharmaceuticals and other healthcare products, and heavy equipmentmanufacturing. He negotiates and prepares virtually all aspects of transactiondocumentation including credit agreements, note purchase agreements,collateral documents, commitment letters, and opinions.

Mr. Guth’s broad experience in securitization and structured finance mattersextends over a wide variety of asset classes including trade receivables,equipment-backed leases, residual interests and exotic assets such asemployee relocation advances and litigation settlements. Additionally, he isexperienced in creating and maintaining collateralized loan obligation (CLO)and collateralized debt obligation (CDO) facilities, related warehouse facilitiesand derivative-driven structured finance transactions. Recognizing hisexperience in the field, financial institutions have engaged him to analyze thestructure and tax aspects of potential investments in ABCP conduits, identifyweaknesses in their existing securitization portfolios and evaluate potentialexposures in their CDO portfolios.

Finally, Mr. Guth counsels clients on a wide range of general corporate mattersfor various corporate clients including start-up entities. He has representedindividuals and entities in mergers, stock purchases, asset purchases andother business combinations. He prepares employment and litigationsettlement agreements, and he coordinates and conducts due diligencereviews in connection with corporate transactions.

Mr. Guth received an A.B. in classics from Princeton University in 1990. He

Bar Admissions

Illinois

Education

J.D., University of WisconsinLaw School, cum laude, 1997

A.B., Princeton University,cum laude, 1990


earned his J.D. cum laude from the University of Wisconsin Law School in1997. Prior to attending law school, he served in the U.S. Army as anexecutive officer, platoon leader, fire direction officer, and battalion nuclearweapons and message verification officer.

Mr. Guth is licensed to practice in the state of Illinois.


Scott R. Murphy

Partner

616-742-3938

616-742-3999 Fax

[email protected]


Suite 1000


Scott R. Murphy is a partner in the Grand Rapids, Michigan, office of Barnes &Thornburg LLP. He is a member of the firm’s Litigation and Finance,Insolvency and Restructuring Departments, as well as the firm’s CommercialLitigation and Construction Law practice groups, where he serves as vice-chair.

Mr. Murphy was recently selected as a “Rising Star" in the 2012 edition ofMichigan Super Lawyers® for his work in commercial and constructionlitigation.

His areas of concentration include:

Construction Law and Construction Litigation: Mr. Murphy has extensiveexperience representing private and public owners, contractors,subcontractors and material providers in a variety of construction relatedmatters. He has extensive experience handling construction defect claims,delay/acceleration claims, differing site condition claims, superiorknowledge claims and mechanics lien disputes. For example, Mr. Murphywas successful in obtaining a multi-million dollar recovery against aFortune 500 company in connection with a large commercial roof collapse.He is a member of the Construction Law Forum of the American BarAssociation as well as the Association of Building Contractors.

Commercial Litigation: Mr. Murphy has extensive trial court and appellateexperience in state and federal courts and arbitration tribunals. Herepresents businesses and individuals in a variety of complex commercialmatters including business tort claims, shareholder oppression claims,Article 2 disputes, check fraud claims and lender liability actions. Mr.Murphy has also handled a number of appeals before the Michigan Courtof Appeals and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Workout and Restructuring: Mr. Murphy has handled numerous loanworkouts, restructurings and collection efforts on behalf of local andnational banks and other financial institutions. These insolvency mattersinclude loan workouts ranging anywhere between $2 million and $40million in total indebtedness, receiverships in both state and federal court,and the negotiation and disposition of collateral on behalf of financialinstitutions and special servicers. In addition, Mr. Murphy has handled anumber of fraudulent conveyance cases and collection actions againstindividual borrowers pursuant to full-recourse and limited recourse

Bar Admissions

Florida, 2001

Michigan, 2004


U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of Florida

U.S. District Court for theCentral District of Florida

U.S. District Court for theWestern District of Michigan

U.S. District Court for theEastern District of Michigan

6th Circuit Court of Appeals

Education

J.D., Florida State University,2001

B.A., Northern MichiganUniversity


guarantees.

Bankruptcy Litigation: Mr. Murphy has extensive experience litigatingcomplex bankruptcy matters on behalf of creditors, debtors and trustees.He has prosecuted and defended a number of preference actions,fraudulent conveyance cases and complex commercial litigation matterspending in bankruptcy court. For example, Mr. Murphy obtained a multi-million dollar recovery against an original equipment manufacturer in anadversary proceeding involving a distressed tier-one automotive supplier.

Mr. Murphy received his J.D. with honors in 2001 from the Florida StateUniversity College of Law, where he was a member of The Florida State LawReview. He is admitted to practice law in Michigan and Florida.


Clifford J. Shapiro

Partner

312-214-4836

312-759-5646 Fax

[email protected]


Suite 4400


Clifford J. Shapiro is a partner in the Chicago office of Barnes & ThornburgLLP and chair of the Construction Law Practice Group. He concentrates hispractice in construction law and litigation, insurance coverage litigation onbehalf of policyholders and other complex commercial litigation.

Mr. Shapiro has been selected to join the prestigious, invitation-only AmericanCollege of Construction Lawyers and was inducted as a Fellow at theCollege's annual meeting in February 2012. The College's selection places Mr.Shapiro among the top one percent of all construction lawyers in the UnitedStates. He is ranked as a "Band 1" top construction attorney in ChambersUSA's 2011 directory, and he was also selected for inclusion in The BestLawyers In America®, Who’s Who Legal - Illinois, Who's Who of ConstructionLawyers, Leading Lawyers, and the Illinois Super Lawyers list in the area ofconstruction law/litigation. In addition, Mr. Shapiro is a Fellow in the LitigationCounsel of America, a by-invitation-only trial lawyer honorary societycomposed of less than one-half of one percent of all American lawyers. In2012, he was elected President of the Society of Illinois Construction Attorneysfor the Society's 2012-2013 fiscal year.

Mr. Shapiro represents private and public owners, contractors andsubcontractors in a variety of construction related matters. Mr. Shapiro and histeam handle disputed claims (including construction and/or design defect,delay and/or acceleration, and indoor air quality/mold claims) in mediation,arbitration and litigation proceedings. He has worked on cases involving airportrunway expansion, oil refinery improvements, office buildings, high riseresidential buildings, retail structures, university housing, parking structures,warehouses, residential conversion projects and multi-building condominiumdevelopments. Mr. Shapiro and his team also negotiate and draft constructioncontracts and other construction project documents. In addition, Mr. Shapironegotiates and litigates insurance coverage claims on behalf of constructionindustry and other policyholder clients.

Mr. Shapiro speaks regularly throughout the United States about constructionlitigation and insurance coverage issues, he is the author of many articles andchapters in books that address construction and related insurance issues, andhis articles have been cited and quoted in several state supreme courtdecisions. He is an active member of the ABA’s Forum on the ConstructionIndustry, the ABA’s Construction Litigation Committee, the ABA’s InsuranceCoverage Litigation Committee, and the Society of Illinois ConstructionAttorneys (where he is an officer and a member of the Steering Committee).

Mr. Shapiro received his B.A. magna cum laude from Washington University

Bar Admissions

Illinois

Education

J.D., George WashingtonUniversity Law School

B.A., Washington University,magna cum laude


and his J.D. with high honors from George Washington University Law School,where he was a member of the law review and awarded Order of the Coif.

Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, he was a partner and chair of theConstruction Law Group at the Chicago law firm of Sachnoff & Weaver.


Robert R. Stead

Partner

616-742-3995

616-742-3999 Fax

[email protected]


Suite 1000


Robert R. Stead is a partner in the Grand Rapids, Michigan office of Barnes &Thornburg LLP. Mr. Stead focuses his practice on corporate acquisition andfinancing transactions and related corporate and partnership tax matters.Applying his deep tax background and education, Mr. Stead represents buyersand sellers in merger, acquisition and disposition transactions. He also advisesstart-up companies as well as established businesses interested in pursuingcapital sources from the private equity market. His experience includes raisingcapital for a number of diverse enterprises, including oil and gas explorationventures, a medical device development company, and software developers inthe medical and internet security arenas. Mr. Stead has also served as generalcounsel to a multi-billion dollar foodservice distribution business withoperations in the United States and Canada.

Mr. Stead is involved in several professional organizations, including theAmerican Bar Association, where he serves on the Committee on SCorporations and Committee on Closely-Held Businesses of the Section ofTaxation, and the Committee on Negotiated Acquisitions of the Section ofBusiness Law; the State Bar of Michigan, where he is a member of theTaxation Section (and is a former chairperson of that Section); and the GrandRapids Bar Association. He has also served on the Pass-Through Entity TaskForce of the American Bar Association’s Section of Taxation. He is listed inMichigan Super Lawyers for his work on mergers and acquisitions and is listedin the 2010 and 2011 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® in theCorporate Law, Tax Law, Private Funds Law, and Mergers and Acquisitionsareas.

Mr. Stead has authored several articles on tax and business issues pertainingto entity formation, conversions of C corporations to S corporations, jointventure formations, and S corporation acquisitions. He has also served asan adjunct professor in the graduate tax program in the Seidman College ofBusiness at Grand Valley State University.

Mr. Stead graduated from Wayne State University, J.D. cum laude, in 1984and received a LL.M. in Taxation from New York University School of Law in1986. While in law school, he was a note and comment editor for the WayneLaw Review and received several academic honors and scholarships. Hegraduated from the University of Michigan, with distinction, in businessadministration in 1980. Mr. Stead is admitted to practice in the state ofMichigan.

Bar Admissions

Michigan

Education

University of Michigan,(B.B.A. with Distinction), 1980

Wayne State University, (J.D.Cum Laude), 1984

New York University Schoolof Law, (L.L.M. in Taxation),1986

-1-

BARNES & THORNBURG LLPSTANDARD TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES

This statement sets forth the standard terms upon which Barnes & Thornburg LLP accepts engagements toact on behalf of its clients. Unless modified in writing by mutual agreement, these terms will be an integral part ofour agreement with you. Therefore, we ask that you review this statement carefully and write us promptly if youhave any questions. We suggest that you retain this statement in your file.

Our Client

The person or entity that we represent is the person or entity identified in our engagement letter anddoes not include any affiliates or relatives of such person or entity. This means that, unless we specifically agreeotherwise, we do not have any lawyer-client relationship with your subsidiaries, parent company or other businessentities in a commonly controlled group, nor with your owners, shareholders, members, managers, partners,directors, officers, employees or agents, nor, if you are an individual, with your spouse, children or other familymembers. Therefore, our representation of you will not impair our ability to represent another client with interestsadverse to any such affiliate or family member without obtaining your consent.

Particularly in the case of business entities that are part of complex corporate structures, we are veryfrequently not in a position to determine what entities may be affiliated with a client, or what the nature of thataffiliation may be. So we understand that you agree that we will not have a client relationship with any of youraffiliates as described above, regardless of any internal arrangements for the management and affairs betweenour client and any such affiliate, or any operational commonality among such entities such as consolidatedadministrative services, common in-house legal functions, or any overlapping officers, directorships or ownership.If you have any concerns about this agreement or its implications, you should bring this to our attention forthwith.

The Scope of Our Work

With new clients, we follow the practice of describing the scope of our initial engagement in the letter wesend accepting employment. With existing clients, we may not provide a description as to new matters upon whichwe are asked to provide services depending on the circumstances, but we will always be willing to provide such adescription if asked. In any engagement we will limit our services to those you ask us to perform and those wedeem reasonably necessary to accomplish the requested services. By way of illustration, we will not investigate oropine on claims against third parties or insurance coverage that is or may be available unless it is so stated in ourengagement letter or you have specifically requested that we do so. Where you request specific services or advice orotherwise limit our engagement, we will confine our activities to those limitations. In that event, you shouldunderstand we will not investigate or advise you on other areas of law or potential consequences or issues arisingoutside these parameters. We will likewise limit our engagement and scope of services as requested toaccommodate instructions to avoid incurring costs or to limit the amount of fees we incur. Such limitations mayresult in our not taking steps or performing work that we would otherwise consider advisable.

At times we are asked by our clients to express our opinion as to the outcome of the matters on which weare working. Such evaluations are necessarily limited by our knowledge of the facts and are based on the state of thelaw at the time they are expressed. The outcome of legal matters and proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty.

Who Will Provide the Services

Customarily, each client of our Firm is served by a principal lawyer contact. The principal lawyer shouldbe someone in whom you have confidence and with whom you enjoy working. You are free to request a change ofprincipal lawyer at any time. Under the supervision of the principal lawyer, your work or parts of it may beperformed by other lawyers and legal assistants in the Firm. This delegation may be for the purpose of involvinglawyers, legal assistants, or other professionals with experience and knowledge in a given area or for the purpose ofproviding services on the most efficient and timely basis. Whenever practicable, we will advise you of the names ofthose lawyers, legal assistants and other professionals who work on your matters.

-2-

Our legal assistants and other professionals are not lawyers but possess training, experience and skills thatenable them to assist our lawyers in discharging their responsibilities. They include law clerks (typically lawstudents), paralegals, lobbyists, investigators, patent agents, research librarians, environmental analysts, translators,draftsmen and other technical (non-legal) specialists.

How Fees Will Be Set

In determining the fees we will charge for the legal services we will render for you, we will consider anumber of factors, including:

The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skillrequisite to perform the legal services properly;

The amount of money or value of property involved and the results obtained;

The time limitations imposed by you as our client or by the circumstances of the engagement;

The experience, reputation and ability of the lawyers performing the services; and

The likelihood that the employment will preclude other employment by our Firm.

Among these factors, the time and effort required are typically weighted most heavily. We will keep records of thetime we devote to your work, including conferences (both in person and over the telephone), negotiations, courtappearances, factual and legal research and analysis, document preparation and revision, and other related matters.We strongly believe that peer discussion and review is an important element of providing quality services, andso our time records will often reflect discussions between lawyers within our Firm concerning the matters in whichwe have been engaged.

The hourly rates of our lawyers and legal assistants applicable to the type of engagement have an importantbearing on the fees we charge but are not necessarily the sole basis on which those fees are charged. Even wherehourly rates are used as the primary basis of computing our fees, they can and will be adjusted up or down accordingto the circumstances. Our hourly rates are reviewed at least annually and may be changed periodically to reflectcurrent levels of experience of the lawyers and legal assistants involved, changes in overhead costs, and otherfactors. Our statements based on hourly rates will reflect our applicable rates at the date of the statement, regardlesswhen the work covered by the statement was performed.

We are sometimes requested to estimate the amount of fees and costs likely to be incurred in connectionwith a particular matter. Whenever possible we will furnish such an estimate, but always with a clear understandingthat it is not a maximum or fixed fee quotation. The ultimate cost is invariably more or less than the amountestimated.

Other Charges

In representing our clients, there typically are other charges in addition to our fees that we itemizeseparately and bill to them. These include fees charged by government agencies and charges from servicevendors, as well as clerical charges. Typical of such charges are messenger, courier and express delivery charges;photocopying, desktop publishing or printing and reproduction charges; filing fees and charges, including chargesfor electronic filings with governmental agencies and courts; court reporter fees for deposition transcripts and thelike; witness fees; travel expenses; computerized legal research charges; and charges made by outside experts andconsultants, including accountants, appraisers and other legal counsel (unless arrangements have been made for suchoutside experts and consultants to bill the client directly). Certain of these other charges may represent morethan our direct cost to contribute toward covering our overhead expenses. We incur outside charges as agentsfor our clients, who agree that these charges will always be paid on a regular basis. We may require that you paysignificant expenses directly or in advance.

-3-

In some engagements that raise issues of foreign law it is necessary for us or the client to engage foreigncounsel. If we engage foreign counsel on your behalf, we will typically require you to pay us for the foreigncounsel’s anticipated fees and charges before we remit payment to foreign counsel, and potentially before we engagethem. We are not guarantors of the work of foreign counsel nor are we in a position to review the adequacy of theirlegal work or translation of documents. We engage foreign counsel to assist us specifically because we are notlicensed or familiar with the applicable legal system and therefore are not in a position to provide thoselegal services or judge their adequacy. If you wish to participate in the selection of foreign counsel, you may do so.

Terms of Payment

We will bill you on a regular basis, normally each month, for both fees and other charges. We rely on youto pay us promptly. Our fees and charges are due when you receive our statement. Also, if you do not pay us within30 days of our statement or as otherwise agreed, you agree that we may discontinue providing services immediatelyand withdraw from representing you after providing reasonable notice of our intention to do so. After withdrawal,we may pursue collection of your account. You also agree that until we are paid in full on all of your legalmatters, and except to the extent otherwise prohibited or limited by law, we shall have a lien on all papers andfiles in our possession related to any of the matters in which we have represented you, and any property recoveredor obtained as a result of our work on your behalf. You agree to pay the costs of collecting the debt, including courtcosts, filing fees and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

The Firm also reserves the right in its sole discretion to require an advance deposit at any time basedon past payment history, creditworthiness or other factors that may cause the Firm to conclude it is appropriate to doso.

Advance Deposits

New clients of our Firm will ordinarily be asked to make an advance deposit with the Firm. Existingclients may also be required to provide advance deposits for particular matters if the Firm believes that is appropriateunder the circumstances. Typically, the advance deposit is equal to the fees and other charges likely to be incurredduring a two-month period. The advance deposit is charged for fees and other charges as our legal services areprovided. Regular statements will be furnished to you for purposes of disclosing the fees and other charges whichhave been deducted from the advance deposit and the amount which must be paid to replenish the advance depositto the agreed level. If the advance deposit proves insufficient to cover current fees and other charges on thebasis stipulated, we may request that the balance be increased. At the conclusion of our legal representation or atsuch time as the advance deposit is no longer necessary or is appropriately reduced, the remaining balance ofit will be returned to you.

Any advance deposit we receive from you will be held in our trust account until it is charged for fees andother charges for your account or is returned to you. No interest is paid on amounts held by us in our trust account.In particular, court rules in jurisdictions in which we practice require that interest earned on pooled client trustaccounts is payable to a charitable foundation established in accordance with the court’s rule. While your advancedeposit is held by us in our trust account, it remains your property. However, by making the initial advance depositand by replenishing or increasing it from time to time, you grant us a security interest in the balance of the advancedeposit we hold in our trust account from time to time to secure payment of incurred fees and other charges forwhich you are responsible. You authorize us to apply the deposit to any fees and charges that you owe us for anyservices we have provided.

Other deposits that we receive to cover specific items will also be held by us in our general trust account(without interest) and disbursed as provided in our agreement with you, and you will be notified from time to timeof the amounts applied or withdrawn. Any amount remaining after disbursement will be returned to you.

Waiver of Certain Potential Conflicts of Interest

As you are aware, we have over 500 lawyers and other professionals representing thousands of clients invarious states, so it is foreseeable that our representation of our other clients may be or become directly adverse to

-4-

your interests from time to time in matters on which our firm is not representing you. The Rules of ProfessionalConduct governing lawyers generally prohibit a lawyer or law firm from representing one client in a matter directlyadverse to another client unless the affected clients provide informed consent confirmed in writing. In accordancewith such Rules, by agreeing to our engagement letter, you consent that our Firm may represent any other clients inmatters that are not substantially related to the matters on which we are representing you, even where ourrepresentation of such clients may be or become directly adverse to your interests. For example, suchrepresentations may include advising our other clients (i) on the scope of your property rights, (ii) in transactionswith you or negotiating or interpreting legal documents that affect your rights; (iii) on the existence, assertion ordefense of legal claims against you or that you may have against our other clients; or (iv) on any disputes with you,even in court. You should bear in mind that your consent authorizes us to take on unrelated representations forother parties or entities to whom we are adverse in matters, transactions or disputes on which we representyou. Of course, the foregoing consent does not affect our obligation to protect confidential information you sharewith us in connection with our representation of you and not to use such information to your detriment.

Services We Expressly Do Not Provide

Lawyers in our law firm may from time to time serve in elected or appointed positions with variousgovernmental or regulatory bodies. Members of our law firm must discharge those duties without regard to theiremployment or association with the Firm, and more importantly, it would be a prohibited conflict of interest forthem to give any special consideration, benefit, or access to you or any other client of the Firm. Accordingly, youacknowledge and confirm that your engagement of the Firm is not in consideration for or in contemplation of anyexpected benefit to be derived from the activities of any elected or appointed official.

Client Responsibilities

You agree to be truthful with us, to cooperate fully with us, to provide promptly all information (includingdocuments and electronic data) known or available to you relevant to our representation. If your engagementinvolves actual or potential claims or litigation, you have an obligation to preserve potentially relevant information,including electronic data. It is important for you to ensure automatic deletions or record retention policies aresuspended as necessary to ensure this information is preserved. You should discuss these issues with us at the outsetof our engagement involving any claim or litigation, unless you have a sophisticated document retention policy andprogram that addresses these matters and you are familiar with these requirements. You should also discuss theseissues with us as soon as a dispute or litigation related to any matter on which you have engaged us becomesreasonably foreseeable. You also agree to respond promptly to our requests for direction and other communicationsand to attend meetings and court proceedings at our request. You also agree to pay our statements for services andother charges in accordance with these terms of engagement.

Use of Publicly Available Information

We will always protect nonpublic, confidential information related to your representation in accordancewith our professional obligations. It is, however, helpful for us to be able to describe our experiences in the practiceof law to assist others in choosing counsel and for other business reasons. Accordingly, we understand that youauthorize us, unless you specifically instruct us to the contrary, to truthfully disclose or describe to othersinformation related to our representation of you that is otherwise publicly available (e.g. in public filings,government publications, press releases, on the Internet and the like).

Termination and Withdrawal

You may terminate our representation of you at any time without cause simply by notifying us. Yourtermination of our services will not affect your responsibility for payment of fees and other charges incurred beforetermination and in connection with an orderly transition of the matter.

We are subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct that require or allow us to withdraw from representinga client in various circumstances. These may include any circumstances in which withdrawal can be accomplishedwithout material adverse effect on the interests of the client. Among other circumstances that may give rise to

-5-

withdrawal, subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct, we may withdraw from representing you if you do notfulfill your client responsibilities to us, including failure to pay our fees and charges, or if we determine that ourrelationship has become impaired, such as by your failure to follow our advice relating to a representation.

We try to identify in advance and discuss with you any situation that may lead to our withdrawal and, ifwithdrawal ever becomes necessary, will give you prompt written notice of our withdrawal.

Unless previously terminated, our representation of you in any matter will terminate upon ourcompletion of the services you retained us to perform. Generally, this will be indicated by your receipt of our finalstatement for services rendered on that matter.

Except where applicable laws require otherwise, you agree that the following provisions will govern theway we handle materials and records related to our representation of you. We typically store the materials we retainin electronic form. We do not keep our copies of such materials and records indefinitely. We will discard or deletethe materials we retain related to your representation when we believe it is reasonable to do so, without furthernotice to you. Accordingly, you are strongly encouraged to keep your own files related to our representation,especially the important legal documents. So that you can do so, we will provide you with copies of materials wehave retained whenever you request them during our representation. Even after your matter is completed, on requestwe will provide you with copies in electronic form of any materials we still have to which you are entitled. Youagree to pay our charges for retrieving and copying materials for you, and any other fees and charges thatremain outstanding in connection with our representation of you. We may require such payment beforedelivering such materials. You authorize us to follow these procedures without providing you further noticesor seeking further instructions in the future.

Our representation of you in any matter is limited to that specific matter, and will not give rise to anyongoing attorney-client relationship. After termination of our representation of you in any matter, we may fromtime to time represent you in such subsequent matters as you may request. However, we are under no obligation torepresent you in any subsequent matters, and nothing herein should be construed to give rise to any attorney-clientrelationship after such termination. If we do undertake to represent you in any subsequent matter, the scope andduration of our representation will be limited to that specific subsequent matter and, unless we expressly establishnew terms of engagement with you at that time, these terms of engagement will apply.

Lawyers sometimes become personally entangled in court proceedings in connection with their clients’matters. If our Firm or any of our lawyers or staff are named as a party, or are required to produce evidence orappear, in a legal proceeding as a result of our services performed for you (other than as a result of our misconductor negligence), you agree, even after our representation has terminated, to pay us for our lawyers’ and non-lawyers’time and other charges and advances incurred in connection with our defense or participation in such proceeding, onthe same basis that applies to our standard hourly fees and charges in effect at the time.

After termination of our representation of you in any matter, changes may occur in applicable laws orregulations that could have an impact upon your rights and liabilities. Unless you subsequently engage us toprovide such advice on the same matter, our Firm has no continuing obligation to advise you with respect to futurelegal developments.

March 2012

DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCETHIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THISCERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIESBELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZEDREPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject tothe terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to thecertificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

CONTACTPRODUCER NAME:FAXPHONE(A/C, No):(A/C, No, Ext):

E-MAILADDRESS:

INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC #

INSURER A :

INSURED INSURER B :

INSURER C :

INSURER D :

INSURER E :

INSURER F :

COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIODINDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THISCERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

ADDL SUBRINSR POLICY EFF POLICY EXPTYPE OF INSURANCE LIMITSPOLICY NUMBERLTR (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY)INSR WVD

GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $DAMAGE TO RENTED

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY $PREMISES (Ea occurrence)

CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person) $

PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $

GENERAL AGGREGATE $

GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $PRO- $POLICY LOCJECT

COMBINED SINGLE LIMITAUTOMOBILE LIABILITY (Ea accident) $

BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ANY AUTO

ALL OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $AUTOS AUTOS

NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $HIRED AUTOS (Per accident)AUTOS$

UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE $OCCUR

EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $

$DED RETENTION $WC STATU- OTH-WORKERS COMPENSATION

TORY LIMITS ERAND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / NANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $

N / AOFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?(Mandatory in NH) E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $If yes, describe under

E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below

DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required)

CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORETHE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED INACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

© 1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORDACORD 25 (2010/05)

BARNE-4 OP ID: S7

04/24/2013

Phone: 317-634-7491Gregory & Appel Insurance1402 N. Capitol Suite 400Indianapolis, IN 46202John G. Mahoney

Fax: 317-634-6629

Federal Insurance Company 20281-Accident Fund 10166Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Ms Molly Denien11 S. Meridian St.Indianapolis, IN 46204

1,000,000

A X 35314299 01/13/2013 01/13/2014 1,000,000

X 10,0001,000,000

X Stop Gap-Ohio 1 M 1,000,000INCLD

1,000,000

A 73177479 01/13/2013 01/13/2014

X X

X X 20,000,000

A 79702168 01/13/2013 01/13/2014 20,000,000

X 0X

B WCV6052192 01/13/2013 01/13/2014 1,000,0001,000,0001,000,000

INSURED

For Insured's Informational

Purposes


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

To: Mayor Dykstra and the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Real Property Purchase

BUSINESS SERVICES DEPARTMENT Introduction: This recommendation is for the procurement of additional real properties that will comprise the area identified as the home to the community’s newest electric generating resource. Recommendation: Approve the attached Offers of Just Compensation, as prepared by the City Attorney, for several parcels of land. Additionally, provide authorization for the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk to sign each Offer of Just Compensation. Description: While the Atmospheric Processing, Inc. property will provide a significant portion of the footprint needed for the power plant project, additional properties are required to meet design requirements. Each Offer of Just Compensation (OJC) was prepared by the City Attorney with appraisal services provided by Van Noord and Associates. Each residential property that is owner occupied is provided an additional 25% compensation as required by statute. If a residential owner was willing to commit to our offer within 30 days, an Offer of Compromise (OC) equal to 15% of the OJC was given as an incentive. For commercial properties the OJC is the appraised value of the property and the OC equals 5% of the OJC. Relocation expense reimbursement is provided as required by Michigan law. Please note that additional OJC’s will be brought to the Board as they are executed by property owners.

14.A.3*

Respectfully submitted, David G. Koster General Manager Strategic Objective: 2.06 Strategically acquire properties for infrastructure improvement or expansion projects as they become available Attachments: Offers of Just Compensation to Acquire Real Property (provided at meeting) Report prepared by: Daniel E. Nally, Business Services Director

Attachment 14.A3

OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL

HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Clerk Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Claims Filed Against the City Summary: Name Address of Incident Claim Amount Debra Serna 231-289 W. 28th St. Sidewalk / Fall Unknown Respectfully submitted, Anna Perales Deputy City Clerk

14D1*

babinec

Typewritten Text

OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL

HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Clerk Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Un-Official Results The County Board of Canvassers has yet to canvass the results of the November 5, 2013, General City Election Candidates. The un-official votes are as follows:

Office: Votes:

Mayor 3762 *Kurt Dykstra

Council Member-at-Large *Nancy De Boer 2820 Donald Martin 1464

Council Member – 1st Ward 634 *Myron Trethewey

Council Member – 3rd Ward *Brian Burch 244 Richard Burlingame 162

Council Member – 5th Ward *Todd Whiteman 599 Darlene DeWitt 177

Holland Community Pool Yes 3093 No 1092

Mayor and Council Members will be officially sworn into office on November 11, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall. This will allow the Ottawa Board of Canvassers time to certify the November 5, 2013 General Election.

It is recommended that council accept this report as information and to attend the ceremony scheduled for Monday, November 11, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. to be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

Respectfully submitted,

Anna Perales Deputy City Clerk

14D2*

W1-1,2 &3 W2-4 W2-5 W3-6 /7 W4-8/10 W4-9 W5-11,12 & 13 W6-14/15 TOTALMayor

Dykstra 661 264 256 334 628 272 730 617 3762Write-in 9 16 26 25 4 15 32 127

Council At LargeDeBoer 512 208 157 204 473 222 652 392 2820

Martin 202 72 156 221 259 71 143 340 1464Write-in 1 1

Council 1st WardTrethewey 634 634

Write-in 12 12Council 3rd Ward

Burch 244 244Burlingame 162 162

Write-in 1 1Council 5th Ward

Whiteman 599 599Dewitt 177 177

Write-in 2 2Hol. Com. Pool

Yes 486 253 257 303 520 212 502 560 3093No 219 24 54 111 207 82 231 164 1092

Total Votes Cast 728 286 317 430 741 297 805 742 4346

Registered Voters 4364 1294 1571 3567 3462 1272 4114 3865 23509

% Turnout 17% 22% 20% 12% 21% 23% 20% 19%W1-1 W2-4 W2-5 W3-6/7 W4-8/10 W4-9 W5-11,12 &13 W6-14/15

CityWideVotes Cast 4346Registered Voters 23509

% Turnout 18%

CITY OF HOLLAND - UNOFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTS - NOVEMBER 5, 2013


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Amendments to Chapter 19: Inappropriate Storage of Items in Unenclosed Areas of Residentially Used Properties Summary Council is being requested to approve an ordinance amendment to chapter 19: Nuisances that will better identify and remedy the inappropriate storage of items on the exterior premises of residentially used properties. This ordinance has been a continuing concern as our Code Enforcement Staff has struggled to adequately respond to resident complaints and concerns when neighbors have taken to utilizing their porch, their yard, their carport, etc. as a place to store various items including: interior household furniture, appliances (if the doors are removed), excess construction materials, and so forth. Earlier this year during city staff’s physical survey of the Central Neighborhood housing stock, staff noticed several properties where the front porches and yards appeared to be used for storage. This storage included used car tires, a piano, and indoor furniture among other items. During the survey, staff was even approached by a resident inquiring if we could get their neighbor to clean the “junk” off their porch. Staff believes this accumulation of stuff results in a less attractive neighborhood. During the development of the “Holland Advantage” document this idea of better regulating outside storage was addressed as it related to front porches under the Property Appearance and Improvement section. This document was shared with City Council at a recent study session. During this same time, City Code Enforcement Staff and the Neighborhood Improvement Committee created the attached ordinance to regulate items not just on the front porch but on all of unenclosed areas on a residentially used property. At their August 21st meeting the Neighborhood Improvement Committee approved a motion by an 8‐2 vote recommending that that City Council adopt the attached ordinance. Recommendation It is recommended that City Council place the proposed ordinance amendment to Chapter 19 on first reading with a final adoption of ordinance on November 20, 2013. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Amendments Report prepared by: Joel Dye, Community Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Phil Meyer, Community & Neighborhood Services Director

14E1.1*

ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF HOLLAND, BEING ORDINANCE NO. ______ OF THE CITY OF HOLLAND, BY ADDING SECTION 19-13.1 AND AMENDING SECTIONS 19-14 OF CHAPTER 19 OF SAID CODE.

THE CITY OF HOLLAND ORDAINS:

That the Ordinance Code of the City of Holland, Michigan, is hereby amended by adding Section 19-13.1 and amending Section 19-14 to read as follows:

Sec. 19-13.1. – Inappropriate storage of items in unenclosed areas on residentially used properties

A. No owner, occupant or agent in charge of any residentially used lot or parcel of land located within the city shall permit or maintain inappropriate storage in unenclosed areas on residentially used properties.

B. Definitions 1. An unenclosed area is defined as being that part of the dwelling or accessory building not fully enclosed by walls, roofs, doors, windows and/or screens or any part of the exterior premises and/or yard area. 2. Inappropriate storage is defined as outside storage of:

items designed or intended for interior use, inoperable or deteriorated items, appliances, automobile parts, construction material, and the accumulation of items in excess of what is typically found on

a residentially used property. C. Enforcing Officer. The Director of Community and Neighborhood

Services or his or her authorized representative.

D. Notice of violation—Generally. 1. A notice of violation as required by this section shall be given by the

enforcing officer, in writing, clearly notifying the property owner and the premises occupant of the identity and location of the inappropriate storage and further notifying such one (1) or more

babinec

Typewritten Text

Attachment to 14E1.1*

persons that failure to comply with this section within seven (7) days of receipt of such notice shall constitute a civil infraction.

Sec. 19-15. - Violations and penalties.

A person who violates or fails to comply with sections 19-4, 19-5, 19-8, 19-9, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 and 19.13.1 of this chapter or any of the subsections of those sections is responsible for a class I municipal civil infraction and subject to the civil fines set forth in the schedule of civil fines in section 2-118 of this Code and any other relief that may be imposed by the court. A person who violates or fails to comply with section 19-7 or 19-13 of this chapter or any of the subsections of that section is responsible for a class II municipal civil infraction and subject to the civil fines set forth in the schedule of civil fines in section 2-118 of this Code and any other relief that may be imposed by the court. Each act of violation and each day upon which such violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation.

All other provisions of Chapter 19 shall remain in full force and effect.

ORDINANCE ADOPTION DATE: ___________________________

ORDINANCE EFFECTIVE DATE: ___________________________


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Windmill Island Gardens –Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Grant Application for $419,131.24

Summary The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) is a competitive grant program that uses federal transportation funds designated by Congress for specific activities that reduce automobile usage and provide safe alternative transportation options. Each year there is approximately $16.5 million available through a competitive grant process administered by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). With a 71 percent local match, the Windmill Island Gardens Non‐Motorize Bridge and Regional Trail Project will be a competitive grant application to the Michigan Department of Transportation. This project will also be competitive because the trail at Windmill Island Gardens will help create new connections to regional trails, create safe routes for intermodal transportation, benefit state and local tourism, and will provide unique scenic areas of the Island. The trail and bridge project on the Island will also serve as an important trail connector for the Macatawa Greenway Regional Trail, the Lakeshore Trail, and the Beeline Trail. These regional trails will allow pedestrians and riders to travel between Grand Haven, Holland, Saugatuck, Zeeland, and Grand Rapids through non‐motorized paths. A decision on the City of Holland’s grant application to the Transportation Alternatives Program could be expected by January 2014. Recommendation It is recommended that City Council approve a ratification of authorization to submit a grant application to the Michigan Department of Transportation in the amount of $419,131.24 for the Windmill Island Gardens Non‐Motorized Bridge and Regional Trail Project.

Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Competitiveness Details; Michigan Transportation Alternatives Program

Overview; and Regional Trail Network Map Report prepared by: Brandon Mersman, Project Coordinator.

14E2.1

Michigan Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)

Competitiveness and Eligibility Details

What types of projects are

competitive for TAP funding?

Facilities for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including nonmotorized paths, that:

connect and develop documented regional or statewide nonmotorized transportation networks. are appropriate for the need and user types targeted. benefit state tourism or economic development initiatives. if locally significant, have strong transportation connection and involve planning efforts or serve as connectors to regional networks. are a priority on MDOT, county or regional nonmotorized transportation plans. address documented safety deficiencies. are part of a broader non-Transportation Enhancement or TAP funded nonmotorized system.

Nonmotorized amenities that increase usability of nonmotorized facilities. Streetscape improvements that:

are located in established traditional downtowns or historic districts. use a creative design approach that enhances pedestrian safety and takes into account the community identity, history, context, and the human environment. accomplish multiple goals (traffic calming, pedestrian safety, tied with other initiatives, water quality improvements, etc.). receive input and support from citizens, local businesses, economic developers, traffic engineers, historians, etc.

Turnouts, Overlooks, and Viewing Areas Projects that:

provide views of the Great Lakes or highly unique and scenic areas, and/or provide a benefit to state tourism.

Historic Preservation and Rehabilitation of Transportation Facilities Historic preservation projects that:

enhance National Register-listed historic districts, locally designated districts or National Heritage Areas. preserve original property in place (certain bridges designed to be moved are an exception). promote cultural tourism.

Environmental Mitigation Activities Water quality projects that:

will have a positive effect on important watersheds or water bodies with sensitive fisheries or that are not attaining the state water quality standards. include monitoring after implementation or projections of water quality improvement. are consistent with a local watershed management plan. include an inspection and maintenance schedule.

Other Eligible Activities For information on the Safe Routes to School Program, go online at

www.saferoutesmichigan.org. Other eligible activities defined in MAP-21 but not specifically listed here are

generally not competitive. Consideration will be given in certain circumstances where significant benefit to the state is demonstrated.

* Important note: These details about competitiveness and eligibility pertain only to the $16.5 million of TAP funding available per year through the competitive process administered by MDOT. $6.5 million is available per year through competitive grant processes administered by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in urban areas with populations greater than 200,000. For applicants in those areas, please consult with the MPOs for competitiveness and eligibility details.

MDOT Office of Economic Development • Transportation Solutions for Vibrant Communities • www.michigan.gov/tap • 517-335-1069

NA SR PT ON RA TG AI TH IOCI N

M

ALTERNATIVES

http://saferoutesmichigan.org/

www.michigan.gov/tap

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

Attachments to 14E2.1

Construction engineering Construction extras and cost overruns Design engineering

Environmental clearance and mitigation (except for water quality) Permit cost Project administration

Various project elements also deemed ineligible for funding include the following: Annual plantings Banners Building facades (except for historic transportation buildings) Burying utility lines Clock towers Curb and gutter (negotiable in a water quality project) Decorative fountains Decorative street signs Electrical for tree lighting

Flag poles Irrigation Items required as federal-aid project mitigation (except for water quality) Public art Speaker systems Landscaping of property (as opposed to road right of way) Wayfinding primarily for vehicular use Welcome signs

What other factors make

a project competitive for TAP funding?

What items are ineligible for TAP funding?

Financial factors realistic expectations and cost a high level of overmatch (40 percent and higher, ability to pay is considered). non-participating work that is determined to be a benefit to the TAP project

Public input project identified as a result of a community’s Complete Streets stakeholder

involvement process project receiving a high level of public input from multiple partners

Coordinated efforts project supporting a community’s Complete Streets policy, is on a designated state or

national scenic byway, or is part of a statewide initiative, such as placemaking, statewide trail connectivity, or tourism efforts

paired with other infrastructure work part of an economic development or community improvement initiative

Constructability project design will utilize industry design standards and can obtain all necessary permits

and approvals

Maintenance factors strong maintenance plan that includes tasks, schedule, cost, source of maintenance

funding, and responsible parties

Previous Transportation Enhancement (TE) and TAP funding lower-than-average per capita TE and TAP investment in prior years timely implementation and appropriate maintenance on previous projects

Eligible costs are those costs determined by federal TAP guidance and by MDOT to be consistent with achieving the intention of eligible categories set forth in the federal law. To enable limited TAP funds to support more projects, some project development costs are considered ineligible by MDOT, but may meet federal eligibility. MDOT usually considers the following costs to be ineligible for funding:

For many projects, these ineligible costs may be characterized as non-participating costs.


Competitiveness and Eligibility Details

* Important note: It is highly recommended that you contact a grant coordinator at 517-335-1069 to discuss your proposed project before filling out a grant application. For more information, please visit www.michigan.gov/tap.


NA SR PT ON RA TG AI TH IOCI N

M

ALTERNATIVES

Overview The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) is a competitive grant program that

uses federal transportation funds designated by Congress for specific activities that enhance the intermodal transportation system and provide safe alternative transportation options.

TAP was created by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), signed into law in July 2012.

Approximately $23 million is available annually. Of this, approximately $16.5 million is available through a competitive grant process administered by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Office of Economic Development (OED). $6.5 million is available through a competitive grant process administered by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in urban areas with populations greater than 200,000.

Eligible ActivitiesMAP-21 specifies the following activities as eligible for TAP funding:

Facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, including traffic calming and other safety improvements Safe routes for non-drivers Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails Turnouts, overlooks and viewing areas Historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities

Inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising Vegetation management practices in transportation rights of way Archaeological activities Environmental mitigation activities Boulevards in the right of way of former interstates or other divided highways

Program Requirements Eligible applicants include county road commissions, cities, villages, regional

transportation authorities, transit agencies, state and federal natural resource or public land agencies, and tribal governments. MDOT may partner with a local agency to apply for funding and implement the project. Other organizations such as townships or trail groups, may work with an eligible agency to apply.

TAP funding requires matching funds of at least 20 percent of the eligible project cost. Additional consideration is given to projects whose match exceeds the minimum required.

How to ApplyApplications are accepted year-round. Go online at www.michigan.gov/tap for the online application and instructions.It is highly recommended that you contact a grant coordinator at 517-335-1069 to discuss the proposed project before filling out a grant application. Grant coordinators are available to assist you by providing more information on the program, guidance on competitive projects, and how to best develop a competitive application.



Program OverviewNA SR PT ON RA TG AI TH IOCI N

M

ALTERNATIVES

babinec

Typewritten Text

01

2.3

2013130

1 of 12

10/29/2013

Page:

Applicant Agency:

Application Number:

City/Village or Township:

Project Location

MPO (Metropolitan Plannning Organization):

City/Village

City of Holland

Holland

Grand

Ottawa

49423

Not in TMA area

Macatawa Area Coordinating Council

Grant Application Date:

Grant Applicant:

Applicant Information

Section:

Project Name: Windmill Island Gardens Non-Motorized Bridge and Regional Trail Project

Bridge and trail project creating a connection to local and regional trails.Type of Work:

Zip Code:

Region:

County:

Length (miles):

Windmill Island Gardens, 1 Lincoln Ave. Holland, MI, 49423Route/Street Name/Facility Name:

Project Limits (use nearest cross streets): 1 Lincoln Ave. Holland, MI, 49423 to Scotts Drive, Holland, MI 49424

TMA (Transportation Management Area):

State Representative:

U.S. Representative:

Project Category

Facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, including traffic calming and other safety improvements

Contacts

Project Description

30th District

90th District

2nd District

Legislative Information

(616) 355-1310

(616) 355-1310

(616) 355-1311

(616) 396-2345

(616) 396-2345

(616) 990-3792

(616) 638-8910

Prefix Name Cell EmailPhoneContact Type Title Organization

[email protected]

Mr Brandon Mersman

Project AdministratorContact Person City of Holland

[email protected] Ryan CottonCity ManagerChief Administrative

OfficialCity of Holland

[email protected] Kurt DykstraMayorChief Elected Official City of Holland

[email protected] Terry NienhuisSupervisorChief Elected Official Holland Township

[email protected] Don KomejanManagerChief Administrative

OfficialHolland Township

State Senator:

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

Attachments to 14E2.1

2 of 12

10/29/2013

Page:Grant Application Date:

1. In a brief narrative, describe the proposed work and how the project will benefit the affected community(ies):The vision of the community is to open up Windmill Island Gardens for neighboring residents to enjoy the scenic views the park has to offer as well as to create trail connections in both communities to a network of regional trails. In order to achieve these goals the following major scope items will be built (See Document 1, the numbers on the project map correspond to each of the following scope items).: 1. A 14 foot wide non-motorized pedestrian bridge will cross the Macatawa River. The bridge will include a composite boardwalk. Depending on the exact crossing location the bridge will be a clear span bridge or a longer bridge requiring piers in the river and connecting boardwalks. Exact bridge crossing location is dependent on favorable outcomes regarding any necessary property easements. 2. A section of trail will be built on the north side of the river to connect the bridge to Holland Township and to connect the trail system to 68 miles of Holland Township residential bike routes. Connections will be made to Scotts Drive, Roost Avenue or River Hills Drive. A retaining wall and fence may also be needed along this pathway. 3. A 10 foot wide concrete path will be constructed along the entrance causeway into Windmill Island Gardens. A 3 foot high retaining wall will be added to stabilize a section of trail (830 feet long) and a trailhead node will greet guests to the trail. The trail will lead into the Windmill Island Gardens and will connect to existing trails on the island. 4. Window on the Waterfront Trails will be repaired, overlaid, and widened to 10 feet in all areas of the trail. This section of trail will help create a smooth connection to local and regional trails in the west as well as connecting to the Beeline trail in the south. 5. Existing trails on Windmill Island Gardens will be repaved and overlaid with new asphalt. These trails are original to the island and are in desperate need of repair. The new connection through a pedestrian bridge to Holland Township would allow the present pedestrian pathway from Kollen Park, to Window on the Waterfront, and on to Windmill Island Gardens to connect with Holland Charter Township's 68 miles of bike paths. The bridge will allow Holland Charter Township residents increased access to the beauty and history of the Island in a way that promotes healthy recreation and enjoyment of the beauty of the Macatawa River Wetlands. Community members have long dreamed of creating a pedestrian link to the greater Holland area through Windmill Island, making the park more accessible to the region. More than 86,488 residents live in the City of Holland, Holland Township, and Park Township area (2010 Census). Holland Township has recognized the significance of this project to their community and has committed their leadership, time, and financial support to this project since its inception. The bridge will better connect our units of government, people, places, and ideals. The trail and bridge will create a north and south connection between the City of Holland and Holland Township. The connection will also allow residents to travel as far north as Grand Haven by way of the Lakeshore Trail and far south as Saugatuck by way of the Beeline Trail. The addition of a pedestrian bridge will also increase access to existing east and west connections to regional trails eastward reaching Grand Rapids through the Fred Meijer Kenowa Trail and the Windmill Island Gardens connector trail. The creation of a pedestrian link from Downtown Holland into Windmill Island Gardens is also recognized by the community for the many economic and safety benefits it will provide. Windmill Island Gardens was originally designed as a tourist destination with infrastructure for automobile traffic. The new trail along the entrance causeway to Windmill Island Gardens will create new connections to Downtown Holland and to existing trail networks in the region.

2. Describe how this project is competitive for funding:

Narrative

3 of 12

10/29/2013


The Windmill Island Gardens Non-Motorized Bridge and Regional Trail Project will be competitive for Transportation Alternatives Program funding for several important reasons. The trail and bridge project on the Island will serve as an important trail connector for the Macatawa Greenway Regional Trail, the Lakeshore Trail, and the Beeline Trail. These regional trails will allow pedestrians and riders to travel between Grand Haven, Holland, Saugatuck, Zeeland, and Grand Rapids through non-motorized paths (See attached Document 12). The Windmill Island Gardens Non-Motorized Bridge and Regional Trail will also benefit state and local tourism. The Windmill Island Gardens is already a popular tourist destination. The trail at Windmill Island Gardens will help make the park a destination for bicycle tourists as well as create new connections reaching in multiple directions. The economic impact of bicycle touring is significant. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has shown that bicycle tourism and recreation contributes more than $925 million to the state economy. The Windmill Island Gardens Non-Motorized Bridge and Regional Trail Project will help create regional trail connections that will attract riders seeking an enjoyable scenic ride along with nearby attractions. Historic sites and parks are popular destinations for bicycle tourists. The historic 252 year old Dutch windmill (DeZwaan) is an authentic experience of Dutch history and culture which sees as many as 60,000 visitors a year. The trail at Windmill Island Gardens will create a new connection through the Island allowing visitors to experience a safe, scenic, and quiet ride. The Windmill Island Gardens Non-Motorized Bridge and Trail will also have significant local benefits for intermodal transportation and the local economy. The Macatawa Area Express (MAX) public bus system currently has nine bus routes, all of which stop within 600 feet of the entrance to the Windmill Island Gardens (see attached Document 13). Public transit riders from the City of Holland, Holland Township, and the City of Zeeland will be able to take advantage of a safe and convenient non-motorized trail that will serve as an important transportation connection for the region and provide greater access to the park. MAX bus users frequently use bicycles along with the public busing system to get to where they are going. 86% of local public transit users take their bike with them on the bus. This high percentage of bike and bus riders shows how important this regional trail connection will be for intermodal transportation and commuter routes. Clark Harder, Executive Director of the Michigan Public Transportation Association said, "People ride public transit to either make money or spend money." The creation of a regional trail connection at Windmill Island Gardens will allow for users of different forms of transportation to get to work or go out and spend money in the local economy. The non-motorized bridge and trail on Windmill Island Gardens will also provide additional views of a highly unique natural area located in the heart of the City. Windmill Island Gardens is a place where the natural conditions of greater Holland cross the quiet natural conditions of the Macatawa River System. The non-motorized bridge and trail will provide additional views of the historic Dutch windmill, Macatawa River, and the wetlands critical to river delta. The new bridge and trail will provide new and better views of the unique natural areas and watershed which would otherwise go unseen. The bridge and pathway will allow residents, tourists, and students a chance to learn and enjoy the wetlands and natural areas in ways they never could before. The addition of new unique scenic views will also have new benefits for tourism at the park.

4 of 12

10/29/2013


Documents

Budget

Participating Items of Work:

Document User Date

mersmanb4430 10/28/20131

mersmanb4430 09/17/20132

mersmanb4430 09/17/20133

mersmanb4430 09/17/20134

mersmanb4430 10/02/20135

mersmanb4430 10/04/20136

mersmanb4430 10/04/20137

mersmanb4430 10/04/20138

mersmanb4430 10/07/20139

mersmanb4430 10/07/201310

mersmanb4430 10/09/201311

mersmanb4430 10/21/201312

mersmanb4430 10/22/201313

mersmanb4430 10/22/201314

mersmanb4430 10/22/201315

mersmanb4430 10/22/201316

mersmanb4430 10/23/201317

mersmanb4430 10/24/201318

mersmanb4430 10/28/201319

mersmanb4430 10/26/201320

mersmanb4430 10/28/201321

mersmanb4430 10/28/201322

mersmanb4430 10/28/201323

Document Type Description

Map Project Map and Location Details

Photograph Areial View of Windmill Island Gardens

Other City Council Minutes. (Item 13.79) Windmill Island Gardens Strategic Planning Committee Presentation and Acceptance of Final Report

Other Windmill Island Gardens Strategic Planning Committe Final Report

Other Final Report- Windmill Island Gardens Vision Statement

Letter of Support Letter of Support from State Senator Arlan Meekhof

Other 2010 Community Parks and Recreation Master Plan Goals and Objectives

Other Scope of Services (2014 Community Parks and Recreation Master Plan)

Resolution City of Holland Complete Streets Resolution

Letter of Support Letter of Support from Congressman Bill Huizenga

Other Windmill Island Gardens Strategic Planning Committe Minutes

Map Regional Trail Network Map

Map 2013 Max Bus Routes and Schedule

Letter of Support Letter of Support from Gazelle Sports

Letter of Support DeGraaf Nature Center Letter of Support

Other A Fresh Vision for Windmill Island Gardens

Letter of Support Letter of Support from the Windmill Island Gardens Managing Director

Letter of Support Tulip Time Letter of Support

Budget Detail Budget Detail

Letter of Support Ottawa County Parks and Recreation Letter of Support

Photograph Pictures and Sketches of Project

Map Additional Project Map

Letter of Support Letter of Support Mayor Dykstra

2,500.005,000.00

1.00

$43.75$11.40

$6,250.00

$109,375.00$57,000.00

$6,250.00

SFFTLS

Unit CostUnitItem of Work Item Cost

3' High retaining wall along causeway into WindmilWindow on the Waterfront repair existing 10' pathLandscaping (Window on the Waterfront)

Quantity

5 of 12

10/29/2013

Page:

Schedule

$1,449,131.24

$593,000.00

$419,131.24

$1,030,000.00

28.92%

71.08%

$2,042,131.24 $1,449,131.24 100.00%


Non-Participating Items of Work:

Participating Match Details:

Source of Non-Participating Funds:

Project Summary

Participating Items:

Non-Participating Items:

Project Total: Participating Costs:

Match:

Grant Funds:

Request Summary

$1,449,131.24

2,500.00600.00

1.001.00

1,600.001,000.00

250.001.001.00

950.001.001.001.001.001.001.00

$46.25$12.50

$6,250.00$31,250.00

$15.00$43.75$31.25

$31,250.00$31,250.00

$47.50$6,250.00$6,250.00

$787,500.00$10,000.00$61,346.87$61,346.87

$115,625.00$7,500.00

$6,250.00$31,250.00$24,000.00$43,750.00

$7,812.50$31,250.00$31,250.00$45,125.00$6,250.00$6,250.00

$787,500.00$10,000.00$61,346.87$61,346.87

FTFT

LSLSFTFTFTLSLSFTLSLSLSLSLSLS

Total:

10' Wide path along causeway into Windmill IslandMarked/shared pathway for Windmill Island entranceLandscaping for Windmill Island entranceTrailhead node at Windmill Island entranceRepair/overlay existing 10' path on Windmill I.Retaining wall along connecting path in the northFencing along connecter path in the northRest node at trail entrance in the northWindmill Island rest node by bridge10' Wide path connecting to bridge in the northRepair existing 10' path on Scotts DriveLandscaping along existing Windmill Island trail14' Wide steel bridge14' Wide composite boardwalkMobilization 5%Traffic Control 5%

$593,000.00

Unit Cost Item CostUnitItem of Work

Total:

1.00 $243,000.00LS $243,000.00

1.00 $350,000.00LS $350,000.00

Quantity

Design and Construction Inspection Services

Project Contingencies

$30,000.00 2.07%

$243,000.00 16.77%

$100,000.00 6.90%

$357,000.00 24.64%

$300,000.00 20.70%

$1,030,000.00 71.08%

Source Type AmountMatch

Percentage

Rotary Club/Chemical Bank Other

Holland Charter Township (Potential) Township

Fundraising via Community Foundation Foundation

City of Holland City/Village

Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund MDNR

Total:

09/01/2014

1.

ConstructionProject Type:

Milestones Date

Plans and Estimate Complete:

6 of 12

10/29/2013


Environment/Community

06/01/2016

07/01/2014

07/01/2014

10/01/2014

03/01/2015

07/01/2015

Will this project be paired with any future construction projects?2.

3.

No

Grade Inspection Package submitted

Right of Way Cetified:

Matching Funds Certified:

Advertisement Start Date:

Construction Letting Date:

Construction End Date:

Project Listed on Approved TIP/STIP:

Additional comments about the project schedule:

10/01/2014to MDOT:

X

X

X

X

Endangered Species

2a.

Property Easement

1. Check all that apply:

ROW/Construction Access Permit

Inland Lakes or Streams Permit

Wetlands Permit

Floodplains Permit

Recreational Lands

Tree Removal

Coastal Zone

State Historic Preservation Office Clearance

Contaminated Sites

Other

Other

Please describe:

Proper permits and procedures will be completed by Prein and Newhof, engineers for this project. Permitting for the bridge and trail will include a MDEQ permit for Inland Lakes and Streams. If bridge piers are in the floodway, a Floodplain/Floodway section as well as the Wetlands section will need to be completed as well. This project was reviewed and conceptually approved by Ms. Holly Vickers of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, during a site review with Scott Post of Prein and Newhof and Brian White from the City of Holland Transportation Department. Tree removal will be necessary but will be minor. Anticipated tree removal is for less than twenty trees in the 6 inch to 12 inch diameter range. An environmental report will be conducted on the site along with a review of any potential endangered species. Mitigation measures will be put in place as necessary in order to reduce any potential impacts construction of pathway and bridge may have on potentially endangered species. Mitigation measures will also be taken to reduce the impacts construction will have on the floodplains and wetlands. Property easement acquisition will be needed to build a bridge along the Boar's Head property. Additional options include a 5/6th Street bike path route to Roost Ave and a route West of Boar's Head to River Hills Drive.

Describe the anticipated impact of the project on adjacent property owners, your efforts to inform them of the project, and responses to these efforts:

7 of 12

10/29/2013


3a.

3b.

No

Adjacent property owners north of the Macatawa River in Holland Township may experience some impacts from the construction and use of the Windmill Island Gardens Non-Motorized Bridge and Regional Trail. Adjacent property owners may be able to see walkers and riders passing by their property on the trail. Property owners may also experience some minor inconvenience during the construction of the northern trail section. Adjacent property owners will be informed of the public input process and will be kept informed of the plans through direct mailings. Property owners will have a chance throughout the process to give their input and express their concerns about the project.

2b. Is property acquisition necessary?

How did you facilitate stakeholder engagement in the development of this project concept and

On August 22, 2012, Mayor Kurt Dykstra of the City of Holland appointed a Windmill Island Gardens Strategic Planning Committee to imagine a 50 year vision for the park and gardens. The committee was made of the following community and civic stakeholders: Jodi Syens, Recreation and Transportation Department Director Dave Hoekstra (City Council) and Nancy DeBoer (City Council) Don Komejan, Holland Charter Township Manager Meghann Reynolds, Holland Township Assistant Planner and Zoning Administrator Gwen Auwerda, Tulip Time Festival, Inc. Sally Laukitis, Convention and Visitors Bureau Gordon Van Wylen, Riverview Group Greg Holcombe, Riverview Group and Macatawa Greenway Bill Johnson, Landscape Architect (and partner with Prein and Newhof engineers on this project) Dale Wyngarden, Retired City Department leader Ex-Officio Members: Kurt Dykstra, Holland City Mayor Ryan Cotton, Holland City Manager Phil Meyer, Holland City Department Director, Community and Neighborhood Services Ad van den Akker, Windmill Island Gardens Manager The committee met on a weekly basis from the end of September until the middle of December in 2012, to discuss plans for making the Island a "Park of Parks" as well the financial plan for the Dutch Windmill on the Island. In order to create a Park of Parks on Windmill Island Gardens, plans were made to make the park more welcoming and more accessible to members of all surrounding communities. During the strategic planning meetings stakeholders discussed how the Windmill Island Gardens Non-Motorized Bridge and Regional Trail could best allow members of surrounding communities to enter Windmill Island Gardens from the north and south so they can enjoy all the park has to offer. Don Komejan, the Holland Charter Township Manager has been involved in the development of the trail plans since the beginning of the project. Holland Charter Township will potentially budget $243,000 from the Township's Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 2015 (based on favorable outcomes regarding any necessary property easements, favorable fund raising efforts, and subject to Township Board review and approval). Travis Williams and Greg Holcombe, representatives from the Macatawa Greenway Regional Trail system, have also been involved throughout the planning process for this trail. Public comment was solicited during each of the strategic planning committee meetings (See attached Document 11 for Minutes). A final report was submitted by the committee to the Holland City Council at a regular City Council meeting on February 20, 2013 (See Document 5 and Document 3). The report was accepted as information by the council by a unanimous vote.

Describe the stakeholder input you received. How did this input help shape this project concept?

what stakeholders were invloved?

8 of 12

10/29/2013


The Windmill Island Gardens Strategic Planning Committee received input from the mayor and council, other municipal leaders, and landscape architects. Public comment was solicited during each of the strategic planning sessions held by the committee. The Windmill Island Gardens Strategic Planning Committee received input from committee members who are on staff in Holland Township and the City of Holland. The committee was also made up of members from the community at large who share a desire to see the park opened up to different forms of transportation. The input at these meetings helped shape the outcomes of the final report presented and accepted as information at the February 20, 2013 Holland City Council meeting. The input gathered from these critical stakeholders helped to create a plan that will help make Windmill Island Gardens more accessible through non-motorized methods of transportation from the new northern entrance to the park and the new trail along the existing causeway in the south. The committee helped to shape the vision for the park into a set of clear cut goals that will help to connect Windmill Island Gardens to regional trails and make the park more accessible and more inviting to the entire region. One example of how public input shaped the project concept is that during the public comment session of a committee meeting a member of the community suggested making the entrance to the bridge connector trail as inviting as possible. As a result of this input, a trailhead node will be added at the northern and south entrance to the Windmill Island Gardens Trail.

If this project is identified in an adopted community, county, and/or region-wide plan, please describe

(such as master plan, comprehensive plan, trail plan, downtown development plan, etc.):

4.

9 of 12

10/29/2013


The Windmill Island Gardens Non-Motorized Bridge and Regional Trail Project will act as an important connector piece to the Macatawa River Greenway Regional Trail system. The Windmill Island Gardens Trail will help create new connections going north and south as well as east and west (See attached Document 12). The Regional Trail Network Map shows existing connections and planned connections that will allow area residents and visitors to travel as far as Grand Haven in the north and Saugatuck in the South through Windmill Island Gardens. The map also shows how pedestrians and bikers will be able to travel from Grand Rapids in the east all the way to Lake Michigan in Holland's Park Township in the west. The City of Holland and Holland Township are both in the process of updating the Parks and Recreation 5 year Master Plan and will contain the Windmill Island Gardens Non-Motorized Bridge and Regional Trail Project as a top priority goal for the new Community Parks and Recreation Master Plan (please see attached Document 8). Holland Charter Township has the following draft language for the 2014 Community Parks and Recreation Plan, "Work in partnership with the City of Holland to develop and construct a north/south non-motorized pathway and bridge connection from Windmill Island Gardens in the City, north across the Macatawa River, to connect with Scotts Drive or Roost Avenue in Holland Township." The City of Holland Parks and Recreation plan will have identical language as well and will work in close partnership on this project. The Windmill Island Gardens Non-Motorized Bridge and Regional Trail Project began as a plan to develop boardwalks on Windmill Island with overlooks adjacent to the Macatawa Greenway Trail as well as create non-motorized trails into the Island. Over the years the vision was refined to provide new linkages to Holland Township and Grand Haven in the north and Downtown Holland and Saugatuck in the south. The 2010 Community Parks and Recreation Master Plan contains the following goals and potential actions as it relates to this project (Also see attached Document 7, 2010 Community Parks and Recreation Master Plan Goals and Objectives): GOAL: Develop new parks and recreational facilities to further expand the standards and range of the recreational opportunities available to City and area residents. Objectives:. * Provide trail linkages and greenways between existing and new properties and residential areas. Objectives: * Develop continuous waterfront walkway from Kollen Park to Window-on-the-Waterfront and Windmill Island, extending to the east City boundary at Paw Paw Park. Potential Actions: * Develop overlook areas adjacent to the bike path along Lake Macatawa. * Develop greenbelt/riverwalk along Macatawa River (Macatawa Greenway). * Develop boardwalk from Window-on-the-Waterfront and Downtown area to Windmill Island. GOAL: Preserve, protect, and improve natural, scenic, or environmentally sensitive areas for appropriate public use and enjoyment and habitat protection. Potential Actions: * Develop appropriate pedestrian and non-motorized access along the Macatawa River and within the Macatawa Marsh Area. GOAL: Strive to connect recreational facilities to schools, residential areas, and to one another with non-motorized trails that provide safe, pleasant, and satisfying recreational experiences. Objectives: *Provide pedestrian/bike trails throughout the City, linking recreational, residential, and school facilities. *Work with the Macatawa Greenway Partnership to link existing parks and recreational lands through bike paths, walking paths, and green space. Potential Actions:

10 of 12

10/29/2013


X

Yes

*Develop non-motorized walks along the Macatawa River, Lake Macatawa, and Macatawa Marsh linking recreational, residential, and school facilities.

c. Describe what investment your community has made and/or activities you conducted to support your

Has your community adopted a Complete Streets policy?5.

a. What type of document is your policy? (Select all that apply.)

Policy Ordinance Capital Improvement Program

Resolution Masterplan Other

b. How does this project support this policy?

The Windmill Island Gardens Non-Motorized Bridge and Regional Trail project is designed to ensure safe and convenient access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders in and out of Windmill Island and to connect to regional trails. Ensuring there is a safe and convenient transportation network for all users is an important element of the City of Holland's Complete Streets Policy (See attached Document 9, City of Holland Complete Streets Resolution). The Windmill Island Gardens Trail will allow pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit users to safely enter the park from the north, south, and east (upon completion of Macatawa Greenway) and to continue on to other safe and convenient regional trail routes. The Macatawa Area Express (MAX) bus system currently has nine bus routes that stop within 600 feet of the entrance to Windmill Island Gardens (See attached Document 13). This project is essential in providing a safe route for those riding the public transit system, walking, or riding a bicycle and will create connections to existing and planned safe regional trail systems. This project will also increase active transportation opportunities which will allow for improved public health, economic development, a cleaner environment, reduced transportation costs, enhanced community connections, social equality, and will help create a more livable community. Increasing active transportation is a major goal of the City of Holland's Complete Street Policy. The Windmill Island Gardens Trail will increase access to active transportation in the City of Holland, Holland Township, the City of Zeeland, Zeeland Township, and many more communities in Ottawa County.

complete Streets policy.

11 of 12

10/29/2013

Page:

Maintenance


For more than a decade, the City of Holland has been aggressive about examining "complete streets" issues in all of its street construction, reconstruction, sidewalk improvement, and bike facility efforts as a matter of normal course of doing business. These issues, often involve the participation of neighborhood residents, business, and other property owners, is well considered in the context of both of the specific conditions of a particular project, as well as in the context of the larger City-wide (and beyond) network. Streets and planning staff members from the City of Holland have also attended MDOT sponsored training on complete streets as well as programs conducted by the Lakeshore Disability Network on livable communities and complete streets. The reconstruction of 40th street, in the City of Holland, is a positive example of a two lane road project with bike lanes, sidewalks, sidewalk bulb-outs and median crossing islands. Holland Charter Township is also aggressive in providing non-motorized transportation options. Holland Charter Township contains more than 68 miles of sidewalks and bike paths. Complete Streets Investments Made by the City of Holland 2010-2013. FISCAL YEAR 2013 (July 2012 to June 2013): Total: $193,425 New Sidewalk: $80,860 Sidewalk Repairs: $33,305 Paved Shoulders: $79,250 FISCAL YEAR 2012(July 2011 to June 2012): Total: $800,455 New Sidewalk: $315,265 Sidewalk Repairs: $34,800 Paved Shoulders: $450,390 FISCAL YEAR 2011 (July 2010 to June 2011): Total: $221,490 New Sidewalk: $111,940 Sidewalk Repairs: $27,355 Bike Lanes: $82,195 FISCAL YEAR 2010 (July 2009 to June 2010): Total: $303,005 New Sidewalk: $264,075 Sidewalk Repairs: $38,930

What agency is responsible for operation and maintenance of the completed project and what source of funds will be used?

1.

Describe anticipated maintenance needs by task. (Indicate frequency of maintenance and estimated annual cost.)

2.

Maintenance and funding for the connecting bridge to the north into Holland Charter Township will be based on an agreement between Holland City and Holland Charter Township. The maintenance and funding agreement will contain annually budgeted amounts from the City of Holland and Holland Charter Township. Maintenance and funding for the pathways leading into Windmill Island Gardens in the south will be the responsibility of the City. The work will be performed by the City's Parks Department under the direction of Andy Kenyon the Interim Director of Parks and Recreation.

12 of 12

10/29/2013


The non-motorized pedestrian bridge will need to be inspected every two years and will cost approximately $1,000 for a bridge with no fracture critical elements and $5,000 for a bridge with fracture critical elements (depending on location and length of bridge). The City of Holland will take the lead on bridge maintenance and inspection with a 50/50 cost share between the City of Holland and Holland Charter Township. Annualized maintenance costs are estimated at $9,000 per year over the life of the bridge. Power washing will be done on a semiannual basis on areas of the trail and bridge that are needed. Regular maintenance of the connector trail north of the bridge in Holland Charter Township will be the responsibility of Holland Charter Township. The Windmill Island Gardens pathways and the entrance trail from the south will be the responsibility of the City of Holland. The costs will be in-kind and will involve the normal wages for City and Township maintenance workers and supply costs. Ongoing preventative maintenance procedures such as: painting of lines (if needed), weeding, mowing, tree trimming, and sweeping will be done on regular basis. Cleanup and department labor costs will be handled by the corresponding municipality responsible for the trail section. Costs for this will also be normal working wages and supply costs and will be on an in-kind basis as well. Asphalt on Windmill Island Gardens Trail will need to be resurfaced every 15 years (annualized cost of $6,586). Asphalt on Window on the Waterfront will also need to be resurfaced every 15 years and will have an annualized cost of $3,800. The cost for resurfacing will be handled in the same way as above.


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Finance – September Financial Reports Summary Attached are the monthly reports for the September 2013 financials as prepared by the Finance Department and as reviewed by this office. This report represents 25% of the 2014 Fiscal Year (July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014). The monthly financial reports include the following: Summary of General Fund Revenues by Account Classification; Summary of General Fund Revenues and Expenditures by Department; Summary of All Funds Revenues and Expenditures (including Capital Projects); Fund Equity Changes Report; and Capital Projects Report Recommendation It is recommended that the September 2013 Monthly Financial Reports be received and filed. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: September Financial Reports Report prepared by: Tim Vagle, Finance Director

14E3.1*

Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % used/Account Classification Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year TotalFund 101 - General Fund

REVENUETAXES 10,182,630.00 .00 10,182,630.00 13,320.66 .00 10,043,592.93 139,037.07 99 10,033,821.76LICENSES & PERMITS 527,800.00 .00 527,800.00 26,847.25 .00 96,495.00 431,305.00 18 484,784.76FEDERAL GRANTS 40,000.00 .00 40,000.00 8,780.00 .00 24,080.00 15,920.00 60 35,241.00STATE GRANTS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00STATE REVENUE SHARING 2,840,310.00 .00 2,840,310.00 .00 .00 20,688.25 2,819,621.75 1 2,771,986.90LOCAL UNIT CONTRIBUTIONS 45,000.00 .00 45,000.00 .00 .00 7,804.81 37,195.19 17 40,864.50CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,436,745.00 .00 1,436,745.00 87,823.65 .00 352,056.11 1,084,688.89 25 1,490,139.02FINES AND FORFEITS 181,500.00 .00 181,500.00 14,011.67 .00 34,361.28 147,138.72 19 191,233.29INTEREST AND RENTS 307,501.00 .00 307,501.00 54,259.99 .00 74,286.09 233,214.91 24 285,575.26OTHER 39,600.00 .00 39,600.00 4,261.67 .00 30,498.91 9,101.09 77 18,996.13TRANSFERS IN 4,718,500.00 .00 4,718,500.00 383,270.33 .00 1,149,452.12 3,569,047.88 24 4,459,390.05TRANSFERS IN FROM COMPONENT UNIT 2,486.00 .00 2,486.00 .00 .00 .00 2,486.00 0 7,701.07

REVENUE TOTALS $20,322,072.00 $0.00 $20,322,072.00 $592,575.22 $0.00 $11,833,315.50 $8,488,756.50 58% $19,819,733.74Fund 101 - General Fund Totals $20,322,072.00 $0.00 $20,322,072.00 $592,575.22 $0.00 $11,833,315.50 $8,488,756.50 $19,819,733.74

Grand Totals $20,322,072.00 $0.00 $20,322,072.00 $592,575.22 $0.00 $11,833,315.50 $8,488,756.50 $19,819,733.74

Run by McKellips, Michelle on 10/31/2013 04:40:11 PM Page 1 of 1

Revenue Budget by Account Classification ReportThrough 09/30/13

Prior Fiscal Year Activity IncludedSummary Listing

babinec

Typewritten Text

Attachments to 14E3.1*

Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % used/Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year TotalFund 101 - General Fund

REVENUEDepartment 000 - General Revenues 17,872,212.00 .00 17,872,212.00 403,313.40 .00 11,284,261.40 6,587,950.60 63 17,386,523.04Department 191 - Elections & Voter Registration .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 2,260.11Department 201 - Finance 95,260.00 .00 95,260.00 5,635.00 .00 16,905.04 78,354.96 18 100,856.04Department 209 - Property Assessing 1,920.00 .00 1,920.00 791.00 .00 1,242.50 677.50 65 1,808.00Department 215 - Clerk 20,800.00 .00 20,800.00 242.94 .00 1,453.94 19,346.06 7 26,242.87Department 226 - Human Resources .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 17,636.50Department 253 - Treasurer 27,030.00 .00 27,030.00 949.83 .00 2,931.99 24,098.01 11 25,244.45Department 276 - Cemetery 222,700.00 .00 222,700.00 15,953.53 .00 48,706.72 173,993.28 22 203,660.17Department 294 - Planning & Zoning 5,900.00 .00 5,900.00 1,141.67 .00 3,530.01 2,369.99 60 15,659.96Department 345 - Combined Public Safety 365,800.00 .00 365,800.00 19,111.54 .00 68,038.01 297,761.99 19 379,488.03Department 371 - Community & Neighborhood Service 858,500.00 .00 858,500.00 36,885.75 .00 110,714.79 747,785.21 13 810,064.23Department 441 - Streets 172,800.00 .00 172,800.00 41,583.57 .00 42,042.98 130,757.02 24 169,577.38Department 694 - Ourstreet/Neighborhood Liaison .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 6,780.00Department 699 - Housing & Neighborhoods 5,000.00 .00 5,000.00 .00 .00 .00 5,000.00 0 .00Department 731 - Economic Development Assistance 76,000.00 .00 76,000.00 10,362.43 .00 22,074.28 53,925.72 29 80,594.08Department 749 - Human Relations 100.00 .00 100.00 .00 .00 .00 100.00 0 .00Department 753 - Recreation 299,650.00 .00 299,650.00 12,109.83 .00 77,802.81 221,847.19 26 295,419.15Department 754 - Parks 26,700.00 .00 26,700.00 2,364.90 .00 9,486.78 17,213.22 36 30,243.73Department 757 - Municipal Stadium .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00Department 759 - DeGraaf Nature Center 85,400.00 .00 85,400.00 3,070.37 .00 54,879.61 30,520.39 64 79,899.73Department 761 - 8th Street Market 133,800.00 .00 133,800.00 34,396.00 .00 78,578.07 55,221.93 59 129,475.40Department 805 - Civic Center 52,500.00 .00 52,500.00 4,663.46 .00 10,666.57 41,833.43 20 58,300.87

REVENUE TOTALS $20,322,072.00 $0.00 $20,322,072.00 $592,575.22 $0.00 $11,833,315.50 $8,488,756.50 58% $19,819,733.74EXPENSE

Department 101 - Council 176,275.00 (3,200.00) 173,075.00 13,194.22 .00 37,208.05 135,866.95 21 178,736.94Department 172 - Manager 329,829.00 .00 329,829.00 26,106.79 .00 75,119.20 254,709.80 23 313,264.71Department 191 - Elections & Voter Registration 48,376.00 .00 48,376.00 1,470.72 .00 1,666.94 46,709.06 3 55,792.65Department 201 - Finance 512,384.00 3,477.00 515,861.00 39,304.02 .00 124,298.93 391,562.07 24 489,393.11Department 205 - Independent Audit 55,250.00 .00 55,250.00 21,550.00 .00 21,550.00 33,700.00 39 46,701.60Department 209 - Property Assessing 539,371.00 .00 539,371.00 31,477.96 .00 98,395.03 440,975.97 18 498,500.26Department 210 - Attorney Services 190,150.00 .00 190,150.00 3,009.00 .00 24,458.41 165,691.59 13 211,219.85Department 215 - Clerk 174,524.00 .00 174,524.00 15,120.57 .00 40,514.84 134,009.16 23 174,963.58Department 226 - Human Resources 197,335.00 .00 197,335.00 16,341.65 .00 38,964.17 158,370.83 20 479,393.48Department 253 - Treasurer 197,109.00 .00 197,109.00 16,186.02 .00 45,452.65 151,656.35 23 199,502.61Department 265 - City Hall 199,967.00 .00 199,967.00 10,708.82 1,000.00 49,975.14 148,991.86 25 204,435.60Department 276 - Cemetery 448,233.00 .00 448,233.00 48,286.90 .00 116,728.98 331,504.02 26 455,560.38Department 290 - Volunteer Services 9,212.00 .00 9,212.00 737.76 .00 1,652.79 7,559.21 18 6,942.98Department 294 - Planning & Zoning 263,082.00 .00 263,082.00 21,464.24 203.06 59,732.23 203,146.71 23 286,609.89Department 345 - Combined Public Safety 10,380,102.00 11,100.00 10,391,202.00 872,419.71 33,214.73 2,388,812.98 7,969,174.29 23 9,705,583.22


Budget by Organization ReportThrough 09/30/13

Prior Fiscal Year Activity ExcludedSummary Listing

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text



EXPENSEDepartment 371 - Community & Neighborhood Service 802,197.00 .00 802,197.00 75,424.39 487.35 199,923.18 601,786.47 25 799,266.69Department 441 - Streets 1,151,376.00 .00 1,151,376.00 61,906.44 .00 211,027.32 940,348.68 18 1,045,209.42Department 447 - Transp Management/Engineering 129,987.00 .00 129,987.00 16,260.19 .00 43,842.81 86,144.19 34 160,098.49Department 673 - Social Services Assistance .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .28Department 694 - Ourstreet/Neighborhood Liaison .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 123,355.00Department 699 - Housing & Neighborhoods 211,101.00 .00 211,101.00 15,009.24 .00 47,394.99 163,706.01 22 .00Department 731 - Economic Development Assistance 218,567.00 .00 218,567.00 11,317.48 .00 32,103.76 186,463.24 15 175,302.82Department 749 - Human Relations 96,973.00 3,200.00 100,173.00 7,285.74 .00 14,780.81 85,392.19 15 98,867.73Department 752 - Leisure/Cultural Svcs Admin 26,426.00 .00 26,426.00 4,439.93 .00 13,928.43 12,497.57 53 35,975.03Department 753 - Recreation 850,357.00 1,000.00 851,357.00 113,412.87 2,568.80 299,170.67 549,617.53 35 775,360.19Department 754 - Parks 1,365,282.00 .00 1,365,282.00 160,689.88 .00 330,527.68 1,034,754.32 24 1,267,428.52Department 757 - Municipal Stadium .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 5,673.76Department 759 - DeGraaf Nature Center 223,441.00 760.00 224,201.00 17,533.71 .00 71,330.35 152,870.65 32 238,275.53Department 761 - 8th Street Market 133,792.00 .00 133,792.00 18,934.30 .00 46,466.46 87,325.54 35 121,622.27Department 800 - Cultural Activities Assistance 97,645.00 .00 97,645.00 .00 .00 89,000.00 8,645.00 91 126,229.20Department 805 - Civic Center 226,898.00 .00 226,898.00 20,335.14 .00 52,592.56 174,305.44 23 211,322.71Department 865 - Unallocated Insurance Premiums 72,000.00 .00 72,000.00 19,395.26 .00 19,395.26 52,604.74 27 68,572.00Department 890 - Contingencies Appropriation 280,000.00 .00 280,000.00 .00 .00 .00 280,000.00 0 .00Department 965 - Appropriation Transfers Out 711,621.00 .00 711,621.00 263,392.82 .00 301,629.83 409,991.17 42 714,610.84

EXPENSE TOTALS $20,318,862.00 $16,337.00 $20,335,199.00 $1,942,715.77 $37,473.94 $4,897,644.45 $15,400,080.61 24% $19,273,771.34

Fund 101 - General Fund TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 20,322,072.00 .00 20,322,072.00 592,575.22 .00 11,833,315.50 8,488,756.50 58 19,819,733.74EXPENSE TOTALS 20,318,862.00 16,337.00 20,335,199.00 1,942,715.77 37,473.94 4,897,644.45 15,400,080.61 24 19,273,771.34

Fund 101 - General Fund Totals $3,210.00 ($16,337.00) ($13,127.00) ($1,350,140.55) ($37,473.94) $6,935,671.05 ($6,911,324.11) $545,962.40

Grand TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 20,322,072.00 .00 20,322,072.00 592,575.22 .00 11,833,315.50 8,488,756.50 58 19,819,733.74EXPENSE TOTALS 20,318,862.00 16,337.00 20,335,199.00 1,942,715.77 37,473.94 4,897,644.45 15,400,080.61 24 19,273,771.34

Grand Totals $3,210.00 ($16,337.00) ($13,127.00) ($1,350,140.55) ($37,473.94) $6,935,671.05 ($6,911,324.11) $545,962.40





Fund 101 - General Fund TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 20,322,072.00 .00 20,322,072.00 592,575.22 .00 11,833,315.50 8,488,756.50 58 19,819,733.74EXPENSE TOTALS 20,318,862.00 16,337.00 20,335,199.00 1,942,715.77 37,473.94 4,897,644.45 15,400,080.61 24 19,273,771.34

Fund 101 - General Fund Totals $3,210.00 ($16,337.00) ($13,127.00) ($1,350,140.55) ($37,473.94) $6,935,671.05 ($6,911,324.11) $545,962.40Fund 150 - Cemetery Perpetual Care

Fund 150 - Cemetery Perpetual Care TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 37,600.00 .00 37,600.00 1,728.33 .00 9,641.12 27,958.88 26 29,507.84EXPENSE TOTALS 8,000.00 11,932.00 19,932.00 703.33 .00 1,751.12 18,180.88 9 3,570.05

Fund 150 - Cemetery Perpetual Care Totals $29,600.00 ($11,932.00) $17,668.00 $1,025.00 $0.00 $7,890.00 $9,778.00 $25,937.79Fund 202 - MVH Major Street

Fund 202 - MVH Major Street TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 2,186,000.00 .00 2,186,000.00 292,586.50 .00 297,767.21 1,888,232.79 14 2,202,490.65EXPENSE TOTALS 2,195,535.00 9,904.00 2,205,439.00 75,051.25 9,364.00 274,016.90 1,922,058.10 13 1,866,091.61

Fund 202 - MVH Major Street Totals ($9,535.00) ($9,904.00) ($19,439.00) $217,535.25 ($9,364.00) $23,750.31 ($33,825.31) $336,399.04Fund 203 - MVH Local Street

Fund 203 - MVH Local Street TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 1,263,965.00 .00 1,263,965.00 58,410.49 .00 61,757.72 1,202,207.28 5 1,178,899.73EXPENSE TOTALS 1,263,965.00 .00 1,263,965.00 81,371.19 5,405.00 266,750.67 991,809.33 22 1,178,899.73

Fund 203 - MVH Local Street Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($22,960.70) ($5,405.00) ($204,992.95) $210,397.95 $0.00Fund 204 - Allegan County Road Tax

Fund 204 - Allegan County Road Tax TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 370,150.00 .00 370,150.00 120.00 .00 333.59 369,816.41 0 410,667.48EXPENSE TOTALS 165,000.00 64,750.00 229,750.00 .00 .00 .00 229,750.00 0 163,110.80

Fund 204 - Allegan County Road Tax Totals $205,150.00 ($64,750.00) $140,400.00 $120.00 $0.00 $333.59 $140,066.41 $247,556.68Fund 214 - Street Improvements Reserve

Fund 214 - Street Improvements Reserve TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 1,095,600.00 .00 1,095,600.00 797.28 .00 990,940.24 104,659.76 90 1,163,845.99EXPENSE TOTALS 1,799,390.00 561,657.00 2,361,047.00 .00 .00 .00 2,361,047.00 0 1,221,981.94

Fund 214 - Street Improvements Reserve Totals ($703,790.00) ($561,657.00) ($1,265,447.00) $797.28 $0.00 $990,940.24 ($2,256,387.24) ($58,135.95)Fund 231 - Downtown Parking System

Fund 231 - Downtown Parking System TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 204,983.00 .00 204,983.00 2,174.44 .00 12,291.09 192,691.91 6 200,574.30EXPENSE TOTALS 235,387.00 .00 235,387.00 5,599.79 87.00 31,682.00 203,618.00 13 183,168.87




Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % used/Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year Total

Fund 231 - Downtown Parking System Totals ($30,404.00) $0.00 ($30,404.00) ($3,425.35) ($87.00) ($19,390.91) ($10,926.09) $17,405.43Fund 235 - Downtown Snowmelt Operating

Fund 235 - Downtown Snowmelt Operating TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 159,525.00 .00 159,525.00 39.60 .00 128.09 159,396.91 0 151,959.48EXPENSE TOTALS 187,617.00 .00 187,617.00 10,179.59 .00 30,089.74 157,527.26 16 187,807.21

Fund 235 - Downtown Snowmelt Operating Totals ($28,092.00) $0.00 ($28,092.00) ($10,139.99) $0.00 ($29,961.65) $1,869.65 ($35,847.73)Fund 237 - Downtown Development Authority

Fund 237 - Downtown Development Authority TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 184,408.00 .00 184,408.00 153.75 .00 182,138.90 2,269.10 99 182,125.35EXPENSE TOTALS 209,668.00 .00 209,668.00 11,600.19 3,590.00 30,266.99 175,811.01 16 179,598.31

Fund 237 - Downtown Development Authority Totals ($25,260.00) $0.00 ($25,260.00) ($11,446.44) ($3,590.00) $151,871.91 ($173,541.91) $2,527.04Fund 238 - Principal Shopping District

Fund 238 - Principal Shopping District TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 379,100.00 .00 379,100.00 69.99 .00 1,198.49 377,901.51 0 346,903.48EXPENSE TOTALS 423,390.00 .00 423,390.00 22,503.59 4,160.00 65,061.25 354,168.75 16 337,641.21

Fund 238 - Principal Shopping District Totals ($44,290.00) $0.00 ($44,290.00) ($22,433.60) ($4,160.00) ($63,862.76) $23,732.76 $9,262.27Fund 244 - CATV-Public Access Television

Fund 244 - CATV-Public Access Television TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 424,500.00 .00 424,500.00 120.82 .00 478.32 424,021.68 0 414,211.52EXPENSE TOTALS 418,064.00 .00 418,064.00 10,282.32 2,274.00 65,301.37 350,488.63 16 494,633.52

Fund 244 - CATV-Public Access Television Totals $6,436.00 $0.00 $6,436.00 ($10,161.50) ($2,274.00) ($64,823.05) $73,533.05 ($80,422.00)Fund 257 - Budget Stabilization

Fund 257 - Budget Stabilization TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 69,000.00 .00 69,000.00 .00 .00 .00 69,000.00 0 300,000.00EXPENSE TOTALS 50,000.00 .00 50,000.00 .00 .00 10.89 49,989.11 0 102,941.14

Fund 257 - Budget Stabilization Totals $19,000.00 $0.00 $19,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($10.89) $19,010.89 $197,058.86Fund 270 - District Library Taxation

Fund 270 - District Library Taxation TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 1,262,613.00 .00 1,262,613.00 (146.95) .00 1,246,457.29 16,155.71 99 1,245,499.97EXPENSE TOTALS 1,262,613.00 .00 1,262,613.00 16,490.27 .00 1,206,705.89 55,907.11 96 1,246,756.35

Fund 270 - District Library Taxation Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($16,637.22) $0.00 $39,751.40 ($39,751.40) ($1,256.38)Fund 275 - Criminal Justice Training

Fund 275 - Criminal Justice Training TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 11,000.00 .00 11,000.00 .00 .00 .00 11,000.00 0 10,098.17





EXPENSE TOTALS 11,000.00 .00 11,000.00 1,666.00 .00 3,724.00 7,276.00 34 10,743.90Fund 275 - Criminal Justice Training Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($1,666.00) $0.00 ($3,724.00) $3,724.00 ($645.73)

Fund 278 - Revolving Cash Assistance

Fund 278 - Revolving Cash Assistance TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 136,065.00 .00 136,065.00 1,573.37 .00 2,684.72 133,380.28 2 211,463.73EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 337,181.67

Fund 278 - Revolving Cash Assistance Totals $136,065.00 $0.00 $136,065.00 $1,573.37 $0.00 $2,684.72 $133,380.28 ($125,717.94)Fund 279 - Specified Donations

Fund 279 - Specified Donations TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 54,755.00 54,755.00 6,789.63 .00 43,063.42 11,691.58 79 206,037.32EXPENSE TOTALS .00 227,298.00 227,298.00 9,445.39 .00 32,838.53 194,459.47 14 137,028.67

Fund 279 - Specified Donations Totals $0.00 ($172,543.00) ($172,543.00) ($2,655.76) $0.00 $10,224.89 ($182,767.89) $69,008.65Fund 284 - Dangerous Structures Revolving

Fund 284 - Dangerous Structures Revolving TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 15,000.00 .00 15,000.00 .00 .00 .00 15,000.00 0 1,328.64EXPENSE TOTALS 10,200.00 .00 10,200.00 .00 .00 14.18 10,185.82 0 1,328.64

Fund 284 - Dangerous Structures Revolving Totals $4,800.00 $0.00 $4,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($14.18) $4,814.18 $0.00Fund 2GAK - MSHDA M-2009-0300 HOME Grant

Fund 2GAK - MSHDA M-2009-0300 HOME Grant TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 119,921.00 119,921.00 .00 .00 3,000.00 116,921.00 3 36,779.14EXPENSE TOTALS .00 119,921.00 119,921.00 350.00 .00 36,565.00 83,356.00 30 36,779.14

Fund 2GAK - MSHDA M-2009-0300 HOME Grant Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($350.00) $0.00 ($33,565.00) $33,565.00 $0.00Fund 2GB1 - CDBG Entitlement Year 30

Fund 2GB1 - CDBG Entitlement Year 30 TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 306,036.00 306,036.00 .00 .00 .00 306,036.00 0 .00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 306,036.00 306,036.00 11,760.91 .00 21,179.90 284,856.10 7 .00

Fund 2GB1 - CDBG Entitlement Year 30 Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($11,760.91) $0.00 ($21,179.90) $21,179.90 $0.00Fund 2GBQ - CDBG Entitlement Yr 26

Fund 2GBQ - CDBG Entitlement Yr 26 TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00

Fund 2GBQ - CDBG Entitlement Yr 26 Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GBT - CDBG Entitlement Yr 27

Fund 2GBT - CDBG Entitlement Yr 27 Totals





REVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 2,708.40EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 14.36 .00 14.36 (14.36) +++ 2,708.40

Fund 2GBT - CDBG Entitlement Yr 27 Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($14.36) $0.00 ($14.36) $14.36 $0.00Fund 2GBU - CDBG Entitlement Year 29

Fund 2GBU - CDBG Entitlement Year 29 TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 205,800.00 205,800.00 .00 .00 675.00 205,125.00 0 179,573.66EXPENSE TOTALS 38,075.00 167,725.00 205,800.00 37,828.25 .00 63,879.25 141,920.75 31 179,573.66

Fund 2GBU - CDBG Entitlement Year 29 Totals ($38,075.00) $38,075.00 $0.00 ($37,828.25) $0.00 ($63,204.25) $63,204.25 $0.00Fund 2GBW - CDBG Entitlement Yr 28

Fund 2GBW - CDBG Entitlement Yr 28 TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 144,824.00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 144,824.00

Fund 2GBW - CDBG Entitlement Yr 28 Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GBX - CDBG Owner Share

Fund 2GBX - CDBG Owner Share TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 86,091.00 86,091.00 14,729.55 .00 66,114.05 19,976.95 77 93,687.90EXPENSE TOTALS .00 86,091.00 86,091.00 12,617.75 .00 22,403.75 63,687.25 26 93,687.90

Fund 2GBX - CDBG Owner Share Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,111.80 $0.00 $43,710.30 ($43,710.30) $0.00Fund 2GCN - Anti-Drug Abuse Grant XXIV

Fund 2GCN - Anti-Drug Abuse Grant XXIV TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00

Fund 2GCN - Anti-Drug Abuse Grant XXIV Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GCP - Anti-Drug Abuse Grant XXV

Fund 2GCP - Anti-Drug Abuse Grant XXV TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 69,727.62EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 69,727.62

Fund 2GCP - Anti-Drug Abuse Grant XXV Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GCQ - Anti-Drug Abuse Grant XXVI

Fund 2GCQ - Anti-Drug Abuse Grant XXVI TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 29,556.00 .00 67,793.01 (67,793.01) +++ 189,500.00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 25,003.83 .00 67,793.01 (67,793.01) +++ 189,500.00

Fund 2GCQ - Anti-Drug Abuse Grant XXVI Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,552.17 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GCR - Anti-Drug Abuse Grant XXVII





Fund 2GCR - Anti-Drug Abuse Grant XXVII TotalsEXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00

Fund 2GCR - Anti-Drug Abuse Grant XXVII Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GCX - HIDTA Grant

Fund 2GCX - HIDTA Grant TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 1,266.30EXPENSE TOTALS .00 880.00 880.00 450.00 .00 450.00 430.00 51 1,266.30

Fund 2GCX - HIDTA Grant Totals $0.00 ($880.00) ($880.00) ($450.00) $0.00 ($450.00) ($430.00) $0.00Fund 2GD7 - OHSP PT-11-11 Safe Communities

Fund 2GD7 - OHSP PT-11-11 Safe Communities TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00

Fund 2GD7 - OHSP PT-11-11 Safe Communities Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GD8 - OHSP JJ-11-03 Underage Drinking

Fund 2GD8 - OHSP JJ-11-03 Underage Drinking TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00

Fund 2GD8 - OHSP JJ-11-03 Underage Drinking Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GD9 - OHSP TR-11-11 Electronic Crash

Fund 2GD9 - OHSP TR-11-11 Electronic Crash TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00

Fund 2GD9 - OHSP TR-11-11 Electronic Crash Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GDA - OHSP PT-12-12 Traffic Enforcemnt

Fund 2GDA - OHSP PT-12-12 Traffic Enforcemnt TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 28,759.91EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 28,759.91

Fund 2GDA - OHSP PT-12-12 Traffic Enforcemnt Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GDB - OHSP JJ-12-02 Underage Drinking

Fund 2GDB - OHSP JJ-12-02 Underage Drinking TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 555.72EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 555.72

Fund 2GDB - OHSP JJ-12-02 Underage Drinking Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GDC - OHSP PT-13-19 Traffic Enforcemnt





Fund 2GDC - OHSP PT-13-19 Traffic Enforcemnt TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 37,488.00 37,488.00 10,803.00 .00 .25 37,487.75 0 54,487.78EXPENSE TOTALS .00 37,488.00 37,488.00 18,602.74 .00 32,138.22 5,349.78 86 54,487.78

Fund 2GDC - OHSP PT-13-19 Traffic Enforcemnt Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($7,799.74) $0.00 ($32,137.97) $32,137.97 $0.00Fund 2GIA - 2012 Bulletproof Vest OJP Grant

Fund 2GIA - 2012 Bulletproof Vest OJP Grant TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 1,153.00 1,153.00 .00 .00 .00 1,153.00 0 610.00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 1,153.00 1,153.00 .00 .00 .00 1,153.00 0 610.00

Fund 2GIA - 2012 Bulletproof Vest OJP Grant Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GIR - 2009-SB-B9-1527 JAG Grant

Fund 2GIR - 2009-SB-B9-1527 JAG Grant TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 1,597.29EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 3,484.39

Fund 2GIR - 2009-SB-B9-1527 JAG Grant Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($1,887.10)Fund 2GIU - 2009-DJ-BX-1479 JAG Grant

Fund 2GIU - 2009-DJ-BX-1479 JAG Grant TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 1,719.03EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 1,719.03

Fund 2GIU - 2009-DJ-BX-1479 JAG Grant Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GIX - 2011-DJ-BX-2624 JAG (BJA) Grant

Fund 2GIX - 2011-DJ-BX-2624 JAG (BJA) Grant TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 2,382.00 2,382.00 .00 .00 .00 2,382.00 0 823.55EXPENSE TOTALS .00 2,382.00 2,382.00 .00 .00 .00 2,382.00 0 823.55

Fund 2GIX - 2011-DJ-BX-2624 JAG (BJA) Grant Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GIY - 2011 Bulletproof Vest OJP Grant

Fund 2GIY - 2011 Bulletproof Vest OJP Grant TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 601.00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 601.00

Fund 2GIY - 2011 Bulletproof Vest OJP Grant Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GIZ - 2012-DJ-BX-0376 JAG Grant

Fund 2GIZ - 2012-DJ-BX-0376 JAG Grant TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 10,766.00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 10,766.00

Fund 2GIZ - 2012-DJ-BX-0376 JAG Grant Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GKE - FEMA Fire EMW-2008-FO-05802





Fund 2GKE - FEMA Fire EMW-2008-FO-05802 TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 5,665.00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 5,665.00

Fund 2GKE - FEMA Fire EMW-2008-FO-05802 Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GMP - Homeland Security Grt CFDA97.067

Fund 2GMP - Homeland Security Grt CFDA97.067 TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00

Fund 2GMP - Homeland Security Grt CFDA97.067 Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GMQ - Homeland Sec Grt 2009-SS-T9-0060

Fund 2GMQ - Homeland Sec Grt 2009-SS-T9-0060 TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 112,364.94EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 112,364.94

Fund 2GMQ - Homeland Sec Grt 2009-SS-T9-0060 Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 2GMR - USDA EBT Project CFDA 10.168

Fund 2GMR - USDA EBT Project CFDA 10.168 TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 6,133.00 6,133.00 846.97 .00 1,882.95 4,250.05 31 5,185.70EXPENSE TOTALS .00 6,133.00 6,133.00 656.82 .00 2,060.87 4,072.13 34 5,185.70

Fund 2GMR - USDA EBT Project CFDA 10.168 Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $190.15 $0.00 ($177.92) $177.92 $0.00Fund 2GMT - Double Up Food Bucks Program

Fund 2GMT - Double Up Food Bucks Program TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 706.00 .00 (3,530.00) 3,530.00 +++ 31,883.00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 25,458.00 25,458.00 5,963.31 .00 14,545.39 10,912.61 57 13,046.48

Fund 2GMT - Double Up Food Bucks Program Totals $0.00 ($25,458.00) ($25,458.00) ($5,257.31) $0.00 ($18,075.39) ($7,382.61) $18,836.52Fund 2GMU - OCDETF Gang work

Fund 2GMU - OCDETF Gang work TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 37,316.04EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 116.07 .00 580.48 (580.48) +++ 37,316.04

Fund 2GMU - OCDETF Gang work Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($116.07) $0.00 ($580.48) $580.48 $0.00Fund 2GT1 - MRS Interagency Cash Transfer

Fund 2GT1 - MRS Interagency Cash Transfer TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 33,700.00 33,700.00 .00 .00 .00 33,700.00 0 51,825.06EXPENSE TOTALS .00 33,700.00 33,700.00 .00 .00 .00 33,700.00 0 51,825.06

Fund 2GT1 - MRS Interagency Cash Transfer Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00




Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % used/Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year TotalFund 301 - General Obligation Debt

Fund 301 - General Obligation Debt TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 3,085,086.00 .00 3,085,086.00 659.03 .00 2,833,477.90 251,608.10 92 3,115,199.72EXPENSE TOTALS 3,075,477.00 .00 3,075,477.00 200.00 .00 620,411.00 2,455,066.00 20 3,021,527.71

Fund 301 - General Obligation Debt Totals $9,609.00 $0.00 $9,609.00 $459.03 $0.00 $2,213,066.90 ($2,203,457.90) $93,672.01Fund 369 - Building Authority Debt Service

Fund 369 - Building Authority Debt Service TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 2,607,008.00 .00 2,607,008.00 37,109.10 .00 37,118.47 2,569,889.53 1 2,594,557.17EXPENSE TOTALS 2,606,958.00 .00 2,606,958.00 1,345,737.50 .00 1,345,738.50 1,261,219.50 52 2,594,926.00

Fund 369 - Building Authority Debt Service Totals $50.00 $0.00 $50.00 ($1,308,628.40) $0.00 ($1,308,620.03) $1,308,670.03 ($368.83)Fund 381 - Spec Assessment Series 2002

Fund 381 - Spec Assessment Series 2002 TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 51,312.00 .00 51,312.00 7,196.09 .00 7,406.17 43,905.83 14 56,912.24EXPENSE TOTALS 67,895.00 .00 67,895.00 .00 .00 250.00 67,645.00 0 70,475.00

Fund 381 - Spec Assessment Series 2002 Totals ($16,583.00) $0.00 ($16,583.00) $7,196.09 $0.00 $7,156.17 ($23,739.17) ($13,562.76)Fund 382 - Spec Assessment Series 2006

Fund 382 - Spec Assessment Series 2006 TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 10,972.00 .00 10,972.00 12.90 .00 32.12 10,939.88 0 11,389.25EXPENSE TOTALS 14,048.00 .00 14,048.00 .00 .00 .00 14,048.00 0 14,544.29

Fund 382 - Spec Assessment Series 2006 Totals ($3,076.00) $0.00 ($3,076.00) $12.90 $0.00 $32.12 ($3,108.12) ($3,155.04)Fund 387 - Spec Assmt Series 1998-Inactive

Fund 387 - Spec Assmt Series 1998-Inactive TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00

Fund 387 - Spec Assmt Series 1998-Inactive Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 388 - Spec Assessment Series 2000A

Fund 388 - Spec Assessment Series 2000A TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 14,027.00 .00 14,027.00 19.20 .00 47.46 13,979.54 0 14,720.57EXPENSE TOTALS 26,737.00 .00 26,737.00 .00 .00 275.00 26,462.00 1 28,200.00

Fund 388 - Spec Assessment Series 2000A Totals ($12,710.00) $0.00 ($12,710.00) $19.20 $0.00 ($227.54) ($12,482.46) ($13,479.43)Fund 389 - Spec Assmt Series 1999-Fillmore

Fund 389 - Spec Assmt Series 1999-Fillmore TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 198,571.59EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ 528,862.17





Fund 389 - Spec Assmt Series 1999-Fillmore Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($330,290.58)Fund 4D01 - Drain Capital Projects

Fund 4D01 - Drain Capital Projects TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 185,158.00 185,158.00 .00 .00 .00 185,158.00 0 260,712.97EXPENSE TOTALS .00 185,158.00 185,158.00 203.67 .00 1,106.72 184,051.28 1 260,712.97

Fund 4D01 - Drain Capital Projects Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($203.67) $0.00 ($1,106.72) $1,106.72 $0.00Fund 4M01 - Municipal Capital Improv.

Fund 4M01 - Municipal Capital Improv. TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 1,001,160.00 1,001,160.00 34,158.94 .00 335,364.10 665,795.90 33 2,600,264.45EXPENSE TOTALS .00 1,476,998.00 1,476,998.00 54,646.08 12,900.00 72,703.60 1,391,394.40 6 1,308,614.23

Fund 4M01 - Municipal Capital Improv. Totals $0.00 ($475,838.00) ($475,838.00) ($20,487.14) ($12,900.00) $262,660.50 ($725,598.50) $1,291,650.22Fund 4M50 - Ourstreet Projects

Fund 4M50 - Ourstreet Projects TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 141,825.00 141,825.00 .00 .00 .00 141,825.00 0 36,488.54EXPENSE TOTALS .00 141,825.00 141,825.00 4,104.79 .00 11,578.29 130,246.71 8 36,488.54

Fund 4M50 - Ourstreet Projects Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($4,104.79) $0.00 ($11,578.29) $11,578.29 $0.00Fund 4R01 - Roadway Capital Projects

Fund 4R01 - Roadway Capital Projects TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 841,257.00 841,257.00 .00 .00 .00 841,257.00 0 3,144,250.91EXPENSE TOTALS .00 841,257.00 841,257.00 41,705.84 .00 55,537.21 785,719.79 7 3,144,250.91

Fund 4R01 - Roadway Capital Projects Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($41,705.84) $0.00 ($55,537.21) $55,537.21 $0.00Fund 4R86 - Railroad Crossing Closings

Fund 4R86 - Railroad Crossing Closings TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++ .00EXPENSE TOTALS .00 53,773.00 53,773.00 .00 .00 .00 53,773.00 0 .00

Fund 4R86 - Railroad Crossing Closings Totals $0.00 ($53,773.00) ($53,773.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($53,773.00) $0.00Fund 4R93 - Washington Av,M.Urban-32nd Turnb

Fund 4R93 - Washington Av,M.Urban-32nd Turnb TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 944,975.00 944,975.00 .00 .00 75,832.22 869,142.78 8 373,124.03EXPENSE TOTALS .00 1,140,074.00 1,140,074.00 118,593.00 .00 173,876.93 966,197.07 15 559,925.90

Fund 4R93 - Washington Av,M.Urban-32nd Turnb Totals $0.00 ($195,099.00) ($195,099.00) ($118,593.00) $0.00 ($98,044.71) ($97,054.29) ($186,801.87)Fund 4RE1 - TEDF Econ Devel Road/Bridge Proj

Fund 4RE1 - TEDF Econ Devel Road/Bridge Proj TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 411,071.00 411,071.00 .00 .00 (55,765.96) 466,836.96 -14 959,381.80





EXPENSE TOTALS .00 411,071.00 411,071.00 164.21 .00 306.43 410,764.57 0 959,381.80Fund 4RE1 - TEDF Econ Devel Road/Bridge Proj Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($164.21) $0.00 ($56,072.39) $56,072.39 $0.00

Fund 4T01 - Traffic Signal Capital Projects

Fund 4T01 - Traffic Signal Capital Projects TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 17,560.00 17,560.00 .00 .00 .00 17,560.00 0 69,810.11EXPENSE TOTALS .00 17,560.00 17,560.00 67.89 .00 1,616.04 15,943.96 9 69,810.11

Fund 4T01 - Traffic Signal Capital Projects Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($67.89) $0.00 ($1,616.04) $1,616.04 $0.00Fund 4W01 - Sidewalk Projects - Various

Fund 4W01 - Sidewalk Projects - Various TotalsREVENUE TOTALS .00 447,833.00 447,833.00 .00 .00 .00 447,833.00 0 470.25EXPENSE TOTALS .00 447,833.00 447,833.00 .00 .00 .00 447,833.00 0 470.25

Fund 4W01 - Sidewalk Projects - Various Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 4W11 - Sidewalk Improvements Cap Proj

Fund 4W11 - Sidewalk Improvements Cap Proj TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 51,624.00 .00 51,624.00 30.47 .00 49,482.33 2,141.67 96 49,538.14EXPENSE TOTALS 66,000.00 .00 66,000.00 2,371.20 .00 11,873.43 54,126.57 18 48,203.98

Fund 4W11 - Sidewalk Improvements Cap Proj Totals ($14,376.00) $0.00 ($14,376.00) ($2,340.73) $0.00 $37,608.90 ($51,984.90) $1,334.16Fund 514 - Solid Waste

Fund 514 - Solid Waste TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 1,607,880.00 .00 1,607,880.00 126.56 .00 346,204.99 1,261,675.01 22 1,565,899.23EXPENSE TOTALS 1,556,169.00 1,548.00 1,557,717.00 17,492.68 34,916.16 52,375.66 1,470,425.18 6 1,564,918.60

Fund 514 - Solid Waste Totals $51,711.00 ($1,548.00) $50,163.00 ($17,366.12) ($34,916.16) $293,829.33 ($208,750.17) $980.63Fund 545 - Windmill Island Gardens

Fund 545 - Windmill Island Gardens TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 702,851.00 .00 702,851.00 271,887.17 .00 411,122.57 291,728.43 58 762,059.63EXPENSE TOTALS 815,151.00 .00 815,151.00 254,465.33 .00 411,122.57 404,028.43 50 727,605.57

Fund 545 - Windmill Island Gardens Totals ($112,300.00) $0.00 ($112,300.00) $17,421.84 $0.00 $0.00 ($112,300.00) $34,454.06Fund 579 - Depot Operations

Fund 579 - Depot Operations TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 1.00 .00 1.00 .00 .00 1.00 .00 100 1.00EXPENSE TOTALS 37,015.00 .00 37,015.00 .00 .00 .00 37,015.00 0 24,739.87

Fund 579 - Depot Operations Totals ($37,014.00) $0.00 ($37,014.00) $0.00 $0.00 $1.00 ($37,015.00) ($24,738.87)Fund 581 - Airport Facilities & Management

Fund 581 - Airport Facilities & Management Totals





REVENUE TOTALS 98,984.00 .00 98,984.00 (14.69) .00 98,875.40 108.60 100 97,572.41EXPENSE TOTALS 633,984.00 .00 633,984.00 1,307.84 .00 102,667.28 531,316.72 16 558,524.29

Fund 581 - Airport Facilities & Management Totals ($535,000.00) $0.00 ($535,000.00) ($1,322.53) $0.00 ($3,791.88) ($531,208.12) ($460,951.88)Fund 587 - Public Transit Facility & Mgmt

Fund 587 - Public Transit Facility & Mgmt TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 318,850.00 .00 318,850.00 253.01 .00 254.25 318,595.75 0 1,534,007.29EXPENSE TOTALS 330,550.00 .00 330,550.00 252.41 .00 252.41 330,297.59 0 1,545,717.74

Fund 587 - Public Transit Facility & Mgmt Totals ($11,700.00) $0.00 ($11,700.00) $0.60 $0.00 $1.84 ($11,701.84) ($11,710.45)Fund 595 - Police Employees Benefit

Fund 595 - Police Employees Benefit TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 4,400.00 .00 4,400.00 244.60 .00 864.72 3,535.28 20 4,654.69EXPENSE TOTALS 4,600.00 .00 4,600.00 203.80 .00 542.10 4,057.90 12 4,361.25

Fund 595 - Police Employees Benefit Totals ($200.00) $0.00 ($200.00) $40.80 $0.00 $322.62 ($522.62) $293.44Fund 596 - City Hall Employees Benefit

Fund 596 - City Hall Employees Benefit TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 4,175.00 .00 4,175.00 350.65 .00 994.28 3,180.72 24 3,941.01EXPENSE TOTALS 3,725.00 .00 3,725.00 295.63 .00 599.64 3,125.36 16 3,414.72

Fund 596 - City Hall Employees Benefit Totals $450.00 $0.00 $450.00 $55.02 $0.00 $394.64 $55.36 $526.29Fund 597 - Transportation Employees Benefit

Fund 597 - Transportation Employees Benefit TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 1,475.00 .00 1,475.00 107.34 .00 362.22 1,112.78 25 1,421.92EXPENSE TOTALS 2,200.00 .00 2,200.00 125.99 .00 152.99 2,047.01 7 1,244.81

Fund 597 - Transportation Employees Benefit Totals ($725.00) $0.00 ($725.00) ($18.65) $0.00 $209.23 ($934.23) $177.11Fund 598 - Park/Cem Employees Benefit

Fund 598 - Park/Cem Employees Benefit TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 500.00 .00 500.00 .30 .00 .61 499.39 0 233.34EXPENSE TOTALS 500.00 .00 500.00 .00 .00 .00 500.00 0 253.53

Fund 598 - Park/Cem Employees Benefit Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.30 $0.00 $0.61 ($0.61) ($20.19)Fund 636 - Technology Services

Fund 636 - Technology Services TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 618,990.00 .00 618,990.00 123,193.42 .00 127,088.81 491,901.19 21 624,965.88EXPENSE TOTALS 753,905.00 .00 753,905.00 65,132.12 10,883.83 229,680.77 513,340.40 32 643,538.39

Fund 636 - Technology Services Totals ($134,915.00) $0.00 ($134,915.00) $58,061.30 ($10,883.83) ($102,591.96) ($21,439.21) ($18,572.51)Fund 642 - Fuel Dispensing





Fund 642 - Fuel Dispensing TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 1,056,200.00 .00 1,056,200.00 84,091.82 .00 256,865.56 799,334.44 24 1,033,317.13EXPENSE TOTALS 1,024,500.00 .00 1,024,500.00 80,909.56 .00 243,562.24 780,937.76 24 984,627.69

Fund 642 - Fuel Dispensing Totals $31,700.00 $0.00 $31,700.00 $3,182.26 $0.00 $13,303.32 $18,396.68 $48,689.44Fund 653 - Postage Services

Fund 653 - Postage Services TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 19,310.00 .00 19,310.00 1,208.15 .00 3,839.83 15,470.17 20 16,585.93EXPENSE TOTALS 19,300.00 .00 19,300.00 1,052.46 .00 3,823.57 15,476.43 20 16,824.52

Fund 653 - Postage Services Totals $10.00 $0.00 $10.00 $155.69 $0.00 $16.26 ($6.26) ($238.59)Fund 655 - Communications Services

Fund 655 - Communications Services TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 117,200.00 .00 117,200.00 7,065.69 .00 19,299.00 97,901.00 16 108,860.20EXPENSE TOTALS 117,335.00 .00 117,335.00 5,537.41 .00 23,478.15 93,856.85 20 108,829.24

Fund 655 - Communications Services Totals ($135.00) $0.00 ($135.00) $1,528.28 $0.00 ($4,179.15) $4,044.15 $30.96Fund 661 - Centralized Vehicle/Equipment

Fund 661 - Centralized Vehicle/Equipment TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 2,172,782.00 .00 2,172,782.00 274,252.58 .00 479,161.26 1,693,620.74 22 1,864,407.44EXPENSE TOTALS 3,118,219.00 29,724.00 3,147,943.00 193,469.95 459,033.46 437,749.32 2,251,160.22 28 2,167,374.79

Fund 661 - Centralized Vehicle/Equipment Totals ($945,437.00) ($29,724.00) ($975,161.00) $80,782.63 ($459,033.46) $41,411.94 ($557,539.48) ($302,967.35)Fund 663 - Fire Vehicles & Equipment

Fund 663 - Fire Vehicles & Equipment TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 87,390.00 .00 87,390.00 208.50 .00 519.74 86,870.26 1 979.10EXPENSE TOTALS 574,800.00 .00 574,800.00 .00 .00 .00 574,800.00 0 91,219.44

Fund 663 - Fire Vehicles & Equipment Totals ($487,410.00) $0.00 ($487,410.00) $208.50 $0.00 $519.74 ($487,929.74) ($90,240.34)Fund 666 - Compensated Absences

Fund 666 - Compensated Absences TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 30,000.00 .00 30,000.00 .00 .00 .00 30,000.00 0 (120,363.07)EXPENSE TOTALS 30,000.00 .00 30,000.00 .00 .00 .00 30,000.00 0 (120,363.07)

Fund 666 - Compensated Absences Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Fund 676 - Workers Comp Insurance

Fund 676 - Workers Comp Insurance TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 298,500.00 .00 298,500.00 18,665.91 .00 99,704.16 198,795.84 33 466,106.23EXPENSE TOTALS 325,100.00 .00 325,100.00 25,616.50 .00 121,659.71 203,440.29 37 433,103.07

Fund 676 - Workers Comp Insurance Totals ($26,600.00) $0.00 ($26,600.00) ($6,950.59) $0.00 ($21,955.55) ($4,644.45) $33,003.16Fund 677 - Income Protection Insurance





Fund 677 - Income Protection Insurance TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 106,900.00 .00 106,900.00 8,269.16 .00 27,531.58 79,368.42 26 109,313.55EXPENSE TOTALS 108,000.00 .00 108,000.00 14,343.70 .00 35,468.98 72,531.02 33 106,233.79

Fund 677 - Income Protection Insurance Totals ($1,100.00) $0.00 ($1,100.00) ($6,074.54) $0.00 ($7,937.40) $6,837.40 $3,079.76Fund 678 - Health/Dental Insurance

Fund 678 - Health/Dental Insurance TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 5,414,500.00 .00 5,414,500.00 373,786.64 .00 1,371,314.75 4,043,185.25 25 7,044,421.13EXPENSE TOTALS 5,275,644.00 .00 5,275,644.00 2,667.78 .00 763,249.04 4,512,394.96 14 6,728,604.66

Fund 678 - Health/Dental Insurance Totals $138,856.00 $0.00 $138,856.00 $371,118.86 $0.00 $608,065.71 ($469,209.71) $315,816.47Fund 681 - Vehicle Insurance

Fund 681 - Vehicle Insurance TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 134,400.00 .00 134,400.00 29,156.48 .00 29,281.85 105,118.15 22 128,207.46EXPENSE TOTALS 153,000.00 .00 153,000.00 1,514.00 1,579.20 98,076.71 53,344.09 65 110,560.51

Fund 681 - Vehicle Insurance Totals ($18,600.00) $0.00 ($18,600.00) $27,642.48 ($1,579.20) ($68,794.86) $51,774.06 $17,646.95Fund 682 - Property Insurance

Fund 682 - Property Insurance TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 30,800.00 .00 30,800.00 7,239.22 .00 7,218.95 23,581.05 23 28,763.65EXPENSE TOTALS 56,300.00 .00 56,300.00 .00 .00 28,011.45 28,288.55 50 52,498.19

Fund 682 - Property Insurance Totals ($25,500.00) $0.00 ($25,500.00) $7,239.22 $0.00 ($20,792.50) ($4,707.50) ($23,734.54)Fund 683 - Liability Insurance

Fund 683 - Liability Insurance TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 118,100.00 .00 118,100.00 29,882.23 .00 29,857.57 88,242.43 25 153,812.21EXPENSE TOTALS 199,500.00 .00 199,500.00 13,892.82 .00 159,208.51 40,291.49 80 159,628.57

Fund 683 - Liability Insurance Totals ($81,400.00) $0.00 ($81,400.00) $15,989.41 $0.00 ($129,350.94) $47,950.94 ($5,816.36)

Grand TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 46,885,798.00 4,844,298.00 51,730,096.00 2,322,794.46 .00 21,411,488.87 30,318,607.13 41 58,052,133.53EXPENSE TOTALS 49,593,378.00 6,425,666.00 56,019,044.00 4,547,046.88 581,666.59 12,174,422.46 43,262,954.95 23 56,531,386.61

Grand Totals ($2,707,580.00) ($1,581,368.00) ($4,288,948.00) ($2,224,252.42) ($581,666.59) $9,237,066.41 ($12,944,347.82) $1,520,746.92




Fund Category GOVERNMENTALFund Type GENERAL FUND

101 General Fund 3,496,280.33 600,000.00 600,000.00 3,496,280.33 545,962.40 11,833,315.50 4,897,644.45 10,977,913.78

Fund Type GENERAL FUND Totals $3,496,280.33 $600,000.00 $600,000.00 $3,496,280.33 $545,962.40 $11,833,315.50 $4,897,644.45 $10,977,913.78

Fund Type PERMANENT FUNDS150 Cemetery Perpetual Care 1,549,342.31 .00 .00 1,549,342.31 25,937.79 9,641.12 1,751.12 1,583,170.10

Fund Type PERMANENT FUNDS Totals $1,549,342.31 $0.00 $0.00 $1,549,342.31 $25,937.79 $9,641.12 $1,751.12 $1,583,170.10

Fund Type SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS202 MVH Major Street 2,383,429.84 .00 .00 2,383,429.84 336,399.04 297,767.21 274,016.90 2,743,579.19203 MVH Local Street 2,000.00 .00 .00 2,000.00 .00 61,757.72 266,750.67 (202,992.95)204 Allegan County Road Tax 22,000.00 .00 .00 22,000.00 247,556.68 333.59 .00 269,890.27214 Street Improvements Reserve 1,245,793.16 .00 .00 1,245,793.16 (58,135.95) 990,940.24 .00 2,178,597.45231 Downtown Parking System 168,399.78 .00 .00 168,399.78 17,405.43 12,291.09 31,682.00 166,414.30235 Downtown Snowmelt Operating 140,501.40 .00 .00 140,501.40 (35,847.73) 128.09 30,089.74 74,692.02238 Principal Shopping District 195,053.61 .00 .00 195,053.61 9,262.27 1,198.49 65,061.25 140,453.12244 CATV-Public Access Television 408,748.85 .00 .00 408,748.85 (80,422.00) 478.32 65,301.37 263,503.80257 Budget Stabilization 720,876.49 .00 .00 720,876.49 197,058.86 .00 10.89 917,924.46270 District Library Taxation 1,592.14 .00 .00 1,592.14 (1,256.38) 1,246,457.29 1,206,705.89 40,087.16275 Criminal Justice Training 1,263.10 .00 .00 1,263.10 (645.73) .00 3,724.00 (3,106.63)278 Revolving Cash Assistance (239,384.13) .00 .00 (239,384.13) (125,717.94) 2,684.72 .00 (362,417.35)279 Specified Donations 100,651.51 .00 .00 100,651.51 69,008.65 43,063.42 32,838.53 179,885.05284 Dangerous Structures Revolving .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 14.18 (14.18)2GAK MSHDA M-2009-0300 HOME Grant .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 3,000.00 36,565.00 (33,565.00)2GBT CDBG Entitlement Yr 27 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 14.36 (14.36)2GBU CDBG Entitlement Year 29 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 675.00 63,879.25 (63,204.25)2GBX CDBG Owner Share .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 66,114.05 22,403.75 43,710.302GCX HIDTA Grant .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 450.00 (450.00)2GIR 2009-SB-B9-1527 JAG Grant 1,887.10 .00 .00 1,887.10 (1,887.10) .00 .00 .002GMR USDA EBT Project CFDA 10.168 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1,882.95 2,060.87 (177.92)2GMT Double Up Food Bucks Program 5,110.00 .00 .00 5,110.00 18,836.52 (3,530.00) 14,545.39 5,871.132GMU OCDETF Gang work .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 580.48 (580.48)

Fund Type SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Totals $5,157,922.85 $0.00 $0.00 $5,157,922.85 $591,614.62 $2,725,242.18 $2,116,694.52 $6,358,085.13

Fund Type DEBT SERVICE FUNDS301 General Obligation Debt 29,008.28 .00 .00 29,008.28 93,672.01 2,833,477.90 620,411.00 2,335,747.19369 Building Authority Debt Service 12,956.88 .00 .00 12,956.88 (368.83) 37,118.47 1,345,738.50 (1,296,031.98)381 Spec Assessment Series 2002 58,797.70 .00 .00 58,797.70 (13,562.76) 7,406.17 250.00 52,391.11382 Spec Assessment Series 2006 32,090.60 .00 .00 32,090.60 (3,155.04) 32.12 .00 28,967.68388 Spec Assessment Series 2000A 56,623.29 .00 .00 56,623.29 (13,479.43) 47.46 275.00 42,916.32389 Spec Assmt Series 1999-Fillmore 330,454.50 .00 .00 330,454.50 (330,290.58) .00 .00 163.92

Fund Type DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Totals $519,931.25 $0.00 $0.00 $519,931.25 ($267,184.63) $2,878,082.12 $1,966,674.50 $1,164,154.24

Page 1 of 3Run by McKellips, Michelle on 11/01/2013 08:33:51 AM

Fund Equity Changes ReportThrough 09/30/13

Summary Listing

Prior Year Fund EstimateFund Fund Description YTD Credits YTD Debits Current Balance Equity Adjustment YTD Revenues YTD Expenses Fund Balance

BeginningBalance

Fund Category GOVERNMENTALFund Type CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS

4D01 Drain Capital Projects .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1,106.72 (1,106.72)4M01 Municipal Capital Improv. 352,385.80 .00 .00 352,385.80 1,291,650.22 335,364.10 72,703.60 1,906,696.524M50 Ourstreet Projects .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 11,578.29 (11,578.29)4R01 Roadway Capital Projects .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 55,537.21 (55,537.21)4R86 Railroad Crossing Closings 53,773.09 .00 .00 53,773.09 .00 .00 .00 53,773.094R93 Washington Av,M.Urban-32nd Turnb 195,453.32 .00 .00 195,453.32 (186,801.87) 75,832.22 173,876.93 (89,393.26)4RE1 TEDF Econ Devel Road/Bridge Proj .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 (55,765.96) 306.43 (56,072.39)4T01 Traffic Signal Capital Projects .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1,616.04 (1,616.04)4W11 Sidewalk Improvements Cap Proj 43,072.01 .00 .00 43,072.01 1,334.16 49,482.33 11,873.43 82,015.07

Fund Type CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Totals $644,684.22 $0.00 $0.00 $644,684.22 $1,106,182.51 $404,912.69 $328,598.65 $1,827,180.77

Fund Category GOVERNMENTAL Totals $11,368,160.96 $600,000.00 $600,000.00 $11,368,160.96 $2,002,512.69 $17,851,193.61 $9,311,363.24 $21,910,504.02

Fund Category PROPRIETARYFund Type ENTERPRISE FUNDS

514 Solid Waste 404,885.32 .00 .00 404,885.32 980.63 346,204.99 52,375.66 699,695.28545 Windmill Island Gardens 1,472,493.13 .00 .00 1,472,493.13 34,454.06 411,122.57 411,122.57 1,506,947.19579 Depot Operations 871,334.06 .00 .00 871,334.06 (24,738.87) 1.00 .00 846,596.19581 Airport Facilities & Management 11,610,018.24 .00 .00 11,610,018.24 (460,951.88) 98,875.40 102,667.28 11,145,274.48587 Public Transit Facility & Mgmt 279,875.15 .00 .00 279,875.15 (11,710.45) 254.25 252.41 268,166.54595 Police Employees Benefit 613.11 .00 .00 613.11 293.44 864.72 542.10 1,229.17596 City Hall Employees Benefit 6,035.22 .00 .00 6,035.22 526.29 994.28 599.64 6,956.15597 Transportation Employees Benefit 2,615.38 .00 .00 2,615.38 177.11 362.22 152.99 3,001.72598 Park/Cem Employees Benefit 495.43 .00 .00 495.43 (20.19) .61 .00 475.85

Fund Type ENTERPRISE FUNDS Totals $14,648,365.04 $0.00 $0.00 $14,648,365.04 ($460,989.86) $858,680.04 $567,712.65 $14,478,342.57

Fund Type INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS636 Technology Services 512,773.27 .00 .00 512,773.27 (18,572.51) 127,088.81 229,680.77 391,608.80642 Fuel Dispensing 142,331.16 9,120.99 9,120.99 142,331.16 48,689.44 256,865.56 243,562.24 204,323.92653 Postage Services 7,014.27 .00 .00 7,014.27 (238.59) 3,839.83 3,823.57 6,791.94655 Communications Services 22,438.99 .00 .00 22,438.99 30.96 19,299.00 23,478.15 18,290.80661 Centralized Vehicle/Equipment 5,041,626.25 .00 .00 5,041,626.25 (302,967.35) 479,161.26 437,749.32 4,780,070.84663 Fire Vehicles & Equipment 1,521,962.13 .00 .00 1,521,962.13 (90,240.34) 519.74 .00 1,432,241.53676 Workers Comp Insurance 538,347.53 .00 .00 538,347.53 33,003.16 99,704.16 121,659.71 549,395.14677 Income Protection Insurance 80,849.62 .00 .00 80,849.62 3,079.76 27,531.58 35,468.98 75,991.98678 Health/Dental Insurance 866,383.19 .00 .00 866,383.19 315,816.47 1,371,314.75 763,249.04 1,790,265.37681 Vehicle Insurance 226,003.60 .00 .00 226,003.60 17,646.95 29,281.85 98,076.71 174,855.69682 Property Insurance 409,213.47 .00 .00 409,213.47 (23,734.54) 7,218.95 28,011.45 364,686.43683 Liability Insurance 282,560.37 .00 .00 282,560.37 (5,816.36) 29,857.57 159,208.51 147,393.07

Fund Type INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Totals $9,651,503.85 $9,120.99 $9,120.99 $9,651,503.85 ($23,302.95) $2,451,683.06 $2,143,968.45 $9,935,915.51

Fund Category PROPRIETARY Totals $24,299,868.89 $9,120.99 $9,120.99 $24,299,868.89 ($484,292.81) $3,310,363.10 $2,711,681.10 $24,414,258.08



Summary Listing


BeginningBalance

Fund Category OTHERFund Type GENERAL CAPITAL ASSETS

999 General Fixed Asset Acct Group 121,247,160.10 .00 .00 121,247,160.10 (905,433.28) .00 .00 120,341,726.82

Fund Type GENERAL CAPITAL ASSETS Totals $121,247,160.10 $0.00 $0.00 $121,247,160.10 ($905,433.28) $0.00 $0.00 $120,341,726.82

Fund Category OTHER Totals $121,247,160.10 $0.00 $0.00 $121,247,160.10 ($905,433.28) $0.00 $0.00 $120,341,726.82

Fund Category COMPONENT UNITSFund Type

237 Downtown Development Authority 129,501.75 .00 .00 129,501.75 2,527.04 182,138.90 30,266.99 283,900.702X01 Local Tax Capture-570 E 16th St 1.86 .00 .00 1.86 .54 70,450.82 .00 70,453.222X05 Local Tax Capture-29 E 6th St 4.34 .00 .00 4.34 (2.54) 61,278.78 .00 61,280.582X06 School Tax Capture-29 E 6th St 1.86 .00 .00 1.86 (1.86) 22,787.76 .00 22,787.762X07 Local Tax Capture-635 E 48th St .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2,660.75 .00 2,660.752X08 School Tax Capture-635 E 48th St 1.24 .00 .00 1.24 (1.24) 2,708.11 .00 2,708.112X09 Local Capture-573 Columbia Ave 2.17 .00 .00 2.17 2.93 118,533.27 .00 118,538.372X10 School Capture-573 Columbia Ave 4.03 .00 .00 4.03 (1.63) 112,521.49 .00 112,523.892X15 Local Capture-95 W 15th St-CCRC 7.44 .00 .00 7.44 (7.44) .00 .00 .002X17 Local Capture-99 E 8th St-8th St .93 .00 .00 .93 .87 62,819.30 .00 62,821.102X18 School Capture-99 E 8th St Plaza 1.55 .00 .00 1.55 (1.55) 66,694.01 .00 66,694.012X20 School Capture-479 Columbia Purp 2,150.12 .00 .00 2,150.12 .00 .00 .00 2,150.122X21 Local Capture-146 River Scrapyd .31 .00 .00 .31 .29 13,283.46 .00 13,284.062X22 School Capture-146 River Scrapyd .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 14,002.51 .00 14,002.512X23 Local Capture-7th St ParkingDeck 375.02 .00 .00 375.02 (283.03) 107,356.49 .00 107,448.482X24 Schl Capture-7th St Parking Deck 27,303.78 .00 .00 27,303.78 15,016.61 114,433.73 .00 156,754.122X25 Local Capture-561 Crescent Dr .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 728.08 .00 728.082X26 School Capture-561 Crescent Dr 2,447.36 .00 .00 2,447.36 1,478.42 775.62 .00 4,701.402X27 Local Capture-1130 Lincoln Ave .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 4,894.24 .00 4,894.24

Fund Type Totals $161,803.76 $0.00 $0.00 $161,803.76 $18,727.41 $958,067.32 $30,266.99 $1,108,331.50

Fund Category COMPONENT UNITS Totals $161,803.76 $0.00 $0.00 $161,803.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $161,803.76

Grand Totals $157,076,993.71 $609,120.99 $609,120.99 $157,076,993.71 $631,514.01 $22,119,624.03 $12,053,311.33 $167,774,820.42



Summary Listing


BeginningBalance

Run by McKellips, Michelle on 11/01/2013 08:36:01 AM Page 1 of 4

Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % used/

Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

75,179.00 75,179.00 203.67 .00 1,106.72 74,072.28 1

5,916.00 5,916.00 .00 .00 .00 5,916.00 0

33,384.00 33,384.00 .00 .00 .00 33,384.00 0

4,038.00 4,038.00 .00 .00 .00 4,038.00 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

33,060.00 33,060.00 .00 .00 .00 33,060.00 0

3,581.00 3,581.00 .00 .00 .00 3,581.00 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

30,000.00 30,000.00 .00 .00 .00 30,000.00 0

$185,158.00 $185,158.00 $203.67 $0.00 $1,106.72 $184,051.28

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

186,748.00 186,748.00 .00 .00 .00 186,748.00 0

3,059.00 3,059.00 .00 .00 .00 3,059.00 0

69,950.00 69,950.00 .00 .00 .00 69,950.00 0

(6,824.00) (6,824.00) 2.50 .00 18.96 (6,842.96) 0

29,500.00 29,500.00 .00 .00 .00 29,500.00 0

20,000.00 20,000.00 .00 .00 .00 20,000.00 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

122,647.00 122,647.00 150.00 .00 717.48 121,929.52 1

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

124,172.00 124,172.00 .00 .00 388.05 123,783.95 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 2,582.11 (2,582.11) +++

47,261.00 47,261.00 .00 .00 .00 47,261.00 0

4,932.00 4,932.00 .00 .00 .00 4,932.00 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

95,266.00 95,266.00 .00 .00 .00 95,266.00 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

8,000.00 8,000.00 .00 .00 .00 8,000.00 0

Capital Projects Budget Performance ReportThrough 09/30/13

Division 620 - Park/Recr Misc Renov/Upgrades .00

Division 621 - Stadium (Preliminary Work) .00

Division 622 - Museum Building - Roof Repair .00

Division 617 - Lakeview Playground Equipment .00

Division 618 - Planks Kollen Park East End .00

Division 619 - Parks Picnic Table-Aluminum .00

Division 613 - Cappon/Settlers Homes Improv. .00

Division 614 - Pilgrim Home Road Surfacing .00

Division 615 - Smallenburg Park Skate Park .00

Division 610 - S.Shore Village Parking Lot-Hold .00

Division 611 - Energy Upgrades City Facilities .00

Division 612 - Property Acquisition .00

Division 607 - City Wide Tree Planting Program .00

Division 608 - Neighb. Comm. Restoration(Hold) .00

Division 609 - Sustainability .00

Division 604 - Civic Center Renov Study .00

Division 605 - Waterfront Redevelopment .00

Division 606 - Museum Misc Projects .00

Department 965 - Appropriation Transfers Out .00

Department M01 - MCIFDivision 602 - City Hall Renovation .00

Division 603 - Bouws Pool Renovation .00

Fund 4D01 - Drain Capital Projects Totals $0.00

Fund 4M01 - Municipal Capital Improv.

Division 510 - Tulip Intercounty Drain Study .00

Division 511 - Watershed/Stormwater Regulation .00

Division 507 - East End Drive Culvert .00

Division 508 - Lugers Road North of 32nd .00

Division 509 - 34th St, Central to Pine .00

Division 504 - Azalea Storm Outlet .00

Division 505 - Maplewood Drain Study-Det. Ponds .00

Division 506 - Small Drain Projects .00

Department D01 - Drain ProjectsDivision 502 - 40th St Ditch Encl, Industr-Wav .00

Division 503 - City Wide Drainage Study/M.Plan .00

Adopted

Organization Budget

Fund 4D01 - Drain Capital Projects





Adopted

Organization Budget

20,000.00 20,000.00 .00 .00 .00 20,000.00 0

4,500.00 4,500.00 .00 .00 .00 4,500.00 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

7,000.00 7,000.00 7,490.00 .00 7,490.00 (490.00) 107

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

11,000.00 11,000.00 9,850.00 .00 9,850.00 1,150.00 90

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

2,400.00 2,400.00 .00 .00 .00 2,400.00 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

(145.00) (145.00) .00 .00 .00 (145.00) 0

55,500.00 55,500.00 11,500.00 12,900.00 19,013.09 23,586.91 58

50,000.00 50,000.00 .00 .00 .00 50,000.00 0

18,500.00 18,500.00 .00 .00 .00 18,500.00 0

150,000.00 150,000.00 23.58 .00 418.36 149,581.64 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

202,350.00 202,350.00 .00 .00 .00 202,350.00 0

$1,225,816.00 $1,225,816.00 $29,016.08 $12,900.00 $40,478.05 $1,172,437.95 4%

.00 .00 .00 .00 6,595.55 (6,595.55) +++

56,400.00 56,400.00 25,630.00 .00 25,630.00 30,770.00 45

194,782.00 194,782.00 .00 .00 .00 194,782.00 0

$251,182.00 $251,182.00 $25,630.00 $0.00 $32,225.55 $218,956.45 13%

$1,476,998.00 $1,476,998.00 $54,646.08 $12,900.00 $72,703.60 $1,391,394.40

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

Department 965 - Appropriation Transfers Out .00

Department M50 - Ourstreet ProjectsDivision 676 - Owner Share Ourstreet .00

Fund 4M01 - Municipal Capital Improv. Totals $0.00

Fund 4M50 - Ourstreet Projects

Division 615 - Smallenburg Park Skate Park .00

Division 642 - Lakeview Property .00

Department M02 - MCIF - Legacy Totals $0.00

Division 965 - Transfers to Other Funds .00

Department M01 - MCIF Totals $0.00

Department M02 - MCIF - LegacyDivision 612 - Property Acquisition .00

Division 645 - Plc Bldg-Customer Service Window .00

Division 646 - Planing & Neighbrhd Improvements .00

Division 647 - City Hall Lot Resurfacing .00

Division 641 - US-31 Redevelopment .00

Division 643 - Transp Facility Renov/Upgrades .00

Division 644 - Downtown Snowmelt .00

Division 638 - Depot Detectable Warning System .00

Division 639 - Tax Foreclosed Property .00

Division 640 - Ferris Bldg Demo/Restore(CDBG) .00

Division 635 - Waverly Sta Driveways/Approaches .00

Division 636 - Kollen Pk Sta Repair Doors/Frame .00

Division 637 - Kollen Pk Sta Hose Tower Windows .00

Division 632 - Pilgrim Home Cemetery Roof .00

Division 633 - Stadium Turf (Hope College) .00

Division 634 - Waverly Sta Apparatus Bay Floor .00

Division 629 - Stadium Turf Blankets .00

Division 630 - Police Heat Exchanger/Filters .00

Division 631 - E Crash Citation Modules .00

Division 626 - Wav Fire Sta-Carpet & Floor Cov. .00

Division 627 - Kollen Pk Fire Sta-Carpet&Floor .00

Division 628 - Police Total Sta Laser w/Traing .00

Division 623 - Museum Bldg-Dutch Gallery Attic .00

Division 624 - Museum Bldg-Basement Water Valve .00

Division 625 - Wav Fire Sta-Restroom/Shower Rep .00





Adopted

Organization Budget

141,825.00 141,825.00 4,104.79 .00 11,578.29 130,246.71 8

$141,825.00 $141,825.00 $4,104.79 $0.00 $11,578.29 $130,246.71

17,198.00 17,198.00 .00 .00 .00 17,198.00 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

110,931.00 110,931.00 .00 .00 .00 110,931.00 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

1,072.00 1,072.00 .00 .00 .00 1,072.00 0

42,818.00 42,818.00 .00 .00 .00 42,818.00 0

11,723.00 11,723.00 .00 .00 .00 11,723.00 0

6,421.00 6,421.00 .00 .00 .00 6,421.00 0

106,293.00 106,293.00 438.55 .00 2,322.30 103,970.70 2

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

4,285.00 4,285.00 .00 .00 .00 4,285.00 0

540,516.00 540,516.00 41,267.29 .00 53,214.91 487,301.09 10

$841,257.00 $841,257.00 $41,705.84 $0.00 $55,537.21 $785,719.79

9,528.00 9,528.00 .00 .00 .00 9,528.00 0

8,898.00 8,898.00 .00 .00 .00 8,898.00 0

35,347.00 35,347.00 .00 .00 .00 35,347.00 0

$53,773.00 $53,773.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $53,773.00

1,140,074.00 1,140,074.00 118,593.00 .00 173,876.93 966,197.07 15

$1,140,074.00 $1,140,074.00 $118,593.00 $0.00 $173,876.93 $966,197.07

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

345,444.00 345,444.00 .00 .00 .00 345,444.00 0

302.00 302.00 .00 .00 .00 302.00 0

3,289.00 3,289.00 .00 .00 .00 3,289.00 0

2,638.00 2,638.00 164.21 .00 304.23 2,333.77 12

7,384.00 7,384.00 .00 .00 .00 7,384.00 0

895.00 895.00 .00 .00 .00 895.00 0

51,119.00 51,119.00 .00 .00 2.20 51,116.80 0Division 4EA - Lincoln Ave & 64th St (TEDF) .00

Division 4E6 - Geurink Blvd .00

Division 4E8 - East 48th St, M40 to Waverly Rd .00

Division 4E9 - Waverly Rd, M40 to 48th St .00

Division 4E2 - US-31 Bridges & Pavt Wash Intchg .00

Division 4E4 - West 48th St, Regent to Lincoln .00

Division 4E5 - Washington Ave(48th St) Bridge .00

Fund 4R93 - Washington Av,M.Urban-32nd Turnb Totals $0.00

Fund 4RE1 - TEDF Econ Devel Road/Bridge ProjDepartment RE1 - TEDF Road/Bridge Projects

Division 4E1 - M40 from US-31 to I-196 Resurfac .00

Department R01 - Roadway/Street ProjectsDivision 405 - Washington Av,M.Urban-32nd Turnb .00

Fund 4R86 - Railroad Crossing Closings Totals $0.00

Fund 4R93 - Washington Av,M.Urban-32nd Turnb

Division 403 - Railroad Crossing Closings 12th .00


Fund 4R01 - Roadway Capital Projects Totals $0.00

Fund 4R86 - Railroad Crossing ClosingsDepartment R01 - Roadway/Street Projects


Division 417 - 2013 Resurfacing .00

Division 414 - Lincoln Ave, 16th-24th .00

Division 415 - 2012 Resurfacing (FY13) .00

Division 416 - S Washington Ave Tunnel Lights .00

Division 411 - M40, I196 South to City Limit .00

Division 412 - 7th St Resurface, River-Lincoln .00

Division 413 - 40th St, Wash-Linc (MDOT Open) .00

Division 408 - Central Ave, 8th to State .00

Division 409 - 2010 (FY11) Resurfacing .00

Division 410 - Fairbanks Ave, 8-16th, MDOT Open .00

Fund 4R01 - Roadway Capital ProjectsDepartment R01 - Roadway/Street Projects

Division 406 - Matt Urban&48th, Wash-Limit MDOT .00

Division 407 - 2011 Resurfacing (FY12) .00

Fund 4M50 - Ourstreet Projects Totals $0.00

Division ADM - MAX .00





Adopted

Organization Budget

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

$411,071.00 $411,071.00 $164.21 $0.00 $306.43 $410,764.57

8,832.00 8,832.00 .00 .00 .00 8,832.00 0

5,000.00 5,000.00 .00 .00 .00 5,000.00 0

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

3,728.00 3,728.00 67.89 .00 1,616.04 2,111.96 43

$17,560.00 $17,560.00 $67.89 $0.00 $1,616.04 $15,943.96

447,833.00 447,833.00 .00 .00 .00 447,833.00 0

$447,833.00 $447,833.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $447,833.00

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++

.00 .00 .00 .00 632.06 (632.06) +++

.00 3,000.00 4.29 .00 69.75 2,930.25 2

.00 63,000.00 2,366.91 .00 11,171.62 51,828.38 18

$0.00 $66,000.00 $2,371.20 $0.00 $11,873.43 $54,126.57

Grand Totals $4,715,549.00 $4,781,549.00 $221,856.68 $12,900.00 $328,598.65 $4,440,050.35$66,000.00

Fund 4W11 - Sidewalk Improvements Cap Proj Totals $66,000.00

Department SID - Sidewalk Capital ProjectsDivision ASP - Asphalt Walkways/Paths .00

Division BRK - Brick Sidewalk Mtce/Repair 3,000.00

Division REP - Sidewalk Repair 63,000.00

Fund 4W01 - Sidewalk Projects - Various Totals $0.00

Fund 4W11 - Sidewalk Improvements Cap ProjDepartment 965 - Appropriation Transfers Out .00

Department W01 - Sidewalk ProjectsDivision 902 - M40 Multi-Use Path, Waverly-40th .00

Fund 4T01 - Traffic Signal Capital Projects Totals $0.00

Fund 4W01 - Sidewalk Projects - Various

Division 804 - Allegan Co. Signal Optimization .00

Division 805 - Pine Ave Signal Evaluation .00

Fund 4T01 - Traffic Signal Capital ProjectsDepartment T01 - Traffic Signal Projects

Division 802 - Signal - 8th / Pine .00

Division 803 - Signals - 7th & 9th at Columbia .00

Fund 4RE1 - TEDF Econ Devel Road/Bridge Proj Totals $0.00

Division 4EB - 64th St, Lincoln Ave to M40 .00

Division 4EC - 64th St, 150' W Airport-Lincoln .00


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Finance – Quarterly Investment Report Summary Attached is the quarterly investment report for the first quarter of the fiscal year (July – September 2013) as required by Public Act 20. Although accrued investment earnings are nearly identical to the prior fiscal year fluctuations in market values of the securities held are impacted by “market write up (down),” governmental accounting standards require that the assets are valued at market prices, even though these will be held to maturity. As interest rates have begun to thaw in the past few months, various longer‐term government securities have been purchased as opposed to CDs which are not subject to valuation changes. Threats for a government shutdown at the end of this reporting period (September 30) provided some volatility in interest rates, but staff is convinced that these purchases provide better diversification, balance and opportunity to earn better yields than have been trended in the past few years. Accrued earnings are nearly identical to prior year and staff believes that the trough may have been reached. Securities purchased in the past few months have higher interest rates than the past couple of years, but slightly longer terms than what has been held in the portfolio recently. As shown, the year to date accrued interest is $37,690 compared to $37,505 in same period of FY13. The current annualized rate is .429% compared to .4823% in FY13. There was a higher average daily balance in FY14 than FY13, resulting in more earnings. Recommendation It is recommended that Council receive the quarterly investment report as presented. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Cash and Investment Portfolio Report and Comparative Analysis of Average Daily Cash and Investment Balance and Investment Income. Report prepared by: Tim Vagle, Finance Director

14E3.2*

CITY OF HOLLANDCOMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF "AVERAGE DAILY CASH & INVESTMENT BALANCE" AND "INVESTMENT INCOME"

FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012-2013 AND 2013-2014

Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Fiscal Year 2013-2014Average Accrued Capital Market Year-to-Date Average Accrued Capital Market Year-to-Date

Daily Interest Gains Write Up Investment Daily Interest Gains Write Up Investment Month Balance Income (Losses) (Down) Income Balance Income (Losses) (Down) Income

July 22,618,295 11,341 1,632 12,973 24,079,218 8,961 (6,148) 2,813

August 38,435,533 13,176 (569) 25,580 46,290,688 13,524 (45,305) (28,968)

September 31,371,034 12,988 (2,554) 36,014 34,187,990 15,205 38,826 25,063

3 Month Total 30,808,287 37,505 0 (1,491) 36,014 34,852,632 37,690 0 (12,627) 25,063

October 28,756,228 13,276 (2,288) 47,002 November 27,271,515 11,956 2,650 61,608 December 25,432,998 11,998 (3,497) 70,109 January 25,014,241 11,916 (203) 81,822

February 25,552,644 10,376 (1,377) 90,821

March 24,103,363 11,376 (1,862) 100,335

April 22,910,377 10,625 (1,871) 109,089

May 22,361,339 10,023 (25,641) 93,471

June 22,049,368 9,250 (35,404) 67,317

12 Month Total 26,323,078 138,301 0 (70,984) 67,317

Annualized Rate of Return - Current Fiscal Year July 1, 2013. - September 30, 2013 On Interest Income Only 0.429% On Total Investment Income (Interest, plus Capital Gains and minus Capital Losses) 0.285%

Annualized Rate of Return - Prior Fiscal Year July 1, 2012 - September 30, 2012 On Interest Income Only 0.483% On Total Investment Income (Interest, plus Capital Gains and minus Capital Losses) 0.464%

July 1, 2012 - June 30, 2013 On Interest Income Only 0.525% On Total Investment Income (Interest, plus Capital Gains and minus Capital Losses) 0.256%

babinec

Typewritten Text


United OtherBank of Federal Citizens/ Consumers W MI Financial % Of

Cash or Investment Type Fifth Third Holland Macatawa Chemical Mercantile Flagstar Huntington Cr. Union First Merit Cr. Union Comm Arrangements TOTAL Gr Total

P O O L E D Short-Term Money Management: - Cash in Bank Dep Acct (a) 224,792 5 224,797 0.70% - Money Mkt Acct (a) 201,775 3,997,327 499,169 1,002,621 5,700,891 17.85% - MBIA - 0 - 353,125 353,125 1.11% - Commercial Paper 998,022 998,022 3.12% - CDARS Certificates of Dep - 0 - - 0 - 0.00% - CDARS Accr Interest Rcvb - 0 - - 0 - 0.00% - Certificates of Deposit (b) 1,000,000 1,000,000 900,000 1,700,000 1,051,692 1,551,570 2,351,433 - 0 - 1,300,000 - 0 - 1,350,000 12,204,695 38.21% - Accrued Interest Rec'v (1,137) 351 228 600 1,039 481 564 - 0 - 419 - 0 - 376 - 0 - 2,920 0.01% Total Short-term 1,425,429 4,997,677 900,228 1,700,600 1,052,731 1,552,051 2,351,998 499,174 1,300,419 1,002,621 1,350,376 1,351,147 19,484,451 61.00%

Long-Term Money Management: - Money Market Account 2 - 0 - - 0 - 2 0.00% - Certificates of Deposit (b) - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 1,000,000 - 0 - - 0 - 1,000,000 3.13% - MBIA - 0 - - 0 - 0.00% - CDARS Certificates of Dep 5,000,000 5,000,000 15.65% - CDARS Accr Interest Rcvb 34,309 34,309 0.11% - Commercial Paper - 0 - 1,008,330 1,008,330 3.16% - Municipal Bond 4,369,568 4,369,568 13.68% > Accrued Interest Rec'v 67,948 67,948 0.21% - U.S. Treasuries / Instrumentalities: > Par Value 1,000,000 1,000,000 3.13% > Market Value Adj (c) (58,424) (58,424) -0.18% > Accrued Interest Rec'v 3,826 3,826 0.01% Total Long-term 2 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 1,000,000 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 11,425,558 12,425,560 38.90%

T O T A L P O O L E D 1,425,432 4,997,677 900,228 1,700,600 2,052,731 1,552,051 2,351,998 499,174 1,300,419 1,002,621 1,350,376 12,776,705 31,910,011 99.91%

S E G R E G A T E D Deposits for Insurance Claims - - 0 - - 0 - 0.00% - - With HUB Insurance Group: > Gen Liability/WorkerComp Claims 30,000 30,000 0.09%

T O T A L S E G R E G A T E - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 30,000 30,000 0.09%

G R A N D T O T A L S 1,425,432 4,997,677 900,228 1,700,600 2,052,731 1,552,051 2,351,998 499,174 1,300,419 1,002,621 1,350,376 12,806,705 31,940,011 100.00% % of Short-Term Portfolio = 7.32% 25.65% 4.62% 8.73% 5.40% 7.97% 12.07% 2.56% 6.67% 5.15% 6.93% 6.93% 100.00% % of Long-Term Portfolio = 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 91.95% 100.00% Percent of Total Portfolio = 4.46% 15.65% 2.82% 5.32% 6.43% 4.86% 7.36% 1.56% 4.07% 3.14% 4.23% 40.10% 100.00%

FOOTNOTES: (a) - Of this balance........ (b) - C / D's listed under Short-term Money Mgt represent those with an initial maturity of less than 12 months, those listed under Long-term Mgt have initial maturities of at least 2 years. (c) - 'Market Value Adjustment' for marketable securities represents valuation adjustment as of most recent concluded calendar month.

C I T Y O F H O L L A N D - C A S H A N D I N V E S T M E N T P O R T F O L I O S T A T U S R E P O R TAt Close of Business Day: September 30, 2013


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Finance – Annual Adjustments of Interest Rates for Certain Special

Assessments Summary On October 20, 1999, City Council adopted a policy on interest rates for special assessment projects. Prior to October 20, 1999, the interest rate was 10% for all special assessment projects. However, this rate was adjusted only when the City sold bonds for a project. The revised interest rate was then set between .5 and 1% above the rate for which the bonds were sold. On all special assessment projects not funded from bond issues, especially small projects funded from various revolving funds within the General City and the BPW, the interest rate would remain at 10%. The policy for the non‐bonded projects, as of October 20, 1999, was based on interest rates determined by the prime rate of major U.S. banks, as printed in the Wall Street Journal, minus 1.5%. This resulted in interest rates as follows:

Year Rate

11‐1‐1999 6.75% (8.25% minus 1.5%)

11‐1‐2000 8.00% (9.5% minus 1.5%)

11‐1‐2001 5.00% (5.5% minus1.5%)

11‐1‐2002 3.25% (4.75% minus 1.5%)

11‐1‐2003 2.50% (4.0% minus 1.5%)

11‐1‐2004 3.25% (4.75% minus 1.5%)

11‐1‐2005 5.50% (7% minus 1.5%)

11‐1‐2006 6.75% (8.25% minus 1.5%)

11‐1‐2007 6.00% (7.50% minus 1.5%)

11‐1‐2008 2.50% (4.00% minus 1.5%)

11‐1‐2009 2.00% (3.25% minus 1.5%)

11‐1‐2010 2.00% (3.25% minus 1.5%)

11‐1‐2011 2.00% (3.25% minus 1.5%)

11‐1‐2012 2.00% (3.25% minus 1.5%)

11‐1‐2013 2.00% Minimum Rate 2% (3.25% minus 1.5%)

14E3.3*

Under the policy established by the City Council, the new rate must be evaluated annually. The policy was initially adopted with a 10% maximum and a 5% minimum; however, the Council changed the minimum to 2% in 2002. The current prime rate is 3.25%, which would result in an interest rate on bonded special assessments at the minimum rate of 2.00% (3.25% minus 1.5% = 1.75%). Recommendation It is recommended that the interest rate for non‐bonded capital improvement special assessment rolls be set at 2.00%, effective November 6, 2013. It is further recommended that the interest rate on special assessments for the fill‐in‐the‐gap program be set at 2% for this year, also effective November 6, 2013. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Wahmhoff Memo Report prepared by: Tim Vagle, Finance Director

Fiscal Services Department

Tim Vagle, Director

270 South River Avenue * Holland, MI 49423

m 616.355.1370 * f 616.355.1470 * * www.cityofholland.com * www.enjoyhollandmichigan.com

October 15, 2013

To: Ryan Cotton

Tim Vagle

From: Melissa Wahmhoff

Re: Annual Adjustment of Interest Rate for Certain Special Assessment Rolls

At the November 6, 2013 Council Meeting

By Council Action 99.755 dated October 20, 1999 (and later amended by Council Action 02.719 dated November 6, 2002), an interest rate policy was established for special assessment rolls that are not pledged to special assessment bonded debt (a.k.a., unbonded special assessment rolls). The policy states that the adjustment shall be equivalent to the Prime Rate of major U.S. banks, as printed in The Wall Street Journal, minus one-and-one-half percent (1.5%). Parameters include an interest rate ceiling of 10% and a minimum rate of 2%.

In conformance with this policy, the interest rate on unbonded special assessments is to be adjusted at the first City Council meeting of November each year.

Presently, the interest rate applied to such special assessment rolls is 2.00%. The current Prime Rate as listed in The Wall Street Journal is 3.25% (effective 12/16/08).

Based upon this information, it is requested that City Council retain the interest rate on unbonded special assessments at 2.00% (3.25% minus 1.5% = 1.75%, use minimum rate though) effective November 6, 2013. It is further recommended that City Council also retain the interest rate on assessments for the fill-in-the-gap program at 2.00% for this year, also effective November 6, 2013.

Thank you.

Note: We will monitor the Prime Rate up to November 6 as listed in the Wall Street Journal for any revision that may impact this action.

babinec

Typewritten Text



HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Centralized Vehicle/Equipment Fund – Award Bids for Vehicles Summary Sealed bids for the purchase of four (4) replacement vehicles, for use in various City Departments as included in the FY14 budget, were opened on October 29, 2013. Council approval to purchase one (1) Ford F‐350 from Signature Ford, low bidder, at a cost of $21,426, one (1) Ford F‐450 (4x4) from Signature Ford, low bidder, at a cost of $30,511, one (1) Ford F‐150 from Signature Ford, low bidder, at a cost of $20,147 is requested. No Council action regarding the bids for a sedan is requested at this time. The FY14 budget includes $32,300 to replace one (1) 13,200 GVW truck w/dual rear wheels for use in the Parks Department with a stake body and lift gate to be installed by City upon receipt. It also includes $32,300 for a 16,500 GVW truck w/dual rear wheels for use in Parks and Forestry that will have a 9 ft. dump box installed. Two alternates were bid for that truck; one for 4x4 and one rear wheel drive only. The budget includes $21,000 for a 6800 GVW (1/2 ton) pickup truck for use by Police Department in code enforcement (animal control). Finally the budget includes $18,500 for an unmarked sedan to be used in the Police Division for investigative work. Bids are as follows: Vehicle Signature Ford Barber Ford Berger Chevrolet 13,200 GVW *$21,426 (F‐350) $22,270 (F‐350) No Bid 16,500 GVW (4x2) $27,393 (F‐450) $28,593 (F‐450) No bid 16,500 GVW (4x4) *$30,511 (F‐450) $31,712 (F‐450) No bid 6800 GVW *$20,147 (F‐150) $23,897 (F‐150) $22,896 (Silverado 1500) Sedan $17,709 (Fusion) *$17,654 (Fusion) $18,825 (Malibu) *Recommended bid The total budget for these vehicles is $104,100. Although bid prices total $89,703 reflecting a savings of $14,397 from the budget, an estimated additional $14,000 to replace a stake box and lift gate on the F‐350 and a new 9’ dump box for use on the F‐450, will leave a net balance of $397 under the budgeted amounts for these vehicles. The disposal of vehicles will be handled at a separate time and Council declaration as surplus will be requested at that time.

14E3.4* REV

At the request of the City Manager, bid pricing to purchase a hybrid sedan will be pursued as an alternative to the regular engine specified originally. No Council action on the sedan bids is requested until those bids are received. It is expected that the alternate hybrid vehicle bids will be included on the December 4 meeting agenda. Recommendation It is recommended that City Council: 1. Accept the low bid from Signature Ford for a 2014 Ford F‐350 at a cost of $21,426 for use in

the Parks Department; 2. Accept the alternate low bid from Signature Ford for a 2014 Ford F‐450 (4x4) at a cost of

$30,511 for use by Parks and Forestry; 3. Accept the low bid from Signature Ford for a 2014 Ford F‐150 at a cost of $20,147 for use by

the Police Division; and 4. That the cost of all of these purchases be funded through the Centralized Vehicle/

Equipment Fund. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Bid forms, Recommendation from Dale Vander Weide Report prepared by: Tim Vagle, Director of Finance

1

Vagle, Tim

From: VanderWeide, DaleSent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:31 AMTo: Vagle, TimCc: Boeve, Scott; Kenyon, AndySubject: Vehicle Bid results

Vehicle Bid Results October 29, 2013 Signature Ford Barber Ford Berger Chevrolet

13,200 lb GVW C&C Truck 21,426.00 22,270.00 No Bid 16,500 GVW 4X2 C&C Truck 27,393.00 28,593.00 No Bid Option #1 16,500 GVW 4X4 C&C Truck 30,511.00 31,712.00 No Bid

Option #2 6800 GVW Reg. Cab Truck 20,147.00 23,891.00 22,896.00 (‐ Aluminum Wheels) 25,616.00 (+ Aluminum Wheels) 4 Door Sedan 17,709.00 17,654.00 18,825.00 All vehicles highlighted meet specifications and are low bid. I recommend we accept low bid on each vehicle represented here with the exception of the 4X2. After talking with Scott and Andy I recommend the purchase of the 16,500 GVW 4X4 Truck because of the extensive and off road use it is going to get. Additional estimated expense for Dump Body, Platform Stake Body, and Lift gate will be $14,000.00 Respectfully submitted, Dale Vander Weide - Lead Mechanic City of Holland Transportation Services 333 Wyngarden Way Holland, MI 49423 616-928-2416 - Office 616-218-6226 - Cell 616-928-2412 - Fax [email protected]

babinec

Typewritten Text



HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Gifts Summary The City Manager’s office is pleased to report receipt of the following gifts: Public Safety Services:

Saugatuck Township Fire District $100.00

Two Seven Oh, Inc. $100.00 Public Safety Services – 2013 Victim Services Grant:

Michigan Sheriff’s Association Educ. Serv., Inc. $290.00 Parks & Recreation ‐ Windmill Island DeZwaan Repair Fund:

Glenn & Janet Dirkse $250.00

Kimberly Essenberg $150.00

Run of the Mill Event – Sale of t‐shirts $20.00

Douglas Gerber $150.00

Parks & Recreation ‐ Windmill Island DeZwaan Repair Fund Donations received in honor of Diana Van Kolken:

Ernie and Margaret Nelson $50.00

Louis and Deborah Schakel $50.00

Kenneth and Jane Seitz $100.00

Robert and Barbara Selig $20.00

Parks & Recreation

$1,615 has been received from Mark & Roxanne de Roo to purchase trees for Cherry Street. Recommendation It is recommended that these donations be accepted with appreciation; credited to the appropriate accounts; and an expression of gratitude be forwarded to the donors. Respectfully Submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager

14E5.1


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Change in November Meeting Schedule – Cancellation of the Nov. 13th and 27th

Study Sessions

Summary The Holland City Council meets the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. The City Council also holds study sessions on the second and third Wednesday of the month at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall. All meetings are open to the public. The Wednesday, November 13, 2013 study session of the Holland City Council is suggested to be cancelled. Mayor Dykstra and Mayor Pro Tem VandeVusse are unable to make it to the meeting because of business and other commitments. The second regular City Council meeting in November falls on Wednesday, November 27, 2013. The City Council has chosen not meet on the night before Thanksgiving due to travel and family conflicts as well as services provided to the annual community dinner at DeVos Field House. The regular Wednesday Council meetings will occur on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 and December 4, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Recommendation It is recommended that City Council approve the change in meeting schedule as described above. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Report prepared by: Sinka Babinec

14E5.2*


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Human Resources – 2013 Health Insurance Rates

Summary

The City currently has a flexible benefit program for its non‐union employees which allows each employee to choose a combination of fringe benefits which best fits personal needs. Part of this program is health insurance. Currently, there are three (3) health plan options, a dental option, and an opt‐out alternative. The base plan for which the City funds 80% of the premium is the PPO‐10 plan. If the employee does not successfully complete the City’s Wellness program, then the City share is 60% of the premium. The City’s Employee Health Insurance program is basically self‐funded. However, the program is self‐insured up to $100,000 on a per individual basis and there is a group limit which is adjusted annually. Therefore, the City has insurance coverage if individual or group aggregate costs are exceeded. Priority Health is the City’s Third Party Administrator (TPA) and administers the employee health and dental insurance claims. The current Administrative Fee per contract per month has remained the same at $49.00. The medical specific and aggregate stop loss insurance for 2013 is $66.25 per employee per month, for 2014 we have decided to include prescription drugs in the specific stop loss which adjusts the specific and aggregate premium to $78.52 per month per employee, this addition of the prescription drugs in the stop loss has the potential to save the City approximately $57,000. We had good news this year at our annual renewal meeting with Priority Health. The Health Plan illustrative rates were decreased by 1.37% for the PPO‐10 base plan and decreased up to 10.88% for the Health Savings Account plan, with all three plans seeing a decrease in cost. In 2014, the City is required to pay mandatory Affordable Care Act regulatory fees which include Affordable Care Act taxes and a Michigan 1% sales tax. These fees are costs to run the health insurance plan and therefore will be incorporated into the Priority Health illustrative rates. Following is a table indicating the 2013 health and dental base plan insurance rates and the proposed rates for 2014:

14E5.3* REV

HEALTH‐PPO 10 PLAN

2013 2014

$15/50 Drug Co. Pay $15/50 Drug Co Pay

Illustrative Illustrative Illustrative

Bi‐Weekly Annual Bi‐Weekly Annual % Change

One Person $237.69 $6,179.94 $234.44 $6,095.44 (1.37%)

Two Person $546.67 $14,213.42 $539.22 $14,019.72 (1.36%)

Family $594.22 $15,449.72 $586.10 $15,238.60 (1.37%)

Health Care Reform mandatory regulatory fees:

Affordable Care Act Taxes will add $75.00 to the annual illustrative rate

Michigan 1% sales tax fee will add $101.92 to the annual illustrative rate

Total to the annual illustrative rate $176.92

DENTAL

2013 2014

Illustrative Illustrative Illustrative

Bi‐Weekly Annual Bi‐Weekly Annual % Change

One Person $17.07 $443.82 $15.61 $405.86 (8.55%)

Two Person $39.25 $1020.50 $35.90 $933.40 (8.54%)

Family $42.66 $1109.16 $39.02 $1,014.52 (8.53%)

Pre 65 Retiree PPO Plan 10 Monthly Rates with 15/50 RX

2014 Est.

Contracts

2013 Illustrative

Rate

Retiree Co‐Pay 2013

2014 Illustrative

Rate

Retiree Co‐Pay 2014

Premium % Change

Single 15 $505.79 $255.79 $507.96 $255.79 +.43%

Dual 16 $1163.31 $713.31 $1,168.30 $718.30 + .43%

Family 2 $1264.46 $814.46 $1,269.89 $819.89 +. 43%

City Contribution to Premium

Single $250 / Month

Dual $450 / Month ($500 / Month Firefighters)

Health Care Reform mandatory regulatory fees:

Affordable Care Act Taxes will add $75.00 to the annual illustrative rate

Michigan 1% sales tax fee will add $101.92 to the annual illustrative rate

Total to the annual illustrative rate $176.92

It is recommended that City Council approve:

1. The proposed 2014 illustrative rates as presented; 2. Continue to have the PPO‐10 Plan as the base plan for 2014; 3. That Priority Health be maintained as the City’s Third Party Administrator

Respectfully Submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Report prepared by: Chanda Schab‐Koryto, Human Resources Director


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Human Resources ‐ Technology Services Position Reclassification

Summary Recent changes to staffing have given the Technology Services Department the opportunity to evaluate the types of work that they are currently doing and make changes to the current staff job descriptions to better accomplish the given tasks. One of these changes is to reclassify the existing Network Systems Specialist position to a more skilled position that specializes in maintaining the City’s expanding database and Network infrastructure. The proposed reclassified position now named Senior Network Systems Specialist/Database Administrator will focus on the back‐end resources needed to make the City’s applications function smoothly, quickly and efficiently. The proposed reclassification will change the current position name from Network Systems Specialist to Senior Network Systems Specialist/Database Administrator and will change the pay range from CP‐C ($52,520‐$63,003) to CP‐B ($60,362‐$72,467). Recommendation It is recommended that City Council approve the re‐classification name change and the pay range as presented in this report. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Report prepared by: Chanda Schab‐Koryto, Human Resources Director

14E5.4*

City of Holland Job Description

PROPOSED

JOB TITLE: Senior Network Systems Specialist/Database Administrator

PAY GRADE: CP-B ($60,362-$72,467)

REPORTS TO: Technology Services Coordinator

JOB SUMMARY: Under the general direction of the Technology Services Coordinator or designee, coordinates the operation of hardware and software throughout the City computer network. Functions as the initial contact person for all problems and questions related to server hardware and software.

PRIMARY DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES:

1. Handles the administration of servers throughout the City, including user logins, data security and backup.

2. Maintains current virus protection on all servers and desktops.

3. Handles the installation of new server hardware and software.

4. Responsible for the administration of the City’s Microsoft SQL infrastructure.

5. Assists in the configuration and installation of all new computers and peripherals.

6. Assists in the administration of network equipment at all City locations, including routers and switches.

7. Maintains hardware and software inventory and corresponding documentation for all servers, computers and printers throughout the City.

8. Develops and instructs personal computer classes on a regular basis.

9. Assists in Microsoft Exchange mailbox administration.

10. Recommends hardware and software upgrades as appropriate.

OTHER DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES:

1. Performs other duties as assigned.

JOB QUALIFICATIONS:

1. The job requires knowledge normally acquired through the completion of a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science or a related field.

2. Experience with Hyper-V, BS&A and New World Financials a plus.

3. Six to ten years of experience with server operations and system administration.

4. Interpersonal skills necessary to provide courteous and accurate information and effective technical support to community members, contractors, and various levels of City personnel.

babinec

Typewritten Text


5. Mental ability to periodically handle pressures related to handling intermittent or cyclical workloads, and simultaneously manage multiple projects.

6. Physical ability to occasionally lift and transport equipment weighing up to 75 pounds.

7. Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) Preferred.

WORKING CONDITIONS:

1. Normal office environment with little discomfort due to noise, dirt, dust, and the like.

This job description is intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by a person assigned to this job. They are not to be construed as an exhaustive list of all job duties that may be performed by a person so classified.


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council. Date: November 6, 2013. Subject: Renaming the Community Energy Strategies Steering Committee to the Community

Energy Plan Steering Committee and Adoption of a Community Energy Plan

Summary The City’s Education and Outreach Task Force for the Community Energy Strategies is poised to apply for a $75,000 Funders Grant for Livability to potentially create a permanent Sustainability Institute in Holland. This potential grant would leverage another $150,000 to fund the staff needed to create a $3 million endowment. The goals of the Education and Outreach Task Force of the Community Energy Strategies process are to:

1. Create a permanent energy and sustainability resource for the Holland area;

2. Use this resource to: a. Educate citizens; b. Further sustainability research; and c. Brainstorm/educate on policy solutions – both state and local; and

3. Endow such a resource at Hope College.

Need One requirement of the Funders Grant for sustainability is to operate according to a Community Energy Plan. See the first item on the second page of the attached list of steps from Sustainable Strategies. The so‐called Garforth Plan has been serving as the resource document for the City Council‐approved Community Energy Strategies as per the attached Resolution adopted on July 18, 2012. Replacing the word “strategies” with the word “plan” will not change the process or functioning of the existing Steering Committee yet will eliminate a potential competitive challenge to succeeding in securing this $75,000 grant. The Community Energy Strategies Committee recommends this change. Note: First, there is no intent by staff to assume any additional authority for energy actions based on this Council action requested tonight. There remains a need for the duly‐elected City representatives to authorize each change associated with this Plan. No element of the Plan will be implemented unless there is discrete and individual Council action to authorize the same. Second, all policy actions will

14E5.5*

continue to be vetted by the respective citizen Task Force and the Community Energy Steering (or Plan) Committee before coming to Council for your review. The above statements need to be explicitly made part of the record so there is no misunderstanding that future City Council actions will be needed for approval, or disapproval, depending on future Council policy preferences and determinations associated with the specific conditions at the time. Recommendation Following a pre‐Council meeting discussion, the City Council may make a motion to rename the Community Energy Strategies Steering Committee to the Community Energy Plan Steering Committee, as well as rename the Community Energy Strategies as it is now known to the Community Energy Plan, with the caveat that each of the goals and outcomes of the Plan need to be individually acted upon by the City Council after specific policy discussions. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Funders Grant Requirements from Matt Ward of Sustainable Strategies

Organizational Relationships for a Potential Sustainability Institute Community Energy Strategies Resolution

MEMORANDUM

TO: City Manager Ryan Cotton FROM: Matt Ward DATE: July 12, 2013 SUBJECT: Funders Network/Local Sustainability Matching Grant for

“Holland Sustainability Institute”

This memorandum provide an initial recommended gameplan for obtaining a “Local Sustainability Matching Fund” grant from The Funders Network for Smart Growth & Livable Communities (TFN) to launch a “Holland Sustainability Institute” that, among other things, would be a lead entity for the implementation of the Holland Community Energy Plan (CEP).

BACKGROUND ON SUSTAINABILITY MATCHING FUND The Fund provides investments of up to $75,000 from national foundations on a competitive basis, matched on a 50:50 basis by a place-based foundation, to build partnerships between local sustainability directors and the community foundation on discrete sustainability initiatives that are based on community support and engagement. TFN is partnered with an organization called the Local Sustainability Directors Network (LSDN) on this project. TFN expects to hold its 4th round of this grant in fall 2013, and to provide around 10 grants in such round. The grant is not opened yet, but should be opened in August or early September. After the grant announcement, there will be around ~6 weeks before required submission, and ~12 weeks before grant announcement. This could mean a grant due date of around October 1, and funding provided around January 2014. Funded projects typically have a 12-month timeframe.

babinec

Typewritten Text


There are some pre-requisites to obtain a Fund grant that Holland should consider: Must have an officially established sustainability, conservation, or energy plan. The

Holland CEP will function well for this, but Holland should also consider how to associate the CEP with the Holland Sustainability Framework, and how to integrate the proposed Holland Sustainability Institute.

Must have a “sustainability director” which is either a USDN member or a person who leads a community-wide or multi-department sustainability initiative.

Eligible recipient is place-based foundation, a 501(c)(3) created by the City, or a partnering non-profit organization

Must fit one of 7 priorities (these could change for Round 4) which, in Round 3, included “Comprehensive Neighborhood Sustainability Projects, and projects to mobilize business and resident actions that advanced sustainability, including in energy.

KEY TASKS

1.) Confirm Fit: Determine whether the Matching Fund fits Holland’s needs for the Sustainability Institute and CEP implementation, and whether Holland can confirm to the requirements of the grant. Lead: Ryan Cotton in consultation with [??]

2.) Establish Institute Gameplan: Create initial gameplan for how the Holland Sustainability Institute/CEP project would operate (functions, budget, organization, staffing, timeline, etc.). Lead: Ryan Cotton with [??]

3.) Sustainability Committee: Present idea at July 15 Sustainability Committee meeting

4.) Briefing Sheet: Produce 2-page briefing sheet that provides vision and plan for Sustainability Institute, describes the role of the Institute in CEP implementation, and that describes plan for seeking TFN and community foundation matching fund resources. Lead: Matt Ward

5.) Community Foundation: Approach a community-based foundation in Holland to propose matching fund partnership for Sustainability Institute.

6.) Hope College: Coordinate with Hope College on proposed project, including goals, organization, staffing, space, resource contributions.

7.) TFG / LSDN Coordination: Call with Funders Network Ann Wallace, and with Local Sustainability Directors Network coordinator Julia Parzen. Also consider calls with national foundation staff involved in Matching Fund program. Lead: Matt Ward

8.) Application: There is no reason that we should not fill out the grant application now, as it will prepare us for the fall submission. Lead: Matt Ward

Hope College Liaison

Potential Sustainability InstituteOrganizational Relationship

Holland/Hope CollegeSustainability Institute (Potential)

Director

Holland City Council

Short TermAnnual ConferenceLow Income Home Energy RetrofitsFundraising for Endowment

(Initial 3-Years)

SustainabilityCommittee

Energy & Sustainability

Manager

CommunityEnergy Plan

Steering Committee

Long TermCommunity Education ProgramResearch Agenda & PartnershipsState & Local Policy Support


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Appointment of a City of Holland Energy and Sustainability Manager

Summary The Funders Grant for Livable Communities in Washington, D.C. will potentially provide a $75,000 grant to the City, BPW and Hope College to create a permanent Sustainability Institute. The grant pre‐conditions include the need for the City to have appointed an Energy and Sustainability Manager. Discussion The Sustainability Committee and the Community Energy Plan Steering Committee support this potential appointment. The position can be filled by a community volunteer until, or if, the City and the Board of Public Works decides to budget a salary in future fiscal years. The chairperson of the Sustainability Committee can hold this title by virtue of his current activities in that role already. Paul Lilly holds this position now and is not seeking for it to be funded. Given his support and Council’s support tonight, City staff will be able to move forward in seeking this grant and leveraging other resources to hopefully create an endowed Sustainability Institute in the foreseeable future. Recommendation After pre‐Council meeting discussion, the City Council may approve the attached Administrative Plan that depicts this new voluntary position and how it would function vis‐à‐vis the Community Energy Plan Steering Committee, the City and BPW and also authorize the City Manager thereby to appoint an Energy and Sustainability Manager accordingly. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Funders Grant Requirements from Matt Ward

Organizational Relationships for a Potential Sustainability Institute

14E5.6*

MEMORANDUM

TO: City Manager Ryan Cotton FROM: Matt Ward DATE: July 12, 2013 SUBJECT: Funders Network/Local Sustainability Matching Grant for

“Holland Sustainability Institute”

This memorandum provide an initial recommended gameplan for obtaining a “Local Sustainability Matching Fund” grant from The Funders Network for Smart Growth & Livable Communities (TFN) to launch a “Holland Sustainability Institute” that, among other things, would be a lead entity for the implementation of the Holland Community Energy Plan (CEP).

BACKGROUND ON SUSTAINABILITY MATCHING FUND The Fund provides investments of up to $75,000 from national foundations on a competitive basis, matched on a 50:50 basis by a place-based foundation, to build partnerships between local sustainability directors and the community foundation on discrete sustainability initiatives that are based on community support and engagement. TFN is partnered with an organization called the Local Sustainability Directors Network (LSDN) on this project. TFN expects to hold its 4th round of this grant in fall 2013, and to provide around 10 grants in such round. The grant is not opened yet, but should be opened in August or early September. After the grant announcement, there will be around ~6 weeks before required submission, and ~12 weeks before grant announcement. This could mean a grant due date of around October 1, and funding provided around January 2014. Funded projects typically have a 12-month timeframe.

babinec

Typewritten Text


There are some pre-requisites to obtain a Fund grant that Holland should consider: Must have an officially established sustainability, conservation, or energy plan. The

Holland CEP will function well for this, but Holland should also consider how to associate the CEP with the Holland Sustainability Framework, and how to integrate the proposed Holland Sustainability Institute.

Must have a “sustainability director” which is either a USDN member or a person who leads a community-wide or multi-department sustainability initiative.

Eligible recipient is place-based foundation, a 501(c)(3) created by the City, or a partnering non-profit organization

Must fit one of 7 priorities (these could change for Round 4) which, in Round 3, included “Comprehensive Neighborhood Sustainability Projects, and projects to mobilize business and resident actions that advanced sustainability, including in energy.

KEY TASKS

1.) Confirm Fit: Determine whether the Matching Fund fits Holland’s needs for the Sustainability Institute and CEP implementation, and whether Holland can confirm to the requirements of the grant. Lead: Ryan Cotton in consultation with [??]

2.) Establish Institute Gameplan: Create initial gameplan for how the Holland Sustainability Institute/CEP project would operate (functions, budget, organization, staffing, timeline, etc.). Lead: Ryan Cotton with [??]

3.) Sustainability Committee: Present idea at July 15 Sustainability Committee meeting

4.) Briefing Sheet: Produce 2-page briefing sheet that provides vision and plan for Sustainability Institute, describes the role of the Institute in CEP implementation, and that describes plan for seeking TFN and community foundation matching fund resources. Lead: Matt Ward

5.) Community Foundation: Approach a community-based foundation in Holland to propose matching fund partnership for Sustainability Institute.

6.) Hope College: Coordinate with Hope College on proposed project, including goals, organization, staffing, space, resource contributions.

7.) TFG / LSDN Coordination: Call with Funders Network Ann Wallace, and with Local Sustainability Directors Network coordinator Julia Parzen. Also consider calls with national foundation staff involved in Matching Fund program. Lead: Matt Ward

8.) Application: There is no reason that we should not fill out the grant application now, as it will prepare us for the fall submission. Lead: Matt Ward

babinec

Typewritten Text

Hope College Liaison

Potential Sustainability InstituteOrganizational Relationship

Holland/Hope CollegeSustainability Institute (Potential)

Director

Holland City Council

Short TermAnnual ConferenceLow Income Home Energy RetrofitsFundraising for Endowment

(Initial 3-Years)

SustainabilityCommittee

Energy & Sustainability

Manager

CommunityEnergy Plan

Steering Committee

Long TermCommunity Education ProgramResearch Agenda & PartnershipsState & Local Policy Support


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Statement Regarding Council Policy and Direction on the Home Energy Retrofit Task

Force’s Activities

Summary The Home Energy Retrofit Task is a duly‐constituted citizen team authorized by Council in last year’s Community Energy Strategies’ resolution. The Task Force was authorized to work with Schneider Electric in February to develop a pilot project plan. Such plan was created. Two hundred home owners were found to be interested in the potential Home Energy Retrofit program. The major rub is the need for pending statewide enabling legislation to create an on‐bill repayment mechanism for eligible homeowners. Similar legislation exists in Kentucky, Kansas and Oregon. Discussion Several Council members asked that the City Council discuss an interim statement regarding your policy preferences and expectations that could be made to the Home Energy Retrofit Task Force and to the two hundred homeowners. The following language is suggested:

The City Council appreciates the work of the Home Energy Retrofit Task Force for bringing us a program that encourages Holland home owner investments in energy retrofits. The City Council is enthusiastic about the potential 50% energy improvements to home owners along with the increased capacity and livability for the city via such a program. City Staff, Task Force leadership and Holland legislators are encouraged to continue working through the current legislative barriers and are also authorized to begin work on establishing a Home Energy Trust in the meantime. It remains the City Council’s hope to initiate a significant pilot project during calendar year 2014 once these obstacles are removed.

Recommendation After a pre‐Council meeting discussion, the City Council can move to approve the above statement and authorize its release to the Home Energy Retrofit Task Force and to the two hundred interested homeowners. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton, City Manager Attachments: Status of Home Energy Retrofit Task Force activities

14E5.7

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

DRAFT–Version1To:CityCouncilFrom:YourHomeEnergyRetrofitTaskForceWe,yourHomeEnergyRetrofitTaskForce,receivefrequentinquiriesaboutthestatusofthePilotProjectweproposedtothecityearlierthisyear.Thiswidespreadpublicinterestisnotsurprising.ForthreeyearsHollandresidentshavebeenhearingabouthomeenergyretrofitsastheirpointofcontactwiththeCommunityEnergyPlan.PeterGarforthadvocatedahomeenergyretrofit“scaleproject”inseveralpublicforumsin2011.DiscussioncontinuedinmanyneighborhoodmeetingsontheCEPinthesummerof2012.Thisyearyourtaskforceaskedmanyhomeownersandnon‐profithousingorganizationsforinputontheshapeofourPilotProjectproposal.Seeappendixxxxforamapof200+interestedhomeownersandlettersofsupportfromsix(sofar)non‐profithelpingorganizations.Inaddition,ourtwentytaskforcemembers,meetingtwiceamonthforayearandexcitedabouttheirwork,havesharedideaswithfriends,neighbors,churchesandclubs.Interestedhomeownersarewriting“theirstories”,postingthemonthewebandofferingthemtotheSentinel.Recentlyorganizations‐‐fromHASPtoWMEAC,fromchurchestotheCommunityFoundationboard,eventheSentineleditorialboard–areaskingforpresentations.AndourGovernorandlocallegislatorscontactedustooffertheirhelp.Asaconsequenceofthiswidespreadinterest,weareaskedoftenaboutthestatusofthePilotProject.Wetellthem: TheTaskForcegaveitsproposaltothecityinMay. CouncilinclosedsessioninAugustreceivedlegaladviceabouttheproposal. Tolearnmore,theywillhavetocontacttheircouncilmembersdirectly.

Wehopeforamorecompleteandencouragingreporttoallwhohaveexpressedinterestinhomeenergyretrofits.HerearesomeoptionsforCounciltoconsiderandsomefallbacksthetaskforceisconsidering:

1. Councilcanhosta“coffeeandconversation”forumforinformaldiscussionontheopportunitiesandobstaclesforahomeenergyretrofitpilotproject.

2. Councilcanofferabriefpublicquoteonitsconsiderations…somethingexpressingenthusiasmforthepilotprojectingeneral,determinationtoworkthroughsomepracticalobstacles,andhopetocompletethepilotprojectbytheendof2014.

3. Thetaskforce,relyingonwhatithaslearnedindirectlyaboutCouncil’sviews,canofferitsownunderstandingofthings…asillustratedinAttachmentzzz.

4. Thetaskforce,citingitslackofinformationaboutthefutureofthepilotproject,canreferpeopletomorelimitedalternativesofferedbytheirutilitiesasillustratedinAttachmentmmm.

babinec

Typewritten Text

babinec

Typewritten Text

Attachment to 14E5.7


HOLLAND, MICHIGAN

City Manager Report

To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 6, 2013 Subject: Human Resources ‐ MERS Closed Division Transfer Resolution

Summary

The City of Holland and Holland Board of Public Works provide defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) retirement pensions to employees through the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Michigan (MERS). Currently, MERS administers seven DB retirement divisions for the City/HBPW. Five of these seven DB retirement divisions are closed to new hires. New hires into these employee groups are instead provided with a DC pension benefit similar to a 401(k) plan. The closed DB pension groups are summarized below:

Division # Employee Group Status as of 12/31/2012

7001‐01 City Non‐Union Closed to new participants

7001‐02 Public Safety Command Closed to new participants

7001‐11 HBPW – Union Closed to new participants

7001‐13 HBPW Non‐Union Closed to new participants

7001‐14 HBPW Clerical Closed to new participants

Prior to 2007, if the employer transferred an employee from one employee group to another and if the employee was in a closed DB division, the employee was allowed to transfer from closed division to closed division. For example, if an HBPW union employee in Division 7001‐11 was promoted into a non‐union position, he or she was moved into Division 7001‐13. In 2007, MERS revised its procedures to define a closed division as being closed to any and all additional participants (not just new hires). This meant that an HBPW union employee in Division 7001‐11 would have their DB pension suspended and would be moved to the DC pension plan upon accepting promotion into a non‐union position.

14E5.8*

In late 2010, at the request of its employer members, MERS reversed itself on this matter. MERS is once again allowing an employer to move existing employees between closed pension divisions after the employer formally adopts an appropriate resolution. The HBPW has found the current restriction on transfers between closed pension divisions to be a significant deterrent to qualified utility union employees who may be considering applying for non‐union positions, including technical and supervisory opportunities. The HBPW is also currently attempting to amicably resolve a labor agreement grievance that directly relates to this matter. Because this issue involves individuals who are already participants in the City/HBPW DB pension system, adopting the attached resolution will not expand the number of individuals eligible for DB pension benefits through the City/HBPW. Recommendation It is recommended that City Council adopt and approve the attached MERS Employer Resolution Establishing Uniform Transfer Provision with the additional stipulation that the employee option to move between closed divisions is reserved solely for employees in situations where the benefit multiplier in the receiving division is equal to or less than the benefit multiplier in the originating division. Respectfully submitted, City Manager Report prepared by: Chanda Schab‐Koryto, Human Resources Director

CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Holland, Michigan COUNCIL MEETING ... barrier liner surrounding the fuel oil...

Documents

Transcript of CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Holland, Michigan COUNCIL MEETING ... barrier liner surrounding the fuel oil...