City Commission EPacket November 21, 2006

Transcription

CITY COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
8:10 a.m.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS* (Coms. Bliss, Schmidt, White), Conf. Room 901
1)
Resolution appointing Student Participants to Citizen Boards and Commissions
2)
Discussion of the Board/Commission Vacancy List
8:30 a.m.
FISCAL COMMITTEE* (Coms. Schmidt, Tormala, White), Conference Room 601
1)
Resolution authorizing an agreement with the Michigan Department of Community Health for a
Metropolitan Enforcement Team Grant
2)
Resolution authorizing payment of property damage claim – sewer back-up on Tamarack NW
3)
Resolution authorizing payment of four property damage claims – sewer back-ups
4)
Proposed Modification for FY2007 Budget Ordinance Amendment #14
5)
Bid List
6)
Resolution authorizing the sale of Series 2006A Municipal Purchase Notes
7)
Comptroller’s Report
A) Weekly Warrants
B) Small Claims Report
C) Travel Report
8)
Treasurer’s Report
8:30 a.m.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE* (Coms. Bliss, Jendrasiak, Lumpkins),
Conference Room 901
1)
Resolution authorizing an agreement with MDOT and Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. granting
access to the video signal from the freeway surveillance camera system
2)
Resolution awarding a contract for Improvements of Filter Cells #9, 12, 13, and 14 at the Lake
Michigan Filtration Plant
*
City Parking Ramp tickets may be validated by the Recorder after the meeting or at the City Clerk's Office on the 2nd Floor.
9:30 a.m.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE*, Conference Room 601
1)
Resolution approving the City Commission Meeting Schedule for calendar year 2007
2)
Resolution adopting a new City Commission policy which specifies procedures and provides
guidance for the appropriate uses of, and alterations to, Monument and Veterans Memorial Park
3)
Resolution approving a Renaissance Zone Development Agreement for MBtech-Autodie, LLC
4)
Resolution approving a Renaissance Zone Extension Policy
5)
Resolution authorizing issuance of a Request for Proposals for property located at 201 Market
Avenue
6)
Resolution approving the Gravity Wall, Option A for the Repair/Reconstruction of the Fulton
Street Cemetery Wall (tabled 10-31-06)
7:00 p.m.
*
CITY COMMISSION MEETING, Commission Chambers (agenda attached)
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2006
7:00 p.m.
1.
Call to order
2.
Invocation/Reflection - Com. White
3.
Pledge of Allegiance
4.
Roll Call
5.
Approval of Minutes of November 14, 2006
6.
Public Comments on Agenda Items
7.
Petitions and Communications
1)
Communication from Patty Schneider, Executive Secretary, re: the resignation of Tim
Schad from the SmartZone Local Development Authority Board.
8.
Reports of City Officers
9.
Ordinances
10.
Consent Agenda - items noted by asterisk (*)
11.
Reports of Standing Committees:
COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
FISCAL COMMITTEE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
12.
Public Hearings
13.
Public Comments
14.
Comments by Commissioners
15.
Adjournment
*
Focus Teams and Special Committees
Date
Tues., Nov 21
Meeting
Time and Location
Special Briefing Session
10:30 a.m., Room 601
Legislative Committee
Heartwell, Bliss, Schmidt
12:00 p.m., Room 601
Taxi Appeal Hearing
Heartwell, Jendrasiak, Lumpkins
1:00 p.m., Room 901
Executive Session
3:00 p.m., Room 601
Mon., Nov. 27
ACSET
Heartwell, White
8:30 a.m., County Bldg
Tues., Nov 28
Renewable Energy Team
Heartwell, Coms., Tormala
3:30 p.m., Room 601
*
Special Briefing Session
City Commission/Staff
Date:
Time:
Location:
November 21, 2006
10:30 a.m.
Conference Room 601A, City Hall
AGENDA
1. Community Relations Commission Update
2. Report of the Construction Contracting Work Group
3. Chamber of Commerce Tax Plan
*
DATE:
November 15, 2006
TO:
Marie A. Gowell, Deputy City Clerk
FROM:
Kathleen M. Black
Administrative Analyst I
SUBJECT:
STUDENT PARTICIPANT APPOINTMENTS TO CITIZEN BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS FOR 2007
A total of 5 applications were received from high school juniors this year for the Student
Participant Program. The applications were received from students at the following
schools:
Creston High School
Northpointe Christian
Union High School
3
1
1
The attached resolution will appoint 5 students to a committee with all of the students
appointed to either their first or second choice.
YOUR COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS recommends adoption of a resolution
appointing Student Participants to Citizen Boards and Commissions
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS
Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved
to adopt the following resolution:
RESOLVED that the following students be appointed as Student Participants to the
following Boards and Commissions for a term beginning January 1, 2007 and ending
December 31, 2008.
Drafted by Kathleen Black for Mary Therese Hegarty, City Clerk
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Brandi Allway
Creston High School
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Steve Parsell
Northpointe Christian High
Danielle Slagter
Creston High School
PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Jasmine Franklin
Creston High School
BeAnka Mushenkye
Union High School
DATE:
November 15, 2006
TO:
Marie A. Gowell, Deputy City Clerk
FROM:
Kathleen M. Black
Administrative Analyst I
SUBJECT:
BOARD/COMMISSION VACANCY LIST
Attached is a listing of current Board/Commission vacancies for review by the
Committee on Appointments.
Attachment
CITIZEN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
CURRENT VACANCY LIST
November 21, 2006
COMPOSITION OF
CURRENT MEMBERS
BOARD OF ART AND MUSEUM COMMISSIONERS (7 members)
City Commission Appointment
1) UNEXPIRED TERM ending 1/10/10
(to replace Carol Greenburg)
W1-1
W2-1
W3-1
OSC – 3
WM - 4
WF - 1
BM - 1
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ( 7 members + 2 alternates)
(to replace David Shaffer - alternate member)
W 1 – 4+1
W2-3
W3-2
WM - 6 +1
WF - 1
BM - 1
HM - 1
GRAND RAPIDS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (13 members)
Mayoral Appointment
(to replace Daniel Patterson)
(to replace Laureen Kennedy)
W1 - 3
W2 - 7
W3 - 1
WM - 4
WF - 5
BF - 1
BM - 1
LOCAL OFFICERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (7 members)
Mayoral Appointment
(to replace LaMart Hightower)
W1 -2
W2 - 1
W3 - 2
WM - 2
WF - 2
BM - 1
PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD ( 7 members)
(to replace Terevia Moore)
W1 - 2
W2-2
W3-2
WM - 3
WF - 2
BM -1
REHABILITATION APPEALS BOARD (7 members)
Mayoral Appointment
(to replace John Gardner)
(to replace Kathryn Caliendo)
(to replace Harold Hamilton)
W1-1
W2-0
W3-3
WM - 3
BM - 1
SMARTZONE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY (7 members)
Mayoral Appointment
(to replace Lynn Ferrell)
W1 - 1
W2-1
W3-0
OSC - 4
WM - 3
WF - 2
HM - 1
GRAND VALLEY METRO COUNCIL
Mayoral Appointment
(to replace Beverly Drake)
DATE:
November 9, 2006
TO:
Kurt F. Kimball
City Manager
FROM:
Harry P. Dolan
Chief of Police
SUBJECT:
METROPOLITAN ENFORCEMENT TEAM (MET) GRANT
The Grand Rapids Police Department (GRPD) has been awarded a continuation of the
Metropolitan Enforcement Team (MET) grant for the year beginning October 1, 2006 and ending
September 30, 2007.
MET is a multi-jurisdictional drug task force targeting mid to upper-level drug traffickers in Kent
County. This continuing project emphasizes the cooperation of local, state and federal agencies
to disrupt drug trafficking organizations. Funding in the amount of $158,494 provided by the MET
grant finances the wages and fringe benefits for two Grand Rapids Police Officer positions. A
50% match for wages and fringe benefits in the amount of $79,247 is required from the City of
Grand Rapids. Funds were budgeted in FY07 (17MET 006 GFGEN102).
The attached resolution authorizes an Agreement between the City of Grand Rapids and the
Michigan Department of Community Health for ODCP Grant #70973-6-07-B and the required
match of $79,247.
HPD/mcs
Attachment
YOUR FISCAL COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following resolution
authorizing an Agreement between the City of Grand Rapids and the Michigan Department of
Community Health for the Metropolitan Enforcement Team Grant #70973-6-07-B in the amount of
$158,494.
___________________________________________
CORRECT IN FORM
_____________________
____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
____________________________________________
FISCAL COMMITTEE
Com. _______________________, supported by Com. _________________________,
moved adoption of the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that an Agreement, in a form to be approved by the City
Attorney, between the City of Grand Rapids and the Michigan Department of Community Health for
the Metropolitan Enforcement Team Grant, in an amount of $158,494 with a required match of
$79,247, is hereby approved.
Drafted by: Marty Copeland-Shay, Accountant
Yeas
Nays
_____
Bliss
_____
_____
Lumpkins
_____
_____
Jendrasiak
_____
_____
Schmidt
_____
_____
Tormala
_____
_____
White
_____
_____
Mayor Heartwell
_____
Yeas:
_____
Nays:
_____
Adopted:
_____
Failed:
_____
20071550
Contract #: ______________
Grant Agreement Between
Michigan Department of Community Health
hereinafter referred to as the “Department”
and
City of Grand Rapids
300 Monroe Ave, N.W.
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Federal I.D.#: 38-6004689
hereinafter referred to as the “Contractor”
for
M.E.T. - City of Grand Rapids
M.E.T.
ODCP # 70973-6-07-B
Part I
1.
Period of Agreement: This agreement shall commence on 10/1/2006 and continue
through 9/30/2007
. This agreement is in full force and effect for the period
specified.
2.
Program Budget and Agreement Amount
A.
Agreement Amount
The total amount of this agreement is $ 672,000
. The Department under
the terms of this agreement will provide funding not to exceed $ 336,000
.
The federal funding provided by the Department is: $ 336,000
or
approximately 100.00 %; the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
number is 16.738
and the
CFDA Title is Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
;
the federal agency name is
United States Department of Justice
;
the federal grant award number is 2006 DJ BX 0029
and federal program title
is Byrne Formula Grant
.
The grant agreement is designated as a subrecipient relationship.
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
1 of 15
B.
Equipment Purchases and Title
Any contractor equipment purchases supported in whole or in part through this
agreement must be listed in the supporting Equipment Inventory Schedule.
Equipment means tangible, non-expendable, personal property having useful
life of more than one (1) year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit.
Title to items having a unit acquisition cost of less than $5,000 shall vest with
the Contractor upon acquisition. The Department reserves the right to retain or
transfer the title to all items of equipment having a unit acquisition cost of
$5,000 or more, to the extent that the Department’s proportionate interest in
such equipment supports such retention or transfer of title.
C.
Deviation Allowance
A deviation allowance modifying an established budget category by $10,000 or
15%, whichever is greater, is permissible without prior written approval of the
Department. Any modification or deviations in excess of this provision,
including any adjustment to the total amount of this agreement, must be made
in writing and executed by all parties to this agreement before the modifications
can be implemented. This deviation allowance does not authorize new
categories, subcontracts, equipment items or positions not shown in the
attached Program Budget Summary and supporting detail schedules.
3.
Purpose: The focus of the program is to: See Attachment 1.
4.
Statement of Work: The Contractor agrees to undertake, perform and complete the
services described in Attachment 2, which is part of this agreement through reference.
5.
Financial Requirements: The financial requirements shall be followed as described
in Part II of this agreement and Attachment 5, which are part of this agreement through
reference.
6.
Performance/Progress Report Requirements: The progress reporting methods, as
applicable, shall be followed as described in Attachment 4, which is part of this
agreement through reference.
7.
General Provisions: The Contractor agrees to comply with the General Provisions
outlined in Part II, which is part of this agreement through reference.
8.
Administration of the Agreement:
The person acting for the Department in administering this agreement (hereinafter
referred to as the Contract Manager) is:
Nancy
Bennett
Name, Location/Building
Title
Telephone No.
[email protected]
Email Address
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
2 of 15
9.
10.
Special Conditions:
A.
This agreement is valid upon approval by the Governor’s Office as appropriate
and approval and execution by the Department.
B.
This agreement is conditionally approved subject to and contingent upon the
availability of funds.
C.
The Department will not assume any responsibility or liability for costs incurred
by the Contractor prior to the signing of this agreement.
Special Certification:
The individual or officer electronically accepting this Agreement certifies by his or her
acceptance that he or she is authorized to accept this agreement on behalf of the
responsible governing board, official or Contractor.
11.
Authorized Official:
For the CONTRACTOR
Kurt
Kimball
Name
City Manager
Title
The Authorized Official’s typed name, in lieu of a signature, represents the Contractor’s legal
binding acceptance of the terms of this Grant Agreement including Certifications and
Assurances agreed to prior to application submission (Attachment 7).
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
3 of 15
Part II
General Provisions
I.
Responsibilities - Contractor
The Contractor in accordance with the general purposes and objectives of this
agreement will:
A.
Publication Rights
1.
Where activities supported by this agreement produce books, films, or
other such copyrightable materials issued by the Contractor, the
Contractor may copyright such but shall acknowledge that the
Department reserves a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable
license to reproduce, publish and use such materials and to authorize
others to reproduce and use such materials. This cannot include service
recipient information or personal identification data.
2.
Any copyrighted materials or modifications bearing acknowledgment of
the Department’s name must be approved by the Department prior to
reproduction and use of such materials.
“This project was supported by grant project #2006-DJ-BX-0029,
awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice and administered by the Michigan
Department of Community Health/Office of Drug Control Policy. Points of
view or opinions contained within this document are those of the author
and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the
U.S. Department of Justice, or the Michigan Department of Community
Health.”
3.
B.
The Contractor shall give recognition to the Department in any and all
publications papers and presentations arising from the program and
service contract herein; the Department will do likewise.
Fees
Make reasonable efforts to collect 1st and 3rd party fees, where applicable, and
report these as outlined by the Department’s fiscal procedures.
Any
underrecoveries of otherwise available fees resulting from failure to bill for
eligible services will be excluded from reimbursable expenditures.
C.
Program Operation
Provide the necessary administrative, professional, and technical staff for
operation of the program.
D.
Reporting
Utilize all report forms and reporting formats required by the Department at the
effective date of this agreement, and provide the Department with timely review
and commentary on any new report forms and reporting formats proposed for
issuance thereafter.
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
4 of 15
E.
Record Maintenance/Retention
Maintain adequate program and fiscal records and files, including source
documentation to support program activities and all expenditures made under
the terms of this agreement, as required. Assure that all terms of the
agreement will be appropriately adhered to and that records and detailed
documentation for the project or program identified in this agreement will be
maintained for a period of not less than three (3) years from the date of
termination, the date of submission of the final expenditure report or until
litigation and audit findings have been resolved.
F.
Authorized Access
Permit upon reasonable notification and at reasonable times, access by
authorized representatives of the Department, Federal Grantor Agency,
Comptroller General of the United States and State Auditor General, or any of
their duly authorized representatives, to records, files and documentation
related to this agreement, to the extent authorized by applicable state or federal
law, rule or regulation.
G.
Audits
This section only applies to Contractors designated as subrecipients.
Contractors designated as vendors are exempt from the provisions of this
section.
1.
Required Audit or Notification Letter
Contractors must submit to the Department a Single Audit, Financial
Statement Audit, or Audit Status Notification Letter as described below. If
submitting a Single Audit or Financial Statement Audit, Contractors must
also submit a Corrective Action Plan for any audit findings that impact
MDCH-funded programs and management letter (if issued) with a
response.
a.
Single Audit
Contractors that expend $500,000 or more in federal awards
during the Contractor’s fiscal year must submit to the Department
a Single Audit prepared consistent with the Single Audit Act
Amendments of 1996, and Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and
Non-Profit Organizations,” (as revised).
b.
Financial Statement Audit
Contractors exempt from the Single Audit requirements that
receive $500,000 or more in total funding from the Department in
State and Federal grant funding must submit to the Department a
Financial Statement Audit prepared in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards (GAAS). Contractors exempt from
the Single Audit requirements less than $500,000 of total
Department grant funding must submit to the Department a
Financial Statement Audit prepared in accordance with GAAS if
the audit includes disclosures that may negatively impact MDCH-
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
5 of 15
funded programs including, but not limited to fraud, going concern
uncertainties, financial statement misstatements, and violations of
contract and grant provisions.
c.
Audit Status Notification Letter
Contractors exempt from both the Single Audit and Financial
Statement Audit requirements (a. and b. above) must submit an
Audit Status Notification Letter that certifies these exemptions
(Attachment 6).
2.
Due Dates and Where to Send
The required audit and any other required submissions (i.e. Corrective
Action Plan and management letter with a response), or audit Status
Notification Letter must be submitted to the Department within nine
months after the end of the Contractor’s fiscal year to :
Michigan Department of Community Health
Office of Audit
Quality Assurance and Review Section
P.O. Box 30479
Lansing, Michigan 48909-7979
For Express Delivery:
Capitol Commons
400 S. Pine Street
Lansing, MI 48933
3.
Penalty
a.
Delinquent Single Audit or Financial Statement Audit
If the Contractor does not submit the required Single Audit
reporting package, management letter, and Corrective Action
Plan; or the Financial Statement Audit and management letter
within nine months after the end of the Contractor’s fiscal year and
an extension has not been approved by the cognizant or oversight
agency for audit, the Department may withhold from the current
funding an amount equal to five percent of the audit year’s grant
funding (not to exceed $200,000) until the required filing is
received by the Department. The Department may retain the
amount withheld if the Contractor is more than 120 days
delinquent in meeting the filing requirements and an extension
has not been approved by the cognizant or oversight agency for
audit. The Department may terminate the current grant if the
Contractor is more than 180 days delinquent in meeting the filing
requirement and an extension has not been approved by the
cognizant agency for audit.
b.
Delinquent Audit Status Notification Letter
Failure to submit the Audit Status Notification Letter, when
required, may result in withholding from the current funding an
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
6 of 15
amount equal to one percent of the audit year’s grant funding until
the Audit Status Notification Letter is received.
H.
Subrecipient/Vendor Monitoring
The Contractor must ensure that each of its subrecipients comply with the
Single Audit Act requirements. The Contractor must issue management
decisions on audit findings of their subrecipients as required by OMB Circular
A-133.
The Contractor must also develop a subrecipient monitoring plan that
addresses “during the award monitoring” of subrecipients to provide
reasonable assurance that the subrecipient administers Federal awards in
compliance with laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts, and that
performance goals are achieved. The subrecipient monitoring plan should
include a risk-based assessment to determine the level of oversight, and
monitoring activities such as reviewing financial and performance reports,
performing site visits, and maintaining regular contact with subrecipients.
The Contractor must establish requirements to ensure compliance for for-profit
subrecipients as required by OMB Circular A-133, Section .210(e).
The Contractor must ensure that transactions with vendors comply with laws,
regulations, and provisions of contracts or grant agreements in compliance with
OMB Circular A-133, Section .210 (f).
I.
Notification of Modifications
Provide timely notification to the Department, in writing, of any action by its
governing board or any other funding source that would require or result in
significant modification in the provision of services, funding or compliance with
operational procedures.
J.
Software Compliance
The Contractor must ensure that software compliance and compatibility with the
Department’s data systems for services provided under this agreement
including but not limited to: stored data, databases, and interfaces for the
production of work products and reports. All required data under this
agreement shall be provided in an accurate and timely manner without
interruption, failure or errors due to the inaccuracy of the Contractor’s business
operations for processing date/time data.
K.
Human Subjects
The Contractor agrees to submit all research involving human subjects, which is
conducted in programs sponsored by the Department, or in programs that
receive funding from or through the State of Michigan, to the Department’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval prior to the initiation of the
research.
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
7 of 15
II.
Responsibilities - Department
The Department in accordance with the general purposes and objectives of this
agreement will:
A.
Reimbursement
Provide reimbursement in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
agreement based upon appropriate reports, records, and documentation
maintained by the Contractor.
B.
Report Forms
Provide any report forms and reporting formats required by the Department at
the effective date of this agreement, and provide to the Contractor any new
report forms and reporting formats proposed for issuance thereafter at least
ninety (90) days prior to their required usage in order to afford the Contractor an
opportunity to review and offer comment.
III.
Assurances
The following assurances are hereby given to the Department:
A.
Compliance with Applicable Laws
The Contractor will comply with applicable federal and state laws, guidelines,
rules and regulations in carrying out the terms of this agreement. The
Contractor will also comply with all applicable general administrative
requirements such as OMB Circulars covering cost principles, grant/agreement
principles, and audits in carrying out the terms of this agreement.
B.
Anti-Lobbying Act
The Contractor will comply with the Anti-Lobbying Act, 31 USC 1352 as revised
by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 2 USC 1601 et seq, and Section 503 of
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 104-208). Further, the
Contractor shall require that the language of this assurance be included in the
award documents of all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts,
subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans and cooperative agreements) and
that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
C.
Non-Discrimination
1.
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
In the performance of any contract or purchase order resulting herefrom,
the Contractor agrees not to discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment or service delivery and access, with respect to
their hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment,
programs and services provided or any matter directly or indirectly
related to employment, because of race, color, religion, national origin,
ancestry, age, sex, height, weight, marital status, physical or mental
disability unrelated to the individual’s ability to perform the duties of the
particular job or position or to receive services. The Contractor further
agrees that every subcontract entered into for the performance of any
contract or purchase order resulting herefrom will contain a provision
requiring non-discrimination in employment, service delivery and access,
8 of 15
as herein specified binding upon each subcontractor. This covenant is
required pursuant to the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, 1976 PA 453, as
amended, MCL 37.2201 et seq., and the Persons with Disabilities Civil
Rights Act, 1976 PA 220, as amended, MCL 37.1101 et seq., and any
breach thereof may be regarded as a material breach of the contract or
purchase order.
2.
D.
Additionally, assurance is given to the Department that proactive efforts
will be made to identify and encourage the participation of minority
owned and women owned businesses, and businesses owned by
persons with disabilities in contract solicitations. The Contractor shall
incorporate language in all contracts awarded:
(1) prohibiting
discrimination against minority owned and women owned businesses
and businesses owned by persons with disabilities in subcontracting;
and, (2) making discrimination a material breach of contract.
Debarment and Suspension
Assurance is hereby given to the Department that the Contractor will comply
with Federal Regulation, 45 CFR Part 76 and certifies to the best of its
knowledge and belief that it, its employees and its subcontractors:
E.
1.
Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment,
declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by
any federal department or contractor;
2.
Have not within a three-year period preceding this agreement been
convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for
commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,
attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local)
transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of federal or
state antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery,
bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements,
or receiving stolen property;
3.
Are not presently indicted or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a
government entity (federal, state or local) with commission of any of the
offenses enumerated in section 2, and;
4.
Have not within a three-year period preceding this agreement had one or
more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or
default.
Federal Requirement: Pro-Children Act
1.
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
Assurance is hereby given to the Department that the Contractor will
comply with Public Law 103-227, also known as the Pro-Children Act of
1994, 20 USC 6081 et seq, which requires that smoking not be permitted
in any portion of any indoor facility owned or leased or contracted by and
used routinely or regularly for the provision of health, day care, early
childhood development services, education or library services to children
under the age of 18, if the services are funded by federal programs either
directly or through state or local governments, by federal grant, contract,
loan or loan guarantee. The law also applies to children’s services that
9 of 15
are provided in indoor facilities that are constructed, operated, or
maintained with such federal funds. The law does not apply to children’s
services provided in private residences; portions of facilities used for
inpatient drug or alcohol treatment; service providers whose sole source
of applicable federal funds is Medicare or Medicaid; or facilities where
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) coupons are redeemed. Failure to
comply with the provisions of the law may result in the imposition of a
civil monetary penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation and/or the
imposition of an administrative compliance order on the responsible
entity. The Contractor also assures that this language will be included in
any subawards, which contain provisions for children’s services.
2.
F.
The Contractor also assures, in addition to compliance with Public Law
103-227, any service or activity funded in whole or in part through this
agreement will be delivered in a smoke-free facility or environment.
Smoking shall not be permitted anywhere in the facility, or those parts of
the facility under the control of the Contractor. If activities or services are
delivered in facilities or areas that are not under the control of the
Contractor (e.g., a mall, restaurant or private work site), the activities or
services shall be smoke-free.
Hatch Political Activity Act and Intergovernmental Personnel Act
The Contractor will comply with the Hatch Political Activity Act, 5 USC 15011508, and the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970, as amended by Title VI
of the Civil Service Reform Act, Public Law 95-454, 42 USC 4728. Federal funds
cannot be used for partisan political purposes of any kind by any person or
organization involved in the administration of federally assisted programs.
G.
Subcontracts
Assure for any subcontracted service, activity or product:
1.
That a written subcontract is executed by all affected parties prior to the
initiation of any new subcontract activity. Exceptions to this policy may
be granted by the Department upon written request within 30 days of
execution of the agreement.
2.
That any executed subcontract to this agreement shall require the
subcontractor to comply with all applicable terms and conditions of this
agreement. In the event of a conflict between this agreement and the
provisions of the subcontract, the provisions of this agreement shall
prevail.
A conflict between this agreement and a subcontract, however, shall not
be deemed to exist where the subcontract:
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
a.
Contains additional non-conflicting provisions not set forth in this
agreement;
b.
Restates provisions of this agreement to afford the Contractor the
same or substantially the same rights and privileges as the
Department; or,
10 of 15
c.
H.
Requires the subcontractor to perform duties and/or services in
less time than that afforded the Contractor in this agreement.
3.
That the subcontract does not affect the Contractor’s accountability to
the Department for the subcontracted activity.
4.
That any billing or request for reimbursement for subcontract costs is
supported by a valid subcontract and adequate source documentation on
costs and services.
5.
That the Contractor will submit all copies of executed subcontracts to the
Department.
Procurement
Assure that all purchase transactions, whether negotiated or advertised, shall
be conducted openly and competitively in accordance with the principles and
requirements of OMB Circular A-102 as revised, implemented through
applicable portions of the associated “Common Rule” as promulgated by
responsible federal contractor(s), or OMB Circular A-110 as amended, as
applicable, and that records sufficient to document the significant history of all
purchases are maintained for a minimum of three years after the end of the
agreement period.
I.
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
To the extent that this act is pertinent to the services that the Contractor
provides to the Department under this agreement, the Contractor assures that it
is in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) requirements including the following:
1.
The Contractor must not share any protected health data and information
provided by the Department that falls within HIPAA requirements except
to a subcontractor as appropriate under this agreement.
2.
The Contractor must require the subcontractor not to share any
protected health data and information from the Department that falls
under HIPAA requirements in the terms and conditions of the
subcontract.
3.
The Contractor must only use the protected health data and information
for the purposes of this agreement.
4.
The Contractor must have written policies and procedures addressing
the use of protected health data and information that falls under the
HIPAA requirements. The policies and procedures must meet all
applicable federal and state requirements including the HIPAA
regulations. These policies and procedures must include restricting
access to the protected health data and information by the Contractor’s
employees.
5.
The Contractor must have a policy and procedure to report to the
Department unauthorized use or disclosure of protected health data and
information that falls under the HIPAA requirements of which the
Contractor becomes aware.
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
11 of 15
J.
6.
Failure to comply with any of these contractual requirements may result
in the termination of this agreement in accordance with Part II, Section V.
Termination.
7.
In accordance with HIPAA requirements, the Contractor is liable for any
claim, loss or damage relating to unauthorized use or disclosure of
protected health data and information received by the Contractor from
the Department or any other source.
Supplanting
The Contractor will comply with Federal requirements concerning supplanting.
Funds must be used to supplement existing funds for program activities and not
to replace those funds, which have been appropriated for the same purpose;
potential supplanting will be the subject of application review, as well as preaward review, post-award monitoring and audit.
Supplanting means to deliberately reduce state or local funds because of
existence of federal funds (e.g., when state funds are appropriated for a stated
purpose and federal funds are awarded for that same purpose, the state
replaces its state funds with federal funds, thereby reducing the total amount
available for the stated purpose).
IV.
Financial Requirements
A.
Reimbursement Method
The Contractor will be reimbursed in accordance with the staffing grant
reimbursement method as follows:
Reimbursement from the Department is based on the understanding that
Department funds will be paid up to the total Department allocation as agreed to
in the approved budget. Department funds are first source after the application
of fees and earmarked sources unless a specific local match condition exists.
B.
Financial Status Report Submission
Financial Status Reports (FSRs) shall be prepared and submitted to:
MAGIC-Intelligrants
www.michigan.gov/MAGIC
FSRs must be submitted on a monthly basis, no later than thirty (30) days after
the close of each calendar month. The monthly FSRs must reflect total actual
program expenditures, regardless of the source of funds. Attachment 5
contains the FSR form. The FSR form and instructions for completing the FSR
form are available through your MAGIC-Intelligrants.
Failure to meet financial reporting responsibilities as identified in this agreement
may result in withholding future payments.
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
12 of 15
C.
Reimbursement Mechanism
All contractors must sign up through the on-line vendor registration process to
receive all State of Michigan payments as Electronic Funds Transfers
(EFT)/Direct Deposits. Vendor registration information is available through the
Department of Management and Budget’s web site:
•
D.
www.cpexpress.state.mi.us
Final Obligations and Financial Status Report Requirements
1.
Preliminary Close Out Report
A Preliminary Close Out Report, based on annual guidelines, must be
submitted by the due date using the format provided by the Department’s
Accounting Division. The Contractor must provide an estimate of total
expenditures for the entire agreement period. The information on the
report will be used to record the Department’s year-end accounts
payables and receivables for this agreement
2.
Final FSRs
Final FSRs are due sixty (60) days following the end of the fiscal year or
agreement period. The final FSR must be clearly marked “Final”. Final
FSRs not received by the due date may result in the loss of funding
requested on the Preliminary Close Out Report and may result in the
potential reduction in the subsequent year’s agreement amount.
E.
Unobligated Funds
Any unobligated balance of funds held by the Contractor at the end of the
agreement period will be returned to the Department or treated in accordance
with instructions provided by the Department.
V.
Agreement Termination
The Department may cancel this agreement without further liability or penalty to the
Department for any of the following reasons:
A.
This agreement may be terminated by either party by giving thirty (30) days
written notice to the other party stating the reasons for termination and the
effective date.
B.
This agreement may be terminated on thirty (30) days prior written notice upon
the failure of either party to carry out the terms and conditions of this
agreement, provided the alleged defaulting party is given notice of the alleged
breach and fails to cure the default within the thirty (30) day period.
C.
This agreement may be terminated immediately if the Contractor or an official of
the Contractor or an owner is convicted of any activity referenced in Section
III.D. of this agreement during the term of this agreement or any extension
thereof.
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
13 of 15
VI.
Final Reporting Upon Termination
Should this agreement be terminated by either party, within thirty (30) days after the
termination, the Contractor shall provide the Department with all financial, performance
and other reports required as a condition of this agreement. The Department will
make payments to the Contractor for allowable reimbursable costs not covered by
previous payments or other state or federal programs. The Contractor shall
immediately refund to the Department any funds not authorized for use and any
payments or funds advanced to the Contractor in excess of allowable reimbursable
expenditures. Any dispute arising as a result of this agreement shall be resolved in
the State of Michigan.
VII.
Severability
If any provision of this agreement or any provision of any document attached to or
incorporated by reference is waived or held to be invalid, such waiver or invalidity shall
not affect other provisions of this agreement.
VIII.
Amendments
Any changes to this agreement will be valid only if made in writing and accepted by all
parties to this agreement. Any change proposed by the Contractor which would affect
the Department funding of any project, in whole or in part in Part 1, Section 2.C. of the
agreement, must be submitted in writing to the Department through MAGICIntelligrants for approval immediately upon determining the need for such change.
IX.
Liability
A.
All liability to third parties, loss, or damage as a result of claims, demands,
costs, or judgments arising out of activities, such as direct service delivery, to
be carried out by the Contractor in the performance of this agreement shall be
the responsibility of the Contractor, and not the responsibility of the Department,
if the liability, loss, or damage is caused by, or arises out of, the actions or
failure to act on the part of the Contractor, any subcontractor, anyone directly or
indirectly employed by the Contractor, provided that nothing herein shall be
construed as a waiver of any governmental immunity that has been provided to
the Contractor or its employees by statute or court decisions.
B.
All liability to third parties, loss, or damage as a result of claims, demands,
costs, or judgments arising out of activities, such as the provision of policy and
procedural direction, to be carried out by the Department in the performance of
this agreement shall be the responsibility of the Department, and not the
responsibility of the Contractor, if the liability, loss, or damage is caused by, or
arises out of, the action or failure to act on the part of any Department
employee or agent, provided that nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver
of any governmental immunity by the State, its agencies (the Department) or
employees as provided by statute or court decisions.
C.
In the event that liability to third parties, loss, or damage arises as a result of
activities conducted jointly by the Contractor and the Department in fulfillment of
their responsibilities under this agreement, such liability, loss, or damage shall
be borne by the Contractor and the Department in relation to each party's
responsibilities under these joint activities, provided that nothing herein shall be
construed as a waiver of any governmental immunity by the Contractor, the
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
14 of 15
State, its agencies (the Department) or their employees, respectively, as
provided by statute or court decisions.
X.
Conflict of Interest
The Contractor and the Department are subject to the provisions of 1968 PA 317, as
amended, MCL 15.321 et seq, MSA 4.1700(51) et seq, and 1973 PA 196, as
amended, MCL 15.341 et seq, MSA 4.1700 (71) et seq.
XI.
State of Michigan Agreement
This is a State of Michigan Agreement and is governed by the laws of Michigan. Any
dispute arising as a result of this agreement shall be resolved in the State of Michigan.
XII.
Confidentiality
Both the Department and the Contractor shall assure that medical services to and
information contained in medical records of persons served under this agreement, or
other such recorded information required to be held confidential by federal or state
law, rule or regulation, in connection with the provision of services or other activity
under this agreement shall be privileged communication, shall be held confidential,
and shall not be divulged without the written consent of either the patient or a person
responsible for the patient, except as may be otherwise required by applicable law or
regulation. Such information may be disclosed in summary, statistical, or other form,
which does not directly or indirectly identify particular individuals.
DCH-0665FY2006 2/05 (W)
15 of 15
ATTACHMENT 1
PURPOSE
70973-6-07-B
The Metropolitian Enforcement Team (M.E.T.) is a multijurisdictional task force targeting
mid to upper-level drug traffickers in Kent County. This continuing project emphasizes
the cooperation of local, state and federal agencies to disrupt and dismantle trafficking
organizations.
ATTACHMENT 2
STATEMENT OF WORK
70973-6-07-B
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The multi-jurisdictional approach to investigate drug crimes used by the Metropolitan
Enforcement Team Board of Directors will continue in fiscal year 2006-2007. MET will
continue to coordinate its efforts with other law enforcement agencies in Kent County
including the Kent Narcotics Team, Grand Rapids Police Department’s Vice Unit and Major
Case Team, Kentwood Vice, and federal agencies such as DEA, FBI, ATF, ICE, Border Patrol,
and IRS. Cases that meet federal guidelines will be pursued through the federal system
when appropriate. The Kent County Prosecutor’s Office, will assist in the coordination
and prosecution of MET investigations. The Money Laundering Unit of the Michigan
Attorney’s General Office will also be utilized in consultation with the Kent County
Prosecutor.
MET will continue its two team investigative approach. MET will consist of two teams a
Conspiracy Crimes Team/Suburban Enforcement Team, and an Criminal Interdiction Team. MET
investigations will be coordinated with other investigations in the county involving mid
and upper level traffickers.
Both the teams are responsible to the MET Section Commander. The Section Commander is a
Detective First Lieutenant with the Michigan State Police and is responsible for the day
to day operations and supervision of MET. He serves as a liasion with a variety of local
agencies, enforcement units, and other governmental bodies. He will also focus on
enhancement of informantion sharing, cooperative enforcement, stabilized personnel
assignments, increased commitment and funding.
Both teams assigned to MET are supervised by a Team Leaders who is a Michigan State
Police Detective Lieutenant. The duties of the team leader include the supervision and
investigative efforts of the assigned team. They will coordinate both overt and covert
programs of conventional and conspiracy syle investigations, drug purchases,
surveillance, search warrants, knock and talks, etc. They are responsible to ensure that
team personnel are properly trained, equipped and supervised. The team leaders keep the
Section Commander apprised of day to day operations of their respective teams.
The Conspiracy Crimes/Suburban Enforcement Team will concentrate on identifying and
arresting mid to upper-level dealers operating in Kent County. This team will respond to
assist patrol officers throughout Kent County when requested. Their primary focus is to
conduct investigations to the highest level utilizing undercover purchases of controlled
substances.
Once organizations are identified they will continue the investigation focussing on
large-scale narcotics trafficking and money laundering. The people involved will be
targeted if their actions affect Kent County even though they may not be based in or
reside in Kent County. This team will utilize all possible criminal and civil actions to
attack and disrupt drug organizations. The team will also utilize the agencies
identified in the above paragraphs. The team will continue to utilize the services of
the Michigan State Police Detective Sergeant assigned to the Grand Rapids DEA Task Force
to coordinate these investigations through the federal system.
The Interdiction Team will focus on hotels and public transportation in Kent County
including air, rail and bus stations. Their focus will be identifying large shipments of
ATTACHMENT 2
STATEMENT OF WORK
narcotics and seizing those before they are distributed on the street.
seize cash being collected by the same organizations.
They will also
In order to implement the investigation of drug crimes the Metropolitan Enforcement Team
will emphasize the following:
1. Identify, investigate and arrest those individuals involved in trafficking and
manufacturing controlled substances, including those who have successfully avoided
traditional enforcement methods, through aggressive enforcement of the Michigan Public
Health Code and other applicable state and federal statutes.
2. Maximize the use of STATIS by members of MET and encourage its use by other agencies
investigating drug trafficking in the region. Meet formally and informally with other
teams to exchange current information of mutual interest concerning major targets in the
region.
3. Work with other drug investigative agencies in Kent County to focus and allocate
investigative efforts to maximize our resources and manpower to have the greatest effect
on controlled substance offenders. Utilize the services available through the Michigan
HIDTA Deconfliction Center to provide a safe and effective work environment that
encourages communications between different teams working toward the same goal.
4. Employ a zero tolerance policy concerning all drug offenses to have a maximum impact
on any and all drug offenders encountered during MET investigations.
5. Coordinate interdiction efforts with federal and locl jurisdictions at hotels and
transportation centers to capitalize on the vulnerability of drug traffickers while they
are in public places with a diminished expectation of privacy.
6. Target the assets of drug traffickers wherever those assets may be found to take the
profit out of drug organizations and dissuade their existence.
7. Continue the intelligence gathering and provide proactive enforcement action
concerning the increasing use of Ecstasy and other designer drugs by young people in the
area. This includes investigations into both RAVE parties and the promoters who organize
these events.
8. Provide training and information to other agencies or groups that investigate drug
trafficking or are adversely effected by the existence of drug traffickers. This
training and information would be expected to generate additional cases and encourage the
sharing of information. In addition, ensure that all MET personnel are receiving that
latest training available concerning narcotics investigation, raid planning and entry,
and financial investigation.
9. Work with Protective Services to provide timely notification to that agency regarding
situations of potential abuse and neglect involving children who are residing in
situations where controlled substances are being sold, manufactured or abused. Contact
the state auditor general when appropriate concerning incidents where people are
collecting public assistance benefits while dealing in controlled substances.
ATTACHMENT 2
STATEMENT OF WORK
10. Continue joint enforcement efforts through partnerships with the Grand Rapids Police
Department Vice Unit and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to participate in
“Project Exile.” This project targets drug dealers who are in possession of firearms.
Although the local prosecution has been successful, "Project Exile" has offered a more
stringent avenue to prosecute drug dealers found to be in possession of firearms
resulting in those individuals being removed from the streets for a longer time. In
cooperation with ATF and the U. S. Attorney, all cases involving a firearm will be
reviewed by the local prosecutor and referred to ATF for adoption when appropriate.
The Prosecutor positions, which are general-fund positions, include the following
objectives:
1. Continue service to MET on a full-time basis with emphasis on the enforcement of
controlled substance laws. Pursue drug forfeiture efforts with the goal of increasing
drug-related forfeiture to maintain funding for the MET office and at the same time
utilize the deterrent effect of the forfeiture statutes.
2. Increase prosecution and pursuit of repeat drug offenders utilizing supplemental
charges through continued prioritizing and screening procedures of controlled substance
offenses. Maintain the vertical prosecution system to follow through on prosecution in a
knowledgeable and efficient manner.
3. Screen MET cases for suitability for prosecution under the guidelines established
under “Project Exile” and refers such cases to the U. S. Attorney. The partnership
concerning “Project Exile” should reduce violent crime and remove firearms from the
streets that are most likely to be used in violent acts associated with the drug trade
which often impact innocent bystanders.
4. Periodically update and train MET investigators and other interested enforcement
officers regarding changes in laws and court opinions to maximize law enforcement’s
effectiveness. This should in turn assist the prosecutor in that better cases will be
presented, maximum convictions obtained, and completed in an expeditious manner.
5. Work with the Michigan Attorney’s General Office, Money Laundering Task Force and the
United States Attorney’s Office to coordinate the prosecution of narcotics organizations
in order to destroy such organizations and their ability to launder money. At the
federal level these cases will be coordinated through the appropriate agency and when
possible include the State Police Detective assigned to the DEA Taskforce in Grand
Rapids.
6. Provide legal expertise and guidance to assure that all the legal resources available
are used to target and prosecute controlled substance violators to the highest point
possible.
The office assistant position funded by
MET includes the following objectives:
1. Provide office support in the form of typing all MET investigative reports through
dictation and the typing of interview transcripts necessary for court presentation.
2. Answer MET telephones, direct calls for service to investigators, and maintain the MET
ATTACHMENT 2
STATEMENT OF WORK
telephone system.
3. Maintain and train new employees on all MET office equipment.
4. Assist with MET bookkeeping to include Informant accounts, and ensuring payroll
documents are forwarded on time.
5. Supporting the administrative aspect of MET to assist the section commander with
correspondence, filing, preparation of monthly, quarterly, and annual reports. Attend
various MET meetings to include the board meetings and team meetings to take minutes and
prepare written summaries. Assist in scheduling for the section commander and unit
commanders.
6. Be skilled in various State Police and City Police databases to prepare reports and
train new officers in the use of AICS, STATIS, ALTARIS, and various Microsoft software
applications.
The administrative assistant position which is MET funded includes the following
objectives:
1. Maintain the section’s property room to include maintaining, periodic auditing to
include the mandatory state police audits, and final disposition of all property seized
by MET investigators. This includes both property of an evidentiary nature and all
property seized under forfeiture statutes. This requires a good working knowledge of the
State Police AICS report system. Transports MET evidence to the crime lab for analysis
and return same for proper storage while maintaing a chain of evidence that will stand up
in court.
2. Serve as a liaison with the Prosecutor, Attorney General, US Attorney, City Treasurer,
banks, and auctioneers to dispose of forfeited property.
3. Maintain and monitor cash receipts concerning seized money and restitution. Ensure
that the appropriate entries are made in Quicken and with the City Treasurer’s office so
bills are paid on time and to the proper vendor.
4. Order supplies for the MET office. Serve as a contact person for the vehicle fleet to
ensure that cars are serviced and maintained on schedule and assigned to the proper
department and billed accordingly.
The office assistant and administrative assistant remove a tremendous work burden from
the investigators assigned to MET. In doing so, MET investigators are available to
conduct more investigations in a timely manner and are free from the administrative tasks
that must be completed to ensure compliance with department policies, state law, and
rules of evidence. By having these two positions filled it is estimated that it will
relate to having two to two and a half-extra investigators actually doing investigative
work.
In the past, MET has been successful in meeting the goals established for it by the Board
of Directors and the ODCP. Intelligence information generated by MET investigators has
enabled other local and federal agencies to make significant cases. While working
ATTACHMENT 2
STATEMENT OF WORK
together exchanging information and coordinating enforcement efforts drug organizations
operating in Kent County can be crushed and put out of business.
The Metropolitan Enforcement Team is guided by a Board of Directors comprised of the
chiefs of police of Grand Rapids, Kentwood and Wyoming, the Kent County Sheriff, the Kent
County Prosecuting Attorney, Michigan State Police command, the FBI and the DEA. Such a
framework ensures a responsible coordinated response to the community’s drug enforcement
needs and will also provide the continuity necessary to improve upon the success of the
Metropolitan Enforcement Team. Members of the MET Board of Directors are:
Chairman Chief Richard Mattice, Kentwood Police Department
Vice Chair Steven Harper, Michigan State Police, Rockford Post –
Board Members
Sheriff Larry Stelma, Kent County Sheriff Department
Chief Harry P. Dolan, Grand Rapids Police Department
Acting Chief Major John Lind, Wyoming Police Department
Captain Charles Bush – Michigan State Police, CID, Lansing
Mr. William Forsyth – Kent County Prosecuting Attorney
Ex-officio Board Members
RAC Mike Yasenchak – Drug Enforcement Administration
SAC Jim Robertson – Federal Bureau of Investigation
D/F/Lt. Chris McIntire
– MET Section Commander – Secretary/Treasurer
Current commitments to the Metropolitan Enforcement Team are as follows:
Grand Rapids Police Department
2 Patrol OfficersInvestigatorsGrant Funded
1 D/Sergeant
Asst. Team Leader
Kent County Prosecutor's Office
3 Prosecuting AttorneysProsecution UnitGeneral Fund
1 Paralegal Assist.Prosecution UnitGeneral Fund
MET Funded
ATTACHMENT 2
STATEMENT OF WORK
1 Deputy SheriffInvestigatorGrant Funded
Kentwood Police Department
1 Patrol Officer InvestigatorGrant Funded
Michigan State Police
1 D/F/LieutenantTask Force Comdr.General Fund
1 D/LieutenantTeam LeadersGeneral Fund
1 D/LieutenantTeam LeadersGrant Funded
1 D/SergeantAsst. Team LeaderGrant Funded
1 TrooperInvestigatorGeneral Fund
East Grand Rapids Department of Public Safety
1 Patrol Officer
InvestigatorGeneral Fund
Wyoming Police Department
1 Patrol Officer
InvestigatorGrant Funded
Drug Enforcement AdministationGeneral Fund
1 Special Agent
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
1 Special AgentGeneral Fund
Metropolitan Enforcement Team
1 Administrative AssistantMET Funded
1 Office AssistantMET Funded
ATTACHMENT 3
PROGRAM BUDGET SUMMARY
View at 100% or Larger
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH
Use WHOLE DOLLARS Only
PROGRAM
DATE PREPARED
CONTRACTOR NAME
1
10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
AMENDMENT #
BUDGET AGREEMENT
300 Monroe Ave, N.W.
STATE
Grand Rapids
Of
1
BUDGET PERIOD
MAILING ADDRESS (Number and Street)
CITY
Page
7/7/2006
M.E.T.
MI
AMENDMENT X
X ORIGINAL
ZIP CODE
FEDERAL ID NUMBER
38-6004689
49503
TOTAL BUDGET
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
1. SALARIES & WAGES
$60,068
$60,068
(Use Whole Dollars)
$120,136
2. FRINGE BENEFITS
$19,179
$19,179
$38,358
$256,753
$256,753
$513,506
$336,000
$336,000
$672,000
$0
$0
$0
$336,000
$336,000
$672,000
$205,939
$205,939
3. TRAVEL
4. SUPPLIES & MATERIALS
5. CONTRACTUAL (Subcontracts/Subrecipients)
6. EQUIPMENT
7. OTHER EXPENSES
8. TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES
(Sum of Lines 1-7)
9. INDIRECT COSTS:
10. TOTAL EXPENDITURES
0%
SOURCE OF FUNDS
11. FEES & COLLECTIONS
12. STATE AGREEMENT
$336,000
$336,000
13. LOCAL
$0
$0
14. FEDERAL
$130,061
$130,061
15. OTHER(S)
$0
$0
$336,000
$672,000
16. TOTAL FUNDING
$336,000
AUTHORITY: P.A. 368 of 1978
COMPLETION: Is Voluntary, but is required as a condition of funding
The Department of Community Health is an equal
opportunity employer, services and programs provider.
DCH-0385(E) (Rev 2-05) (W) Previous Edition Obsolete. Also Replaces FIN-
ATTACHMENT 3
PROGRAM BUDGET COST DETAIL
PROGRAM
CODE
M.E.T.
70973-6-07-B
POSITIONS
REQUIRED
Grand Rapids Police Department
Detective wages including overtime
1
BUDGET PERIOD
10/1/2006
ORIGINAL BUDGET
1. SALARY AND WAGES
Page
to
2
2
DATE PREPARED
9/30/2007
AMENDED BUDGET
TOTAL
SALARY
of
7/7/2006
AMENDMENT NUMBER
COMMENTS
$120,136
2 Full time detectives
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES
2. FRINGE BENEFITS (specify)
FICA
LIFE INS.
DENTAL INS
UNEMPLOY INS.
VISION INS.
WORK COMP
RETIREMENT
HEARING INS.
HOSPITAL INS.
OTHER
COMPOSITE RATE
AMOUNT ___________________________ %
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
$
3. TRAVEL (specify if any item exceeds 10% of Total Expenditures)
$
4. SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS (specify if any item exceeds 10% of Total Expenditures)
$
5. CONTRACTUAL (SUBCONTRACTS)
NAME
ADDRESS
Kent County Sheriff Departmen 701 Ball Grand Rapids MI
Wyoming Police Department
2300 Dehoop Wyoming, MI 49505
Kentwood Police Department
4742 Walma Ave. Kentwood, MI 49512
AMOUNT
$38,321
$46,403
$41,968
$38,321
$46,403
$41,968
$
6. EQUIPMENT (specify)
$
7. OTHER EXPENSES (specify if any item exceeds 10% of Total Expenditures)
$
8. TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES (sum of Totals 1-7)
$
9. INDIRECT COST CALCULATIONS
$
Rate
10. TOTAL EXPENDITURES (sum of lines 8-9)
$
DCH-0386FY2002(E) (W) 6/2001
COMPLETION IN A CONDITION OF FUNDING
ATTACHMENT 3
PROGRAM BUDGET COST DETAIL
PROGRAM
CODE
M.E.T.
70973-6-07-B
POSITIONS
REQUIRED
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES
2
BUDGET PERIOD
10/1/2006
ORIGINAL BUDGET
1. SALARY AND WAGES
Page
to
2
2
DATE PREPARED
9/30/2007
AMENDED BUDGET
TOTAL
SALARY
of
7/7/2006
AMENDMENT NUMBER
COMMENTS
$120,136
2. FRINGE BENEFITS (specify)
X
X
X
FICA
LIFE INS.
DENTAL INS
UNEMPLOY INS.
VISION INS.
WORK COMP
RETIREMENT
HEARING INS.
HOSPITAL INS.
OTHER
COMPOSITE RATE
AMOUNT ___________________________ %
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
$
$38,358
$
$0
$
$0
$
$513,506
$
$0
$
$0
$
$672,000
$
$0
$
$672,000
3. TRAVEL (specify if any item exceeds 10% of Total Expenditures)
4. SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS (specify if any item exceeds 10% of Total Expenditures)
5. CONTRACTUAL (SUBCONTRACTS)
NAME
Michigan State Police (D/Lt.,
ADDRESS
AMOUNT
$130,061
$130,061
6. EQUIPMENT (specify)
7. OTHER EXPENSES (specify if any item exceeds 10% of Total Expenditures)
8. TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES (sum of Totals 1-7)
9. INDIRECT COST CALCULATIONS
Rate 0%
$0
$0
10. TOTAL EXPENDITURES (sum of lines 8-9)
DCH-0386FY2002(E) (W) 6/2001
COMPLETION IN A CONDITION OF FUNDING
ATTACHMENT 4
PERFORMANCE / PROGRESS REPORT REQUIREMENTS
A.
The Contractor shall submit the following reports on the following dates:
Program reports must be downloaded from the ODCP Law Enforcement Section web site:
www.michigan.gov/odcplawenforcement. Then click: Forms and select your program area
report.
Reports are submitted quarterly and must be attached to the MAGIC System. Directions
for attaching Progress Reports are located on the MAGIC Help Screens.
Reports are due to the Office of Drug Control Policy no later than: January 30, 2007,
April 30, 2007, July 30, 2007, and October 30, 2007. Failure to submit timely,
complete, and accurate progress reports may delay reimbursement and could result in
grant closure.
Financial Status Reports (FSR) must be submitted on a monthly basis, no later than
thirty (30) days after the close of each calendar month. The monthly FSRs must reflect
the total actual program expenditures, regardless of the source of funds. Attachment 5
contains the FSR form. The FSR form and instructions for completing the FSR form are
available through your MAGIC-Intelligrants.
B.
Any such other information as specified in the Statement of Work, Attachment A
shall be developed and submitted by the Contractor as required by the Contract
Manager.
C.
Reports and information shall be submitted to the Contract Manager at:
D.
The Contract Manager shall evaluate the reports submitted as described in
Attachment C, Items A. and B. for their completeness and adequacy.
E.
The Contractor shall permit the Department or its designee to visit and to make
an evaluation of the project as determined by Contract Manager.
ATTACHMENT 5
FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT
BPO Number
Contract Number
Page
Local Agency Name
Program
Code
Street Address
Report Period
Date Prepared
Final
Thru
City, State, ZIP Code
Of
Agreement Period
FE ID Number
Thru
Expenditures
Current Period
Agreement YTD
Category
Agreement
Budget
Balance
1. Salaries & Wages
2. Fringe Benefits
3. Travel
4. Supplies & Materials
5. Contractual (Sub-Contracts)
6. Equipment
7. Other Expenses
8. TOTAL DIRECT
9a.Indirect Costs: Rate#1%
9b.Indirect Costs: Rate#2%
10. TOTAL EXPENDITURES
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
11. State Agreement
12. Local
13. Federal
14. Other
15. Fees & Collections
16. TOTAL FUNDING
CERTIFICATION: I certify that I am authorized to sign on behalf of the local agency and that this is an accurate statement of expenditures and collections for
the report period. Appropriate documentation is available and will be maintained for the required period to support costs and receipts reported.
Authorized Signature
Date
Contact Person Name
Title
Telephone Number
FOR STATE USE ONLY
Advance
INDEX
PCA
A OBJ. CODE
AMOUNT
Advance Outstanding
Advance Issued or Applied
Balance
Message
Authority: P.A. 368 of 1978
Completion: is a Condition of Reimbursement
DCH-0384(E) (Rev. 4/04) (W) Previous Edition Obsolete
The Department of Community Health is an equal opportunity,
employer, services, and programs provider.
ATTACHMENT 6
AUDIT STATUS NOTIFICATION LETTER
(Required for subrecipient Contactors claiming exemption from audit submission requirements)
Please fill in the following information, sign after the statement below and mail this form to:
Michigan Department of Community Health, Office of Audit, Quality Assurance and Review
Section, P.O. Box 30479, Lansing, MI 48909-7979 or fax it to: (517) 338-5443. Form is due to
the Department within nine months after the end of the Contractor’s fiscal year. Please do
not submit this form with your signed agreement.
Agency
____________________________________________________________________
Name:
Address:
_________________________________________________________________________
Federal
ID
________________________________________________________________
For
Agency’s
Fiscal
Year
_________________________________________
Agency
Contact
Person
(Name,
_____________________________________________
Ended
Title,
Number:
(month/date/year):
Phone
#):
The purpose of this letter is to comply with Michigan Department of Community Health
(MDCH) grant contract audit requirements. I certify that the agency listed above expended
less than $500,000 in federal awards from all funding sources, and expended less than
$500,000 total MDCH funding. I also certify that our agency’s financial statement audit did not
include any disclosures related to current or prior years that could negatively impact MDCHfunded programs. Therefore, we are not required to submit either a Single Audit or Financial
Statement Audit to MDCH.
____________________________________________________
Signature
____________________________________________________
Print Name/Title
___________________________________________
Date
ATTACHMENT 7
CERTIFICATIONS, ASSURANCES &
DRUG COURT ADDENDUM
Non-Supplanting
The Byrne Memorial Formula Grant Program and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant require that
federal funds not be used to supplant state or local funds. The applicant must assure that federal
funds will not be used to replace or supplant state or local funds, but will be used to increase the
amount of such funds that would, in the absence of federal funds, be made available for law
enforcement activities.
Certification Regarding Lobbying
Each person shall file the most current edition of this certification and disclosure form, if applicable,
with each submission that initiates agency consideration of such person for an award of a Federal
contract, grant, or cooperative agreement of $100,000 or more; or Federal loan of $150,000 or more.
This certification is a material presentation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this
transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or
entering into this transaction imposed by section 132, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file
the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than
$100,000 for each such failure.
The Contractor certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress,
an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection
with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any
Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement.
2. If any non-Federal funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress,
an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection
with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the Authorized Official will
complete and submit Standard Form, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities”, in accordance with its
instructions.
3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award
documents for all subawards at all tiers and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose
accordingly.
Certification Regarding Debarment
This certification is required by the regulations implementing Executive Order 12549, Debarment and
Suspension, 28 CFR Part 67, Section 67.510, Participants’ responsibilities. The regulations were
published as Part VIII of May 26, 1988 Federal Register (pages 19160-19211).
1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it
nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal
department or agency.
ATTACHMENT 7
2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this
certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
Assurances
The applicant hereby assures and certifies compliance with all Federal statutes, regulations, policies,
guidelines and requirements, including OMB Circulars No. A-21, A-110, A-122, A-128, A-87; E.O.
12372 and Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements – 28 CFR,
Part 66, Common Rule, that govern the application, acceptance and use of Federal funds for this
federally-assisted project. Also the applicant assures and certifies that:
1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant; that a resolution, motion or similar action has
been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant’s governing body, authorizing
the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, and
directing and authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the applicant to
act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be
required.
2. It will comply with requirements of the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 P.L. 91-646, which provides for fair and equitable
treatment of persons displaced as a result of Federal and federally-assisted programs.
3. It will comply with provisions of Federal law, which limit certain political actives of employees of
a State or local unit of government whose principal employment is in connection with an
activity financed in whole or in party by Federal grants (5 USC 1501, et seq.).
4. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, if applicable.
5. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that is
or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or
others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties.
6. It will give the sponsoring agency or the Comptroller General, through any authorized
representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents
related to the grant.
7. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the Federal-sponsoring agency concerning
special requirements of law, program requirements, and other administrative requirements.
8. It will insure that the facilities under its ownership, lease or supervision which shall be utilized
in the accomplishment of the project are not listed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) list of Violating Facilities and that it will notify the Federal grantor agency of the receipt
of any communication from the Director of the EPA Office of Federal Activities indicating that a
facility to be used in the project is under consideration for listing by the EPA.
ATTACHMENT 7
9. It will comply with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102 (a) of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Public Law 93-234, 87 Stat. 975, approved December 31,
1976, Section 102 (a) requires, on and after March 2, 1975, the purchase of flood insurance in
communities where such insurance is available as a condition for the receipt of any Federal
financial assistance for construction or acquisition purposes for use in any area that has been
identified by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development as an area
having special flood hazards. The phrase “Federal financial assistance” includes any form of
loan, grant, guaranty, insurance payment, rebate, subsidy, disaster assistance loan or grant, or
any other form of direct or indirect Federal assistance.
10. It will assist the Federal grantor agency in its compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 USC 470), Executive Order 11593, and the
Archeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 569a-1et seq.) by (a)
consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer on the conduct of investigations, as
necessary, to identify properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places that are subject to adverse effects (see 36 CFR Part 800.0) by the activity, and
notifying the Federal grantor agency of the existence of any such properties, and by (b)
complying with all requirements established by the Federal grantor agency to avoid or mitigate
adverse effects upon such properties.
11. It will comply, and assure the compliance of all its subgrantees and contractors, with the
applicable provisions of Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as
amended, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, or the Victims of Crime Act, as
appropriate; the provisions of the current edition of the Office of Justice Programs Financial
and Administrative Guide for Grants, M7100.1; and all other applicable Federal laws, orders,
circulars or regulations.
12. It will comply with the provisions of 28 CFR applicable to grants and cooperative agreements
including Part 18, Administrative Review Procedure, Part 20, Criminal Justice Information
Systems; Part 22, Confidentiality of Identifiable Research and Statistical Information; Part 23,
Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies; Part 30, Intergovernmental Review of
Department of Justice Programs and Activities; Part 42, Nondiscrimination/Equal Employment
Opportunity Policies and Procedures; Part 61, Procedures for Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act; Part 63, Floodplain Management and Wetland Protection
Procedures, and Federal laws or regulations applicable to Federal assistance programs.
13. It will comply, and all its contractors will comply, with the nondiscrimination requirements of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, 42 USC 3789 (d), or
Victims of Crime Act (as appropriate); Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended;
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; Subtitle A, Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990); Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975; Department of Justice Non-Discrimination Regulations, 28 CFR
Part 42, Subparts C, D, E, and G; and Department of Justice regulations on disability
discrimination, 28 CFR Part 35 and Part 39.
14. In the event of a Federal or State court or Federal or State administrative agency makes a
finding of discrimination after a due process hearing on the grounds of race, color, religion,
national origin, sex or disability against a recipient of funds, the recipient will forward a copy of
the findings to the Office for Civil Rights, Office of Justice Programs.
ATTACHMENT 7
15. It will provide an Equal Employment Opportunity Program if required to maintain one.
16. It will comply with the provisions of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) dated
October 19, 1982 (16 USC 3501 et seq.), which prohibits the expenditure of most new Federal
funds within the units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
Unallowable Expenses and Activities
1. Construction costs and/or renovation.
2. Costs in applying for this grant (e.g. consultants, grant writers, etc.)
3. Any expenses incurred prior to the date of the contract.
4. Indirect costs rates or indirect administrative expenses (only direct costs permitted).
5. Lobbying or advocacy for particular legislative or administrative reform.
6. Legal fees.
7. First class travel.
8. One-time events, prizes, entertainment (i.e., tours, excursions, amusement parks, sporting
events).
9. Management or administrative training, conferences (only pre-approved project related
training).
10. Management studies or research and development (costs related to evaluation is permitted).
11. Honorariums.
12. Fines and penalties.
13. Fund raising and any salaries or expenses associated with it.
14. Purchase of land.
15. Losses from uncollectible bad debts.
16. Memberships and agency dues, unless a specific requirement of the project (prior approval
required).
17. Contributions and donations.
18. Compensation to federal or state employees for travel or consulting fees.
19. Military type equipment such as armored vehicles, explosive devices, and other items typically
associated with the military arsenal.
Conditions on Expenses
1. Costs must be reasonable and necessary. If required by the parent agency, costs must be
sustained by competitive bids. All contracts and subcontracts require prior approval by the
Office of Drug Control Policy. If detailed information is not included as part of the application
process, the grantee must submit a request seeking approval once the subcontractors are
identified.
2. Individual consultant fees are limited to $450 (excluding travel, lodging and meal costs) per
day, which includes legal, medical, psychological and accountant consultants. If the rate will
exceed $450 for an eight-hour day, written approval is required from the Office of Drug Control
Policy. Compensation for individual consultant services is to be responsible and consistent
with that paid for similar services in the market place.
3. Food and beverage costs require prior written approval. The written proposal must include a
working agenda of planned activity. Breakfasts and dinners will generally not be paid.
ATTACHMENT 7
Program Income
The Department of Justice regulations allow grantees to keep funds (program income) derived from
grant activities, so long as these funds are used for the same purposes as the grant project. In the
absence of such regulations, these funds would be required to be returned to the Department of
Justice.
Asset forfeiture and lab fees are the most prominent program income derived from grant activity.
Department of Justice regulations require that program income be held in the custody of a
governmental entity, with reporting on those funds to the state agency administering the Byrne
Justice Assistance Grants.
Program Income Reports are to be filed quarterly, and are attached to the supplied Quarterly
Progress Reports.
ADDENDUM for DRUG TREATMENT COURTS (ONLY)
ATTACHMENT 7
The Agency agrees to undertake, perform, and complete the additional services as described below.
It is understood and agreed that all other conditions of the original agreement remain the same.
1.
The Contractor is required to submit copies of the subcontractors’ Quarterly Program Reports
that detail the progress of each Drug Court program funded. Contractors must submit such
reports to the Department by the following dates:
January 30, 2007
April 30, 2007
July 30, 2007
October 30, 2007
2.
The Contractor shall refer to the Violent Offender definition outlined in the Michigan Public Act
No. 224 and ensure that such offenders will be excluded from drug court programs.
3.
The Contractor must comply with the Key Components of Drug Courts as specified by the U.S.
Department of Justice, Drug Courts Program Office and the National Association of Drug Court
Professionals and as outlined by the following:
Key Component #1
Drug Courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services
with justice system case processing.
Key Component #2
Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense
counsel promote public safety while protecting participants’ due
process rights.
Key Component #3
Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the
Drug Court program.
Key Component #4
Drug Courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and
other related treatment and rehabilitation services.
Key Component #5
Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing.
Key Component #6
A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to
participants’ compliance.
Key Component #7
Ongoing judicial interaction with each Drug Court participant is
essential.
Key Component #8
Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program
goals and gauge effectiveness.
Key Component #9
Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective Drug
Court planning, implementation, and operations.
Key Component #10
Forging partnerships among Drug Courts, public agencies, and
community-based organizations generates local support and
enhances Drug Court effectiveness.
4.
In collaboration with the local Substance Abuse Coordinating Agency and consistent with the
Memorandum of Understanding or agreement, contractors receiving substance abuse
treatment dollars through the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant must use licensed and
accredited substance abuse treatment providers.
5.
The Contractor agrees that funds awarded under this grant will not be used to support any
inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization. If the
Contractor refers participants to, or provides, a non-Federally funded program or service that
incorporates such religious activities, (1) any such activities must be voluntary for program
participants, and (2) program participants may not be excluded from participation in a program
or otherwise penalized or disadvantaged for any failure to accept a referral or services. If
participation in a non-Federally funded program or service that incorporates inherently religious
activities is deemed a critical treatment or support service for program participants, the
Contractor agrees to identify and refer participants who object to the inherently religious
activities of such program or service to, or provide, a comparable secular alternative program
or service.
6.
The Contractor must ensure that Drug Court participants are employed, seeking employment,
or engaged in activities to enable them to be employed.
7.
The Contractor must ensure that a plea by participants is required; no deferred prosecution.
8.
The Contractor must ensure that treatment and rehabilitative services provided are based
upon a comprehensive assessment of participant needs. Participation in cognitive behavioral
and restructuring, 12-step, and other faith-based programs is encouraged.
9.
The Contractor must ensure that participants make some payment toward Drug Court costs.
Payments may be on a sliding fee scale, ability to pay basis.
*Byrne JAG funded Drug Treatment Courts through MDCH Office of Drug Control Policy
DATE:
November 15, 2006
TO:
KURT KIMBALL
City Manager
FROM:
CATHERINE M. MISH
Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT:
PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIMS - JULY 17, 2006
TAMARACK NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER BACKUPS
The attached resolution allows for net payment (less direct payment to vendors) by the City to
homeowners following the July 2006 sewer backups. (Please note that the attached resolution
relates to the Tamarack neighborhood.)
We would be pleased to answer any questions that you or the Commission may have, at the
November 21, 2006 session of the Fiscal Committee.
CMM/sll
Attachment.
cc/Attach.: Mayor George Heartwell
Philip Balkema, City Attorney
Eric DeLong, Deputy City Manager
Scott Buhrer, Chief Financial Officer
Your Fiscal Committee recommends adoption of the following resolution authorizing
payment of a property damage claim.
FISCAL COMMITTEE
Com. _____________________________, supported by Com. ______________________,
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Attorney is authorized to compromise and settle on behalf
of the City of Grand Rapids the pending property damage claims for the following address:
Name
Brown, Dennis & Brenda
Address
1437 Tamarack NW
Settlement
to Claimant
$5,346.68
Paid to Vendor(s)
$6,138.69
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Comptroller is hereby authorized and directed to
issue a check to the above-named homeowner in the net amount, consistent with the release.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said check is to be drawn from the Tamarack
mitigation fund established with the City of Grand rapids.
This resolution document drafted/reviewed by:
Catherine M. Mish, Assistant City Attorney
Yeas
Nays
_____
Bliss
_____
_____
Jendrasiak
_____
_____
Lumpkins
_____
_____
Schmidt
_____
_____
Tormala
_____
_____
White
_____
_____
Mayor Heartwell
_____
Yeas:
_____
Nays:
_____
Adopted:
_____
Failed:
_____
DATE:
November 15, 2006
TO:
KURT KIMBALL
City Manager
FROM:
CATHERINE M. MISH, Assistant City Attorney
ELIZABETH R. WHITE, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT:
PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIMS - JULY 17, 2006
The attached resolution allows for net payment (less direct payment to vendors) by the City to
homeowners following the July 2006 sewer backups. (Please note that the attached resolution
does not relate to the Tamarack neighborhood.)
We would be pleased to answer any questions that you or the Commission may have, at the
November 21, 2006 session of the Fiscal Committee.
CMM-ERW/cl
Attachment.
cc/Attach.: Mayor George Heartwell
Philip Balkema, City Attorney
Eric DeLong, Deputy City Manager
Scott Buhrer, Chief Financial Officer
Your Fiscal Committee recommends adoption of the following resolution authorizing
payment of property damage claims.
FISCAL COMMITTEE
Com. _____________________________, supported by Com. ______________________,
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Attorney is authorized to compromise and settle on behalf
of the City of Grand Rapids the pending property damage claims for the following addresses:
Address
1255 Ionia SW
Cook Composites and Polymers, Inc. 1415 Steele Ave. SW
Harper, Karen
1228 VanPortfliet NW
Santoyo, Jamie
1535 Roosevelt SW
Name
Colter, Carol
Settlement
to Claimant
$4,027.49
$69,136.88
$2,740.84
$5,113.17
Paid to Vendor
$4,008.38
$2,575.10
$749.10
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Comptroller is hereby authorized and directed to
issue checks to the above-named claimants in the net amounts, consistent with the release.
This resolution document drafted/reviewed by:
Catherine M. Mish, Assistant City Attorney
Elizabeth R. White, Assistant City Attorney
Yeas
Nays
_____
Bliss
_____
_____
Jendrasiak
_____
_____
Lumpkins
_____
_____
Schmidt
_____
_____
Tormala
_____
_____
White
_____
_____
Mayor Heartwell
_____
Yeas:
_____
Nays:
_____
Adopted:
_____
Failed:
_____
DATE:
November 16, 2006
TO:
Scott Buhrer
Chief Financial Officer
FROM:
Gail Warren
Budget Analyst
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED MODIFICATION FOR FY2007 BUDGET ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT # 14
1) Engineering – Improvements to Filter Cells #9, 12, 13 and 14 at the LMFP
In a companion agenda item, a resolution awarding a contract a Rahm Industrial Services,
Inc. and authorizing Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. pursuant to a professional
engineering services agreement to provide construction engineering/inspection phase
services in connection with the above-mentioned project will be presented to the City
Commission for its consideration/approval. This budget amendment would provide the
funding from the Water Supply System Fund Revenue Bonds (See Attachment A).
This would authorize an increase in the estimated revenues and appropriations in the
amount of $1,671,000 in the Water Supply System Fund. There would be no effect on
Retained Earnings.
Attachment A
DATE:
November 15, 2006
TO:
Scott Buhrer
FROM:
Rick DeVries, P.E.
Acting City Engineer
SUBJECT:
Request for Water System Fund Budget Amendment –
Improvements to Filter Cells #9, 12, 13, and 14 at the Lake Michigan
Filtration Plant
On November 21, 2006 a resolution awarding a contract to Rahm Industrial Services, Inc. and
authorizing Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. pursuant to a professional engineering
services agreement to provide construction engineering/inspection phase services in connection
with the above-captioned project will be presented to the City Commission for its consideration/
approval. Approval of the following budget amendment will provide the funding necessary for the
project. These costs will be paid from Water System Fund Revenue Bonds. Please include this
request in your next budget amendment.
Sources/Appropriations
Project Description
Amount
(From)/To
Water System Fund Revenue Bonds
4390530-986-216954
LMFP-Filter Cells #9, 12, 13, & 14
LMFP-Filter Cells #9, 12, 13, & 14
($1,671,000)
$1,671,000
If you have any questions, please advise. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
RDV/TLH/sb
cc:
Eric DeLong
Joellen Thompson
Mike Wolski
Linda Wagenmaker
Gary Mortensen
Nancy Recker
Gail Warren
Ruth Lueders
Tracy Hover
t:\cd06\budget\FC LMFP filter cells amdmt
112106
#05111
FOR IMMEDIATE EFFECT
YOUR FISCAL COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following amendment to the Budget
Ordinance for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2007.
_____________________________________
CORRECT IN FORM
_____________________
_____________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
_____________________________________
FISCAL COMMITTEE
Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:
ORDINANCE NO. 2006 ________
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS DO ORDAIN:
Section 1. That the following constitutes amended additions to the designated line items of Section 1 of
Ordinance 2006-38, the Budget of the City of Grand Rapids for Fiscal Year 2006-2007, as amended
previously.
Drafted by: Gail Warren, Budget Analyst.
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM FUND
Resources:
Other
From (To) Retained Earnings
Total Amended Resources
1,671,000
45,014,821
Appropriations:
Operations and Maintenance
Total Amended Appropriations
1,671,000
45,014,821
Yeas
Nays
_____
Bliss
_____
_____
Jendrasiak
_____
_____
Lumpkins
_____
_____
Schmidt
_____
_____
Tormala
_____
_____
White
_____
_____
Mayor Heartwell
_____
Yeas:
_____
Nays:
_____
Adopted:
_____
Failed:
_____
Your Fiscal Committee recommends the adoption of the following resolution authorizing
the Purchasing Agent to proceed with awards to the following bidders.
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
Fiscal Committee
Com.________________________, supported by Com._______________________
moved adoption of the following resolution.
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Committee has considered the attached bids.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Purchasing Agent be authorized to
proceed with awards to the following bidders, that contracts be prepared between the City
and for the vendors noted (*) that the Mayor be authorized to sign the contracts on behalf
of the City in a form to be approved by the City Attorney.
Tony Betten Ford
(Patrol Cars)
Wieland International
(Aerial Bucket Truck)
(Dump Trucks)
Hamlett Engineering
(Isco Lab Equipment, Components)
Slingerland Chrysler Dodge
(Fleet Vehicles)
Standard Electric
(Modicon Controller Components)
Freedom Fence
(Fencing & Guardrail Repairs)
Various Prices
Various Prices
Various Prices
Various Prices
Various Prices
Various Prices
Various Prices
This resolution drafted by Scott Buhrer 11/21/06
Yeas
Nays
_____
Bliss
_____
_____
Jendrasiak
_____
_____
Lumpkins
_____
_____
Schmidt
_____
_____
Tormala
_____
_____
White
_____
_____
Mayor Heartwell
_____
Yeas:
_____
Nays:
_____
Adopted:
_____
Failed:
_____
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
11/21/06
Following are brief reports relative to bids, which have been taken and evaluated by the Purchasing
Department. Award of the bids as listed is hereby recommended.
Scott Buhrer
Purchasing Agent
Tony Betten Ford
(Patrol Cars)
Various Prices
Low bid is recommended for the purchase of twenty-seven patrol cars and three supervisor cars for Motor
Equipment Systems from Tony Betten Ford for $635,541.00. These are replacement vehicles for the
Police Department. The City reserves the right to use an installment purchase agreement to pay for this
purchase or to issue debt to reimburse itself for fund advanced for this purchase. The Vendor’s Affirmative
Action Plan has been approved.
(Aerial Bucket Truck)
Various Prices
Only bid received is recommended for the purchase of two aerial bucket trucks with two trade-ins for Motor
Equipment Systems from Wieland International for $257,293.52 less $47,000.00 for trade-ins for a net total
of $210,293.52. These are replacement vehicles for the Forestry Division of the Streets Department. The
City reserves the right to use an installment purchase agreement to pay for this purchase or to issue debt
to reimburse itself for fund advanced for this purchase. The Vendor’s Affirmative Action Plan has been
approved.
(Dump Trucks)
Various Prices
Only bid received is recommended for the purchase of three 35k dump trucks and two 52k dump trucks for
Motor Equipment Systems from Wieland International for $532,570.70. These are replacement vehicles
for the Streets, Water, and Sewer Maintenance Departments. The City reserves the right to use an
installment purchase agreement to pay for this purchase or to issue debt to reimburse itself for fund
advanced for this purchase. The Vendor’s Affirmative Action Plan has been approved.
Hamlett Engineering
(Isco Lab Equipment, Components)
Various Prices
O.E.M. (Original Equipment Manufacturer) authorized distributor is recommended for a one-year “Term”
with two, one-year renewal options for the purchase of Isco component parts for the Wastewater Treatment
Plant from Hesco for an annual of $29,086.97. The Vendor’s Affirmative Action Plan has been approved.
Slingerland Chrylser Dodge
(Fleet Vehicles)
Various Prices
Low bid is recommended for the purchase of fleet vehicles from Slingerland Chrysler Dodge for
$41,241.50. The Vendor’s Affirmative Action Plan has been approved.
Standard Electric
(Modicon Controller Components)
Various Prices
Only bid received is recommended for a one-year “Term” with two, one-year renewal options for the
purchase of Modicon controller components for the Wastewater Treatment Plant from Standard Electric for
an annual of $43,190.41. The other vendors chose not to bid at this time. The Vendor’s Affirmative Action
Plan has been approved.
Freedom Fence
(Fencing & Guardrail Repairs)
Various Prices
On 05/26/06, file #75013, the City Commission approved a one-year “Term” with two, one-year renewal
options for fencing and guardrails repairs and replacements for the Parks, Facilities Management, Streets,
Wastewater, Impound, Parking, and Water Departments from Freedom fence for the annual of $25,000.00.
Due to greater than expected usage it is recommended to increase the annual by $10,000.00, for a new
annual of $35,000.00. There is no bid tab for this item. The Vendors’ Affirmative Action Plan has been
approved.
page1 of 1
BID TAB
BID REF #071-05-02
BID OPENING DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2006
FOR: PATROL CARS
# BIDDERS SOLICITED: 18
BUYER: AMIE MERREN
DEPT: MOTOR EQUIPMENT
ITEM 1
27 EA
FORD
CROWN
VICTORIA
$/EA
ITEM 2
3 EA
FORD
CROWN
VICTORIA
$/EA
$21,340.00
$21,708.00
$21,579.93
$21,646.93
$21,172.00
$21,299.00
PHILLIPS FORD
BORGMAN FORD
TONY BETTEN FORD
CASH
DISCOUNTS
INCENTIVE
DISCOUNTS
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
2ND TIER
JOINT
VENTURE
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
WORKFORCE TARGETED
DIVERSITY ACQUISITION
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
INCOME
TAX
INCENTIVE
GENERAL
TARGET
AREA
page1 of 1
BID TAB
BID REF #072-07-01
BID OPENING DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2006
FOR: AERIAL TRUCKS
BUYER: AMIE MERREN
ITEM 1
2 EA
52-FT
AERIAL
TRUCK
$/EA
ITEM 2
1 EA
1996
INT'L
TRADE IN
$/EA
ITEM 3
1 EA
1996
INT'L
TRADE IN
$/EA
CASH
DISCOUNTS
INCENTIVE
DISCOUNTS
$128,646.76
$23,500.00
$23,500.00
2%
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
2ND TIER
JOINT
VENTURE
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
WORKFORCE TARGETED
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
INCOME
TAX
INCENTIVE
GENERAL
TARGET
AREA
WIELAND INTERNATIONAL
2%
page1 of 1
BID TAB
BID REF #072-08-02
FOR: DUMP TRUCKS
BUYER: AMIE MERREN
ITEM 1
3 EA
35K
DUMP
TRUCK
$/EA
ITEM 2
2 EA
52K
DUMP
TRUCK
$/EA
CASH
DISCOUNTS
INCENTIVE
DISCOUNTS
$112,302.18
$97,832.08
1%
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
2ND TIER
JOINT
VENTURE
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
WORKFORCE TARGETED
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
INCOME
TAX
INCENTIVE
GENERAL
TARGET
AREA
WIELAND INTERNATIONAL
1%
page1 of 4
BID TAB
BID REF #493-62-23
ITEM 1
ITEM 2
1 EA
1 HR
FOR: LAB EQUIPMENT, ISCO
ISCO
4150 SERIES
4150 SERIES DATALOGGER
BUYER: RALPH JOHNSON
DATALOGGER
REPAIR
DEPT: WWTP
$/EA
$/HR
ITEM 3
ITEM 4
ITEM 5
ITEM 6
ITEM 7
ITEM 8
ITEM 9
ITEM 10
2 EA
1 EA
4 EA
2 EA
5 EA
3 EA
5 EA
5 EA
LOW
PROBE A/V
ISCO
ISCO 6"
ISCO 8"
ISCO 10"
ISCO 12"
ISCO 15"
PROFILE EXTENSION SPREADER MOUNTING MOUNTING MOUNTING MOUNTING MOUNTING
PROBE
CABLE
BAR
RING
RING
RING
RING
RING
$/EA
$/EA
$/EA
$/EA
$/EA
$/EA
$/EA
$/EA
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
$3,097.00
$115.00
$915.00
$200.00
$220.00
$65.00
$65.00
$65.00
$65.00
$65.00
$3,407.70
$137.50
$1,006.50
$220.00
$242.00
$71.50
$71.50
$71.50
$71.50
$71.50
$3,747.37
$151.25
$1,107.15
$242.00
$266.20
$78.65
$78.65
$78.65
$78.65
$78.65
HAMELLET ENGINEERING
page2 of 4
BID TAB
BID REF #493-62-23
ITEM 11
ITEM 12
ITEM 13
5 EA
1 EA
3 EA
18" TO 60"
ISCO
ISCO #1
SCISSOR CONNECTOR CONTACT
RING KIT
ASSEMBLY
PLATE
$/EA
DEPT: WWTP
$/EA
$/EA
ITEM 14
1 EA
ISCO
CASE
LATCH
$/EA
ITEM 15
ITEM 16
5 EA
5 EA
ISCO 4 OZ CASE TOP
DESICCANT GASKET
BAG
BAND
$/EA
$/EA
ITEM 17
5 EA
CASE BOTTOM
GASKET
BAND
$/EA
ITEM 18
2 EA
ISCO
LATCH
PIN
$/EA
ITEM 20
ITEM 21
ITEM 22
2 EA
2 EA
2 EA
ISCO
CONNECTOR CONNECTOR
HINGE
CAP
CAP
PIN
STRAP
GASKET
$/EA
$/EA
$/EA
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
$775.00
$235.13
$23.39
$19.36
$4.27
$11.26
$13.29
$7.56
$14.55
$9.63
$2.76
$852.50
$258.64
$25.73
$21.30
$4.70
$12.39
$14.62
$8.32
$16.00
$10.59
$3.04
$937.75
$284.51
$28.30
$23.43
$5.17
$13.63
$16.08
$9.15
$17.61
$11.65
$3.33
page3 of 4
BID TAB
BID REF #493-62-23
ITEM 23
ITEM 24
2 EA
2 EA
CONNECTOR BATTERY
PROTECTOR CONTACT
CAP
PLATE #2
$/EA
DEPT: WWTP
$/EA
ITEM 25
2 EA
BATTERY
CONTACT
PLATE #3
$/EA
ITEM 26
2 EA
CONTACT
PLATE
PIN
$/EA
ITEM 27
ITEM 28
ITEM 30
ITEM 31
ITEM 32
ITEM 33
5 EA
2 EA
1 EA
1 EA
2 EA
1 EA
ISCO
ZINC
ISCO
ISCO
ISCO
PUMP
O-RING RETAINING SAMPLER SAMPLER SAMPLER
MOTOR
#006
RING
#6712C
#3700C
#GLS
ASSEMBLY
$/EA
$/EA
$/EA
$/EA
$/EA
$/EA
ITEM 34
1 EA
PUMP
MOTOR
ASSEMBLY
$/EA
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
$8.05
$15.74
$18.84
$10.06
$0.41
$0.41
$2,637.20
$2,085.25
$1,610.25
$394.14
$213.70
$8.86
$17.31
$20.72
$11.07
$0.45
$0.45
$2,900.92
$2,293.72
$1,712.28
$433.55
$235.07
$9.75
$19.05
$22.80
$12.17
$0.50
$0.50
$3,191.01
$2,523.09
$1,948.40
$476.91
$258.58
BID TAB
page4 of 4
BID REF #493-62-23
ITEM 35
ITEM 36
ITEM 37
CASH
DISCOUNT: DISCOUNT: DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT: DISCOUNT: DISCOUNT:
1 EA
1 EA
2 EA
DISCOUNTS
ISCO
BOTTLE
ISCO 24 INCENTIVE 2ND TIER
JOINT
WORKFORCE TARGETED
INCOME
GENERAL
PUMP
CARRIER
BOTTLE DISCOUNTS
VENTURE
TAX
TARGET
TUBING W/BOTTLES CARRIER
INCENTIVE
AREA
DEPT: WWTP
$/EA
$/EA
$/EA
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
$375.00
$135.00
$75.00
$412.50
$148.50
$82.50
$453.75
$163.35
$90.75
page1 of 1
BID TAB
BID REF #071-05-03
FOR: FLEET VEHICLES
BUYER: AMIE MERREN
DEPT: POLICE
ITEM 1A
1 EA
CHRYSLER
F PKG
ITEM 1B
1 EA
DODGE
SXT
$/EA
$/EA
CASH
DISCOUNTS
INCENTIVE
DISCOUNTS
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
2ND TIER
JOINT
VENTURE
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
WORKFORCE TARGETED
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
INCOME
TAX
INCENTIVE
GENERAL
TARGET
AREA
NORTHWESTERN DODGE
$21,477.00
K & M DODGE INC
$22,731.00
HIGHLAND CHRYSLER JEEP
$21,447.00
.
SLINGERLAND CHRYSLER DODGE
$20,783.60
$20,457.90
page1 of 1
BID TAB
BID REF #204-27-04
FOR: MODICON COMPONENTS
BUYER: AMIE MERREN
DEPT: WWTP
ITEM 1
MODICON
CONTROLLER
COMPONENTS
ITEMS #1-48
$/TOTAL
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
$38,949.00
STANDARD ELECTRIC
$41,020.66
$43,190.41
CASH
DISCOUNTS
INCENTIVE
DISCOUNTS
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
2ND TIER
JOINT
VENTURE
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
WORKFORCE TARGETED
DISCOUNT:
DISCOUNT:
INCOME
TAX
INCENTIVE
GENERAL
TARGET
AREA
DATE:
November 15, 2006
TO:
Scott Buhrer
FROM:
Jana M. Wallace
Debt and Authority Finance Officer
SUBJECT:
Authorization for Sale of “Series 2006A Municipal Purchase Notes”
Pending Fiscal Committee’s approval of the Bid List at its November 21, 2006 meeting, the
City Commission has considered and approved bids for the acquisition of certain equipment
including aerial bucket trucks, snow control trucks, dump trucks, refuse/recycle trucks, street
sweepers, email and enterprise servers, backup solution hardware and software, and the
financial system replacement. Purchase orders/contracts have been issued, or will be within
24 hours, for the acquisition of this equipment more specifically described in the attachment
following this memorandum. The attached resolution would authorize:
-
-
Issuance and sale of notes in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$4,000,000
The designation of Robert W. Baird & Company as Underwriter for the issue.
The designation of Dickinson Wright PLLC, represented by Richard Wendt, as Note
Counsel for the issue.
The designation of LaSalle Bank National Association or its successor U.S. Bank
National Association as Trustee for the issue.
Authorization for the Mayor, City Clerk, City Manager, Chief Financial Officer and the
City Treasurer to execute all documents necessary to complete this financing
transaction.
The approval of the Preliminary Official Statement in the form as presented at the
Fiscal Committee meeting wherein this resolution will be considered for adoption.
It is intended that this Note Purchase Agreement will be in an amount not to exceed
$4,000,000, will have a term not to exceed fifteen (15) years and, given the current interest
rate environment, it is expected that the interest rate on the notes will approximate 4.5% per
annum. Departmental budget modification requests will be submitted on December 5, 2006
to budget for the deposit and expenditure of note proceeds.
/jmw
YOUR FISCAL COMMITTEE recommends the adoption of the following
resolution authorizing the acquisition of certain personal property through
installment purchase pursuant to Act 99 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1933,
as amended, and through the issuance and sale of municipal purchase notes.
CORRECT IN FORM
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
FISCAL COMMITTEE
Com. ______________, supported by Com. __________, moved the
adoption of the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the City Commission has determined to acquire certain
personal property identified on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"), which
Property is to be used for public purposes; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Act 99 of the Public Acts of Michigan
of 1933, as amended, MCL 123.721, et seq. (the "Act"), the City is authorized to
enter into an agreement or agreements for the purchase of real and personal
property for public purposes, to be paid for in installments over a period not to
exceed the useful life of the property acquired as determined by resolution of the
City Commission (but in no event for a period longer than 15 years); and
WHEREAS, the outstanding balance of all such installment purchases by
the City under the Act, exclusive of interest, shall not exceed one and onequarter percent (1.25%) of the equalized assessed value of the real and personal
property in the City; and
WHEREAS, the purchase of the Property pursuant to installment
purchase agreements will not result in the outstanding balance of all such
installment purchases to be in excess of the limitations contained in the Act as
set forth above; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has received the proposals from the
vendors identified on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Vendors") for the sale to the
City of the Property, which proposals have been reviewed by the City
Commission and the City Commission has previously concluded the proposals of
-2GRAPIDS 60854-147 193443
the Vendors are in the best interest of the City and said proposals have been
approved by the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, in order to finance the installment purchase of the Property,
the City has determined to issue and sell municipal purchase notes in the
aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $4,000,000 to be entitled "City of
Grand Rapids Municipal Purchase Notes, Series 2006A (General Obligation
Limited Tax)" (the "Notes"); and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to authorize the negotiation of
the sale of the Notes to Robert W. Baird & Co. ("Baird") and the setting of the
principal amount, date of issue, the maturity or maturities, interest payment dates
and the rate or rates of interest on the Notes; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to approve the selection of
LaSalle Bank National Association or its successor U.S. Bank National
Association as trustee (the "Trustee"), in connection with the issuance of the
Notes and authorize the Trustee to authenticate the Notes; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to approve the selection of
Dickinson Wright PLLC as note counsel ("Note Counsel") in connection with the
issuance of the Notes; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to pledge the full faith and credit
of the City subject to existing charter, statutory and constitutional tax limitations
as security for the Notes; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the issuance of the Notes the City intends
to enter into an Installment Purchase Contract (the "Contract" and collectively the
"Contracts") with each of the Vendors and the Trustee, a Trust Indenture (the
"Indenture") with the Trustee, and a Note Purchase Agreement (the "Purchase
Agreement") with Baird (the Contracts, the Indenture and the Purchase
Agreement, are collectively referred to as the "Instruments") in connection with
the issuance and sale of the Notes; and it is the desire of the City Commission to
authorize the execution of such Instruments; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to authorize the undertaking of
all such acts necessary to complete the financing of the Property pursuant to the
Act.
RESOLVED:
1.
That the acquisition of the Property is hereby found and declared to
be for valid public purposes and in the best interest of the health, safety and
welfare of the residents of the City.
-3GRAPIDS 60854-147 193443
2.
That the financing of the Property through an installment purchase
plan pursuant to the Act is hereby authorized and approved.
3.
That the issuance and sale of the Notes in the aggregate principal
amount of not to exceed $4,000,000 is hereby approved and the City Manager or
his designee is hereby authorized to approve the principal amount, issuance
date, maturity or maturities, interest payment dates, interest rate or rates,
optional redemption provisions and all other matters and procedures necessary
to complete the issuance and sale of the Notes as permitted by law. The City
Manager or his designee shall, prior to the issuance of the Notes, file with the
City Commission a report with respect to the sale of the Notes. Such report shall
include the principal amount, issuance date, maturity or maturities, interest
payment dates, the interest rate or rates and optional redemption provisions of
the Notes.
4.
That Baird is hereby selected and approved as underwriter for the
Notes and the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to negotiate the
sale of the Notes to Baird.
5.
That Note Counsel is hereby selected and approved as note
counsel in connection with the issuance of the Notes.
6.
That the Mayor, Comptroller and City Clerk are hereby authorized
and directed to sign the Notes by facsimile or original signature for and on behalf
of the City.
7.
That the Trustee is hereby selected and approved as trustee in
connection with the issuance of the Notes and the Trustee is hereby authorized
to authenticate the Notes pursuant to the Indenture.
8.
That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed
to execute the Instruments for and on behalf of the City in a form approved by the
City Manager or his designee and Note Counsel.
9.
That the Preliminary Official Statement related to the Notes
substantially in the form presented at this meeting is approved and the City
further approves the Official Statement to be prepared in conformance with the
Preliminary Official Statement.
10.
That the Property has an average useful life extending beyond the
term of the related Contract and the maturity of the Notes related to such
Property.
11.
That the City hereby agrees to include in its budget for each fiscal
year while the Contracts and Notes are outstanding an amount sufficient to pay,
when due, the principal of and interest coming due on the Notes during such
-4GRAPIDS 60854-147 193443
fiscal year. In addition, the City hereby pledges to levy in each fiscal year ad
valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City in an amount which, together
with other funds available for such purposes, shall be sufficient for the payment
of principal of and interest on the Notes when due. Any such tax levy is,
however, subject to existing charter, statutory and constitutional tax limitations.
12.
The City covenants that, to the extent permitted by law, it shall take
all action within its control necessary to maintain the exclusion of the interest on
the Notes from the adjusted gross income of the holders of the Notes for federal
income tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
13.
The City Manager, Chief Financial Officer of the City, and the City
Treasurer, or any of them or their designees, are hereby directed and authorized
to execute such additional certificates and other documents in a form approved
by Note Counsel as necessary in connection with the issuance and sale of the
Notes.
14.
All resolutions or parts of resolutions insofar as they conflict with
the provisions hereof be and the same hereby are rescinded to the extent of such
conflict.
Prepared by:
Richard A. Wendt, Esq.
Yeas
-5GRAPIDS 60854-147 193443
Nays
_____
Bliss
_____
_____
Jendrasiak
_____
_____
Lumpkins
_____
_____
Schmidt
_____
_____
Tormala
_____
_____
White
_____
_____
Mayor Heartwell
_____
Yeas:
_____
Nays:
_____
Adopted:
_____
Failed:
_____
EXHIBIT A
Vendor
Great Lakes Service Center
Property
3 Refuse/Recycle Trucks (31 yard side loading)
Western Michigan International Truck 1 Refuse/Recycle Truck (12 yard side loading)
d/b/a Wieland International
2 Aerial Bucket Trucks
3 Snow Control Trucks
2 Tandem Dump Trucks
Mainline Information Systems
1 Mainframe, Host and Open System Back-up
Solution Computer System
1 IBM z9-BC Enterprise Server
Tier Technologies, Inc.
1 Client Server Financial System
EDS
7 Email Solution IBM Servers
Bell Equipment Co.
2 Street Sweepers
-6GRAPIDS 60854-147 193443
City
Comptroller
To:
Mayor George Heartwell and City Commissioners
From:
Stan Milanowski, City Comptroller
Subject
COMPTROLLER'S REPORT FOR PERIOD OF
November 8, 2006
THROUGH
November 14, 2006
Cash payments released totaled
$
9,100,608.99 including $ 3,778,666.41 for Payroll expenditures and
$
for Income Tax warrants for the above captioned period.
0 Income Tax Refunds and
684 Accounts Payable checks were issued
including those Accounts Payable checks over $20,000, detailed on the following schedules for your reference. A list of other disbursement
transactions by fund is included in report FAMRS025 on file with the City Clerk. A summary of disbursements by entity follows:
AMOUNT
PAYROLL
ENTITY
Grand Rapids Building Authority
Smart Zone
Downtown Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Authority
Brownfield Redevelopment Authority
Retirement Systems Office
* Museum
Total
$
$
3,734,141.82
20,923.06
3,197.56
1,496.22
7,871.86
1,796.00
9,239.89
3,778,666.41
$
$
OTHER
FUNDING BANK ACCT.
5,190,816.43
83,493.41
1,697.76
140.00
44,426.80
1,088.32
279.86
5,321,942.58
General Bank Acct. -Bank One - 390-6
Community Development Acct. - 5/3B - 663-9
Home Investment Partnership Program - 5/3B - 520-4
1999 & 2003 Street Bonds - 5/3B 758 & 742
1998 & 2004 & 2005 Sewer Bonds - 5/3B 522 & 683 & 531
Various Bank Accounts
CHECKS ISSUED TO VENDORS > $20,000
VENDOR
FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 8, 2006 TO NOVEMBER 14, 2006
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
DEPT
CHECK #
Payroll
948105
Vantagepoint Transfer 457
Payroll
948109
American United Life - Group
20,738.99 (City Employee) 125 Plan PPE 11/3/06
Payroll
948115
MISDU
26,543.69 (City Employee) FOC (Friend Of Court) Withholding - MISDU - PPE 11/3/06
Payroll
948160
Northern Trust Company
Fac. Mgmt
948175
Pitney Bowes
25,000.00 Postage for City Hall Mailroom
Streets & Sanit.
948285
County of Kent
88,745.62 Waste to Energy - 10/1/06-10/15/2006
Engineering
948293
Black & Veatch
36,823.32 Construction Engineering - Eastside CSO No. 2A
Payroll
948317
GR City Treasurer
84,308.74 Employer's Monthly Deposit of Income Tax Withheld - October 2006
Payroll
948324
State of Michigan
370,511.28 Combined Return for Michigan Taxes - October 2006
Pension
948442
Northern Trust Company
322,422.87 (Employer) General, Police/Fire PPE-11/03/2006
Water
948495
Consumers Energy
32,652.39 Electricity - Billing Period 9/23/06-10/23/06
Motor Equip.
948504
Lemmen Oil Co
38,691.28 Regular Unleaded Gas
61st DC
948616
County of Kent
Engineering
948651
Transnation Title Insurance
Comm. Dev.
948741
Grand Rapids Alliance for
Neighborhood Development
Streets & Sanit.
948761
MS Compost LLC
105,593.77 (City Employee ) 457 Plan Withholding ICMA PPE 11/3/06
169,026.73 (City Employee) General, Police/Fire PPE - 11/3/06
490,821.68 City Share of Operationals Expenses for Kent County Courthouse - December 2006
1,314,770.75 Cherry Commerce Parking Ramp- Purchase of Property and Closing Costs
25,664.92 Program Administration and Members Administration - October 2006
138,619.80 (89,880) Yard Waste Bags, (900) Brush Tags, & (1,500) Carts
1
WIRE TRANSFERS
FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 8, 2006 TO NOVEMBER 14, 2006
195,122.28
195,122.28
415,449.29
475,626.54
Employer FICA Pay Date 11/14/06
Employee FICA Pay Date 11/14/06
FIT
BSI Payment
2
SMALL CLAIMS REPORT
October 2006
Page one
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
INCIDENT
CLAIMANT NAME
ADDRESS
CLAIM LOCATION
AMOUNT
EXPLANATION
DATE
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
07/17/06
Augdahl, Joe
VP07-3605 06R0075
616 45th St Clair
Walker, MI
616 45th St. Clair
Walker. MI
$ 200.00
Sewer Backup
06/08/06
Oakview Apartments
VP07-3603 06R0077
1457 Burke
Grand Rapids, MI
1457 Burke
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 291.00
Sewer Backup
07/20/06
Byle, Kevin
VP07-3608 06%0079
215 Elmwood
Grand Rapids, MI
215 Elmwood
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 1,250.00
Sewer Backup
07/18/06
Hubbart, Jill
VP07-3607 06R0080
1711 Center NE
Grand Rapids, MI
1711 Center NE
Grand Rapids, MI
$
155.06
Sewer Backup
07/18/06
Campbell, Karla
VP07-2592 06R0073
1068 Godfrey SW
Grand Rapids, MI
1068 Godfrey SW
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 2,274.00
Sewer Backup
01/02/2006
Cancler, Tina
VP07-3417 06-0225
453 Adams
Grand Rapids, MI
453 Adams
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 998.45
Sewer Backup
06/07/2006
Klinzing, David
VP07-3853 06R0129
519 College Ave SE
Grand Rapids, MI
519 College Ave SE
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 1,440.00
Concrete Work completed incorrectly
Concrete flaking and cracking
07/12/06
Rowerdink, Inc
VP07-3782 06-0157
211 Fuller NE
Grand Rapids, MI
211 Fuller NE
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 160.67
Watermain break
07/18/06
White, Vicki Jo
VP07-3793 06R0089
1143 Fremont NW
Grand Rapids, MI
1143 Fremont NW
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 350.00
Sewer Backup
09/15/06
Ward, Norman
VP07-3594 06-0230
1940 Union SE
Grand Rapids, MI
Market/Williams
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 500.00
City truck from Motor Equipment backed into Claimants
vehicle.
01/2006
Lazzarini, John
VP07-3707 06-0145
2037 Acton NW
Grand Rapids, MI
2037 Acton NW
Grand Rapids, MI
$
Snowplow damaged sprinkler head
06/16/06
Bovenkamp, Margaret
VP07-3975 06-0150
903 Arianna NW
Grand Rapids, MI
903 Arianna NW
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 200.00
City truck damaged chain link fence
02/2006
Jarvis, David
VP07-3977 06-0191
1303 Springdale Dr
Grand Rapids, MI
1303 Springdale Dr
Grand Rapids, MI
$
Snowplow damaged sprinkler head
07/15/06
Kreuyer, Johannes
VP07-3978 06-0192
1022 Garfield NW
Grand Rapids, MI
1022 Garfield NW
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 3,436.50
76.32
85.27
Sewer Maintenance damaged sidewalk, driveway & steps
SMALL CLAIMS REPORT
October 2006
Page two
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
INCIDENT
CLAIMANT NAME
ADDRESS
CLAIM LOCATION
AMOUNT
EXPLANATION
DATE
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
07/18/06
Ellen, Eugene
VP06-4149 06R0087
4619 West Grand Blvd NW
Walker, MI
4619 West Grand Blvd NW
Walker, MI
$ 2,893.49
Sewer Backup
05/15/06
Heintz, Alicia and Chris
VP07-4208 06R0128
1585 Lyon St NE
Grand Rapids, MI
1585 Lyon St NE
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 1,200.00
Sewer Backup
07/17/06
Briggs, William & Andrea
VP07-4219 06R0086
736 Ferndale NW
Walker, MI
736 Ferndale NW
Walker, MI
$ 1,000.00
Sewer Backup
07/18/06
Malcharek, Malgorzata
VP07-4219 06R0088
457 Cummings NW
Grand Rapids, MI
457 Cummings NW
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 2,193.04
Sewer Backup
07/17/06
Sultzsiak, Joe
Vp07-4220 06R0094
2155 Tremont NW
Grand Rapids, MI
2155 Tremont NW
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 4,936.62
Sewer Backup
08/22/06
Denhof, Thelma
VP07-4239 06-0190
1260 N. Dorroll NE
Grand Rapids, MI
1260 N. Dornoll NE
Grand Rapids, MI
$
351.15
Fire Hydrant flushing damaged sprinkler and washer
02/16/06
DTE Energy
VP07-4240 06-0046
444 Wealthy St
Grand Rapids, MI
945 Coventry NW
Grand Rapids, MI
$
811.37
City Water crew damaged underground
gas line which was marked
05/19/06
DTE Energy
VP07-4241 06-0130
444 Wealthy St
Grand Rapids, MI
1141 Sigsbee St SE
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 3,000.00
Sewer maintenance crew damaged underground
gas line
07/17/06
Storms, Brooke & Jeffrey
Vp07-4590 06-0227
739 Faircrest Ave NW
Grand Rapids, MI
739 Faircrest Ave NW
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 4,002.28
Sewer Backup
09/21/06
Maloney, Loren
VP07-4573 06-0262
3255 Oak Hollow SE
Grand Rapids, MI
3255 Oak Hollow SE
Grand Rapids, MI
$
Water crew damaged underground electric fence
07/17/06
Stein, Peter & Sue
VP07-4502 06R0142
1509 Widdicomb NW
Grand Rapids, MI
1509 Widdicomb
Grand Rapids, MI
$ 3,716.51
Sewer Backup
Water
Fire
Snowplow
Misc.
Total
$ 25,460.45
$ 1,061.12
$
351.15
$
161.59
$ 8,576.50
$ 35,610.81
89.08
Sewer Backup
TO: Chairman,Fiscal Committee
City Commission
FROM: CITY COMPTROLLER - Mr. Stan A. Milanowski
SUBJECT:
EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED UNDER COMMISSION POLICY 100-06 & CITY MANAGER'S POLICY 69-3
In accordance with Com. Pro. No. 35342, June 10, 1980 and accompanying resolution, you are
advised that the following monthly reports by City officials, Department heads and City
October-06
employees were charged to the respective travel for
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS TRAVEL REPORT SUMMARY
OCTOBER 2006
IN-STATE
1 EXECUTIVE
MEALS &
LUNCHES
OUT-STATE
MONTHLY
TOTALS
TRAINING
YEAR TO
DATE TOTALS
30.00
0.00
76.65
0.00
106.65
5,973.50
1 CULTURAL SERVICES
6,070.46
0.00
326.01
0.00
6,396.47
9,824.04
2 PLANNING & DEVELOP SERVICES
2,046.65
0.00
503.86
0.00
2,550.51
7,435.23
3 PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
7,810.01
4,709.19
86.07
4,024.59
16,629.86
45,120.92
4 PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
600.63
5 INTERNAL SERVICES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,849.31
6 ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS
2,559.80
1,973.80
90.84
1,029.99
5,654.43
15,010.86
7 NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
1,117.72
3,819.77
0.00
610.62
5,548.11
7,767.09
8 HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES
271.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
271.84
4,011.38
9 FISCAL SERVICES
618.57
3,111.58
0.00
0.00
3,730.15
7,163.81
Monthly TOTALS $
20,525.05
$
13,614.34
$
1,083.43
$
5,665.20
Year to Date TOTALS $
39,975.85
$
43,633.33
$
5,085.90
$
15,792.70
Respectfully Submitted
Stan A. Milanowski
$
40,888.02
$
106,756.77
MONTHLY DETAIL REPORT
October 2006
Page 1 of 9
OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL
ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
WATER SYSTEM
10/20/2006
PARR, JAMES
10/05/06 - 10/10/06
Nat'l Conf. ASLA / Minneapolis, MN
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
ASSESSORS
10/31/2006
BEEKMAN, GLEN
10/08/06 - 10/11/06
IAAO Conf / Milwaukee, WI
$ 1,464.01
ASSESSORS
10/20/2006
ENGERSON, SCOTT
10/08/06 - 10/11/06
IAAO Conf / Milwaukee, WI
$ 1,647.57
$ 1,973.80
FISCAL SERVICES
Amount
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
COMM. DEV.
10/30/2006
THORNTON, MARY
10/04/06 - 10/05/06
Comm Dev. Conf / Santa Fe, NM
$ 1,301.26
COMM. DEV.
10/20/2006
BUTTS, BILL
10/04/06 - 10/05/06
Comm Dev. Conf / Santa Fe, NM
$ 1,097.92
PARKS & REC.
10/31/2006
JUDNICH, JOHN
09/21/06 - 09/24/06
Intern'l Youth Sports Congress / Washington,
DC
COMM. DEV.
10/30/2006
NAWROT, LINDA
10/04/06 - 10/05/06
Comm Dev Conf / Santa Fe, NM
$ 300.00
$ 1,120.59
PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
POLICE
10/30/2006
ROSS, GRETCHEN
10/22/06 - 10/27/06
Palm Print Trng / Lawrenceville, GA
$ 1,416.98
POLICE
10/06/2006
PERDUE, FELIX
10/15/06 - 10/27/06
Basic Crime Prev. Cert. / Louisville, KY
$ 1,617.58
POLICE
10/06/2006
WEISS, SHELLY
10/15/06 - 10/27/06
$ 1,640.39
POLICE
10/10/2006
LETT, KATHY
10/15/06 - 10/27/06
$ 1,651.82
October 2006
Page 2 of 9
IN-STATE TRAVEL
CULTURAL SERVICES
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
LIBRARY
10/21/2006
MONTAGUE,
MICHELE
10/11/06 - 10/12/06
MLA Conf / Detroit
$ 264.27
LIBRARY
10/31/2006
PAGE, CATHERINE
10/11/06 - 10/12/06
MLA Conf / Detroit
$ 394.22
LIBRARY
10/31/2006
HILL, WILLIAM
10/11/06 - 10/12/06
MLA Conf / Detroit
$ 311.60
LIBRARY
10/31/2006
BOTTS, JIM
10/11/06 - 10/12/06
MLA Conf / Detroit
$ 424.51
LIBRARY
10/20/2006
MCCARVILLE,
SARAH
10/12/06 - 10/13/06
MLA Conf / Detroit
$ 227.00
LIBRARY
10/20/2006
HOYLES, TROY
10/13/06 - 10/13/06
MLA Conf / Detroit
$ 209.79
LIBRARY
10/20/2006
MONTAGUE,
MICHELE
10/06/06 - 10/06/06
MLC Annual Mtg / Lansing
LIBRARY
10/31/2006
LUMPKINS,
RUTH
10/12/06 - 10/13/06
MLA Conf / Detroit
$ 365.78
LIBRARY
10/31/2006
DAVIS, MARY
10/11/06 - 10/12/06
MLA Conf / Detroit
$ 462.96
LIBRARY
10/20/2006
ROJAS,
CARMEN
08/25/06 - 08/25/06
MLA Leadership Conf / Farmington Hills
LIBRARY
10/20/2006
FERRIER, KAYNE
10/11/06 - 10/11/06
MLA Conf / Detroit
LIBRARY
10/08/2006
HOSKINS, DEBBIE
10/03/06 - 10/03/06
Students Learning Styles / Grand Rapids
LIBRARY
10/01/2006
BOSCH, ELAINE
10/04/06 - 10/06/06
Inside Grand Rapids / Grand Rapids
$ 750.00
LIBRARY
10/20/2006
WHITTINGTON,
WILLIAM
10/11/06 - 10/12/06
MLA Conf / Detroit
$ 434.10
LIBRARY
10/31/2006
ROJAS,
CARMEN
10/10/06 - 10/13/06
MLA Conf / Detroit
$ 711.76
LIBRARY
10/20/2006
EHLERS, MARLA
10/10/06 - 10/12/06
MLA Conf / Detroit
$ 224.25
LIBRARY
10/20/2006
HAEMKER,
CHARLES
10/10/06 - 10/13/06
MLA Conf / Detroit
$ 869.27
$ 83.30
$ 95.55
$ 232.10
$ 10.00
October 2006
Page 3 of 9
ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
WATER SYSTEM
10/20/2006
AYERS, ROBERT
10/11/06 - 10/13/06
Plumbing Inspector Conf / Kalamazoo
$ 444.80
WATER SYSTEM
10/20/2006
WOLSKI, MIKE
10/01/06 - 10/04/06
MGFOA Conf / Kalamazoo
$ 519.00
WATER SYSTEM
10/06/2006
MASON, CRAIG
10/18/06 - 10/18/06
West MI Air & Waste Lunch / Grand Rapids
$ 10.00
WATER SYSTEM
10/10/2006
SIMPSON,
VERNON
10/24/06 - 10/24/06
RTP Fall Conf. / Lansing
$ 70.00
WATER SYSTEM
10/01/2006
ANDERSON, KURT
10/26/06 - 10/26/06
MWEA IPP Comm. / Lansing
$ 125.00
WATER SYSTEM
10/01/2006
BOUCHER, HAROLD
10/26/06 - 10/26/06
$ 125.00
WATER SYSTEM
10/10/2006
BARTON, MARC
10/26/06 - 10/26/06
$ 125.00
WATER SYSTEM
10/10/2006
SOPER, JAMES
10/26/06 - 10/26/06
$ 125.00
WATER SYSTEM
10/10/2006
SIUDYLA, LEONARD
10/26/06 - 10/26/06
$ 125.00
WATER SYSTEM
10/10/2006
MASON, CRAIG
10/26/06 - 10/26/06
$ 125.00
WATER SYSTEM
10/20/2006
HIELKEMA, MIKE
10/11/06 - 10/13/06
Plumbing Inspectors Conf / Kalamazoo
$ 243.50
WATER SYSTEM
10/20/2006
WAGENMAKER,
LINDA
10/01/06 - 10/04/06
MGFOA Conf / Kalamazoo
$ 522.50
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
Executive
10/20/2006
KIMBALL, KURT
11/13/06 - 11/13/06
Tax Reform Mtg / Lansing
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
TREASURERS
10/15/2006
ELMORE,
MARGARET
09/24/06 - 09/27/06
MMTA Fall Conf / Battle Creek
$ 225.00
COMPTROLLERS
10/01/2006
TIMKOVICH,
MARTIN
10/10/06 - 10/04/06
MGFOA Annual Conf / Kalamazoo
$ 223.50
TREASURERS
10/10/2006
WEBB, CLAIRE
10/04/06 - 10/06/06
MPA Fall Conf / Frankenmuth
$ 170.07
EXECUTIVE
$ 30.00
FISCAL SERVICES
October 2006
Page 4 of 9
Amount
HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
HUMAN RESOURCES
10/16/2006
JELKS, MARI BETH
08/18/06 - 08/20/06
MMRMA Conf / Traverse City
$ 71.84
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
10/06/2006
THOMAS,
ALEXANDER
09/27/06 - 09/27/06
MI Womens Bus. Lunch / Ann Arbor
$ 50.00
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
10/06/2006
CAUDILL, PATTI
09/27/06 - 09/27/06
Mi Womens Bus. Lunch / Ann Arbor
$ 50.00
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
10/06/2006
ALMONTE, TOM
09/27/06 - 09/27/06
$ 50.00
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
10/06/2006
JOHNSON, RALPH
09/27/06 - 09/27/06
$ 50.00
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
NEIGH. IMPR.
10/01/2006
GULLEDGE, LISA
09/20/06 - 09/22/06
MCDDA Conf / Ann Arbor
$ 175.00
COMM. DEV.
10/25/2006
SCHURTZ, CAROL
09/20/06 - 09/22/06
MCDDA Conf / Ann Arbor
$ 332.72
NEIGH. IMPR.
10/20/2006
NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROV, ADMIN 14
10/27/06 - 10/27/06
MAHO Conf / E Lansing
$ 610.00
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
PARKING
10/10/2006
SMITH, LOIS
10/04/06 - 10/06/06
$ 424.18
PARKING
10/10/2006
MILLER, KIMBERLY
10/04/06 - 10/06/06
$ 424.18
PARKING
10/10/2006
SINGLETON,
BARBARA
10/04/06 - 10/06/06
$ 434.11
PLANNING & DEV.
10/31/2006
BYRON, BETH
11/13/06 - 11/13/06
Designing Healthy Comm. / E Lansing
$ 85.00
PLANNING & DEV.
10/31/2006
FITZ, DALE
11/13/06 - 11/13/06
$ 85.00
PLANNING & DEV.
10/31/2006
MOUL, KAY
11/13/06 - 11/13/06
$ 85.00
PLANNING & DEV.
10/31/2006
BARTLEY, LANDON
11/13/06 - 11/13/06
$ 85.00
PARKING
10/10/2006
SCHUTTER,
MITCH
10/04/06 - 10/06/06
PLANNING & ECON DEV
$ 424.18
October 2006
Page 5 of 9
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
FIRE
10/15/2006
DOKTER, RICK
09/12/06 - 09/15/06
MI Fire Conf / E Lansing
$ 325.00
FIRE
10/16/2006
JENSEN, TED
09/12/06 - 09/15/06
MI Fire Conf / E Lansing
$ 325.00
FIRE
10/31/2006
SZOTKO, GARY
10/09/06 - 10/11/06
2006 Summit / Traverse City
$ 455.10
POLICE
10/15/2006
WU, WAYNE
10/24/06 - 10/24/06
Risk Mgmt Intervention / Lansing
$ 350.00
FIRE
10/16/2006
KUSTO, RAYMOND
09/12/06 - 09/15/06
Mi Fire Conf / E Lansing
$ 325.00
POLICE
10/20/2006
HOST, ADAM
10/10/06 - 10/13/06
CPAM Conf / Traverse City
$ 463.05
POLICE
10/31/2006
WEISS, SHELLY
10/10/06 - 10/13/06
$ 454.25
POLICE
10/20/2006
WORCH, MARK
10/02/06 - 10/03/06
Homicide Investigation / Sault Ste Marie
FIRE
10/01/2006
FIRE- HAZMAT,
TEAM 3
10/08/06 - 10/08/06
Hazmat Team Challenge / Acme
$ 150.00
POLICE
10/20/2006
GILLEM, DAVID
10/10/06 - 10/13/06
$ 600.34
POLICE
10/31/2006
GANNON, ROBERT
10/10/06 - 10/13/06
$ 431.17
POLICE
10/31/2006
LILLY, DAVID
10/10/06 - 10/13/06
$ 464.17
POLICE
10/20/2006
MYERS, DAN
10/10/06 - 10/13/06
$ 464.17
POLICE
10/20/2006
GOMEZ, NEIL
10/10/06 - 10/13/06
$ 464.17
POLICE
10/31/2006
LINKLATER,
AMANDA
10/10/06 - 10/13/06
$ 592.09
POLICE
10/20/2006
HORRIGAN, JASON
10/10/06 - 10/13/06
$ 464.17
POLICE
10/31/2006
LETT, KATHY
10/10/06 - 10/13/06
$ 613.84
POLICE
10/09/2006
GRIFFIN, GREG
10/02/06 - 10/03/06
Homicide Investigation / Sault Ste Marie
$ 103.80
POLICE
10/02/2006
BYLSMA, SCOTT
10/09/06 - 10/13/06
Accident Invest #7 / Okemos
$ 724.00
$ 40.69
October 2006
Page 6 of 9
MEALS & LUNCHES
CULTURAL SERVICES
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
LIBRARY
10/25/2006
LIBRARY, ADMIN
10/16/06 - 10/16/06
Legislative Breakfast / Grand Rapids
$ 110.60
LIBRARY
10/25/2006
WARNER, MARCIA
10/01/06 - 10/01/06
Penn Club Dues-Oct 06 / Grand Rapids
$ 180.00
LIBRARY
10/31/2006
WARNER, MARCIA
09/20/06 - 09/20/06
Lunch Mtg / Grand Rapids
$ 15.41
LIBRARY
10/31/2006
WARNER, MARCIA
09/13/06 - 09/13/06
Econ Club-Lunch Mtg / Grand Rapids
$ 20.00
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
ENVIRO. PROT.
10/20/2006
FISHER, RANDY
10/11/06 - 10/13/06
Lunch Mtgs (2) / Grand Rapids
$ 48.84
WATER SYSTEM
10/01/2006
WATER, ADMIN
10/23/06 - 10/25/06
Safety Mtgs / Grand Rapids
$ 42.00
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Executive
10/03/2006
EXECUTIVE, ADMIN
10/02/06 - 10/02/06
Art Comm. Lunch / Grand Rapids
$ 22.65
Executive
10/17/2006
KIMBALL, KURT
10/16/06 - 10/16/06
Lunch Mtg-Econ. Club / Grand Rapids
$ 20.00
Executive
10/31/2006
ALIBASIC, HARIS
09/13/06 - 09/13/06
Public Policy Breakfast Mtg / Grand Rapids
Executive
10/10/2006
EXECUTIVE, ADMIN
10/06/06 - 10/06/06
Top Mgmt Mtg / Grand Rapids
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
PLANNING & DEV.
10/25/2006
PLANNING, ADMIN
10/12/06 - 10/12/06
Planning Commission / Grand Rapids
$ 84.00
PLANNING & DEV.
10/20/2006
PLANNING-ZONING,
ADMIN
09/21/06 - 09/21/06
Zoning Board / Grand Rapids
$ 78.75
PLANNING & DEV.
10/31/2006
PLANNING, ADMIN
10/26/06 - 10/26/06
Planning Comm. / Grand Rapids
$ 85.74
PARKING
10/31/2006
PARKING,
SERVICES
10/30/06 - 10/30/06
RFP Task Force Mtg / Grand Rapids
$ 81.50
ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS
Amount
EXECUTIVE
Amount
$ 9.00
$ 25.00
PLANNING & ECON DEV
Amount
October 2006
Page 7 of 9
PLANNING & DEV.
10/31/2006
PLANNING, ADMIN
10/19/06 - 10/19/06
Board of Zoning Appeals / Grand Rapids
$ 89.87
PLANNING & DEV.
10/20/2006
PLANNING, ADMIN
09/28/06 - 09/28/06
Planning Commission / Grand Rapids
$ 84.00
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
POLICE
10/20/2006
POLICE, ADMIN
10/11/06 - 10/11/06
Citizen Police Academy / Grand Rapids
$ 25.00
POLICE
10/31/2006
POLICE, ADMIN
10/30/06 - 10/03/06
Stragegic Planning Mtg / Grand Rapids
$ 36.07
POLICE
10/20/2006
POLICE, ADMIN
10/04/06 - 10/04/06
Citizens Police Academy / Grand Rapids
$ 25.00
October 2006
Page 8 of 9
TRAINING
ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
WATER SYSTEM
10/31/2006
ROSS, DIRK
10/10/06 - 10/10/06
Excavation/Trenching Safety / Mason
$ 277.50
WATER SYSTEM
10/31/2006
PACKER, WILLIAM
10/10/06 - 10/12/06
Distribution System Course / Gull Lake
$ 305.00
WATER SYSTEM
10/10/2006
WILDIE, TOM
10/24/06 - 10/24/06
Dealing w/Difficult People / Grand Rapids
WATER SYSTEM
10/10/2006
VANDYKE, DARYL
10/10/06 - 10/12/06
Short Course Trng / Gull Lake
$ 347.50
$ 99.99
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
NEIGH. IMPR.
10/20/2006
SCHIERBEEK,
MARVIN
10/11/06 - 10/13/06
Medical Gas Inspector Cert. / Kalamazoo
$ 610.62
Department
Pay Date
Name
Travel Period
Desc Location
Amount
FIRE
10/06/2006
HAYDEN, LARRY
09/24/06 - 09/26/06
MCRA Trng Conf / Tustin
$ 275.00
FIRE
10/06/2006
DOKTER, RICK
09/11/06 - 09/11/06
NPFA Cert. Fire Inspector / Kalamazoo
$ 285.00
POLICE
10/31/2006
LAFAVE, MIKE
10/15/06 - 10/20/06
Canine Workshop / Alpena
$ 287.59
POLICE
10/25/2006
PRINCE, RICH
10/15/06 - 10/20/06
$ 306.64
POLICE
10/31/2006
WU, JON
10/15/06 - 10/20/06
$ 298.38
POLICE
10/31/2006
DORER, KRISTINE
10/24/06 - 10/25/06
Forenisc Interviewing / Detroit
$ 54.05
DISTRICT COURT
10/25/2006
ACKLEY, DEBRA
09/27/06 - 09/27/06
PBT Instrument Trng / Lansing
$ 32.50
POLICE
10/19/2006
WHITMAN,
REBECCA
10/19/06 - 10/19/06
Ethics for Law Enforcement / Grand Rapids
$ 250.00
POLICE
10/20/2006
CARRIER, PAM
10/19/06 - 10/19/06
Ethics for Law Enforcement / Grand Rapids
$ 250.00
POLICE
10/20/2006
BRAATE, KELLI
10/24/06 - 10/25/06
Forensic Interviewing / Detroit
$ 216.00
FIRE
10/03/2006
JENSEN, TED
10/09/06 - 10/09/06
Emergency Evacuation Wkshp / Ann Arbor
$ 145.00
October 2006
Page 9 of 9
POLICE
10/31/2006
BROW, DOUG
10/09/06 - 10/13/06
Accident Invest #7 / Okemos
$ 997.00
POLICE
10/31/2006
HOORNSTRA,
TIMOTHY
10/15/06 - 10/20/06
$ 321.70
POLICE
10/31/2006
BAKER, PJ
10/15/06 - 10/20/06
$ 305.73
Authorization for Sale of “Series 2006A Municipal Purchase Notes DATE: September 29,
2004
DATE:
November 14, 2006
TO:
Mayor George K. Heartwell and City Commissioners
FROM:
Albert C. Mooney, City Treasurer
SUBJECT:
TREASURER'S REPORT FOR PERIOD OF
NOVEMBER 8, 2006 THROUGH NOVEMBER 14, 2006
The City Treasurer's Office invested $15,000,000 during the above captioned period. The
investments were placed in certificates of deposit. Other investment balances were invested in
the various short-term money market trust funds and our money market accounts.
Investment
Amount
Maturity Range
Yield
Flagstar
$15,000,000
17 months
5.32%
The funds that were invested originated from an investment maturity of a three year CD placed
at 3.25% on October 21, 2003. The monies are not needed for any immediate purpose, so the
maturity was extended to provide for the better yield at the seventeen month time period.
Please contact me at ext. 3285 with any questions on this Treasurer's report.
Thank you.
ACM//SRS/kg:FC TREASURER’S REPORT CITY COMMISSON 11-21-06.WRD
cc:
Fred Raabe, Deputy City Treasurer
Stephen R. Schmuker, Investment Analyst
DATE:
November 15, 2006
TO:
Greg Sundstrom
Chief Services Officer
FROM:
Patrick Bush
Public Works Director
SUBJECT:
Agreement with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)
and Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc.
Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. has requested that the City of Grand Rapids and
the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) grant them access to the video
signal from the US 131 & I-196 freeway surveillance camera system. The camera
system is owned by MDOT, jointly operated and maintained by the City.
Over the past year MDOT, working in conjunction with the City, has prepared an
agreement that will allow media outlets access to the video signal and sets
conditions for the use of the signal. The attached resolution authorizes an
agreement between the City, MDOT and Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. to grant
access to the video signal from the freeway camera system.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Attachment
PJB D:\OfficeFiles\Working Files\CD-MDOT-ClearChannel-Agreement.doc
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the
following resolution authorizing an agreement with the Michigan Department of Transportation
and Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. granting access to the video signal from the freeway
surveillance camera system.
_____________________________________
CORRECT IN FORM
_____________________
_____________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
_____________________________________
Com.
the following resolution:
, supported by Com.
, moved adoption of
RESOLVED that an agreement with the Michigan Department of Transportation and
Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. is hereby authorized in a form to be approved by the City
Attorney, and after such approval, the City's Public Works Director is authorized to execute it
on behalf of the City.
Drafted by: Patrick J. Bush PE, Public Works Director
Yeas
Nays
_____
Bliss
_____
_____
Jendrasiak
_____
_____
Lumpkins
_____
_____
Schmidt
_____
_____
Tormala
_____
_____
White
_____
_____
Mayor Heartwell
_____
Yeas:
_____
Nays:
_____
Adopted:
_____
Failed:
_____
DATE:
November 15, 2006
TO:
Eric DeLong
Deputy City Manager
FROM:
Rick DeVries, P.E.
SUBJECT:
Improvements to Filter Cells #9, 12, 13, and 14 at the Lake Michigan
Filtration Plant
Bids were received on November 7, 2006 for the above-captioned project. The Consultant’s
(Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. – FTCH) estimate is $1,120,000 and Rahm Industrial
Services, Inc. (Rahm) submitted a bid of $1,112,000 (low discounted bid of $1,100,880).
Reference the attached Equal Business Opportunity Construction Worksheet. Three contractors
took out bid documents for this project. The original bid date was October 31, 2006, but due to
only one bid being received on that date, the bid date was extended to November 7, 2006. On
the revised bid date, Rahm was the only contractor that submitted a bid for this project. The bid
specifications required the bidders to submit a base bid plus a bid for Alternate A-1 which
provided for the bidder to “Furnish and Install Liquid Applied Reinforced Membrane – Polyester
Coat System (Spec Section 09840.1) in lieu of Polyurea Coating System included in base bid."
Also, the bid specifications required the bidder to submit a bid for Alternate A-2 which provided
for the bidders to “Furnish and Install Tetra Underdrain System (Spec Section 11253.04) in lieu
of Lepold Underdrains System in Filter Cell No. 12." FTCH reviewed the alternate items with
Rahm and recommends that Alternate A-1 not be accepted as the additional cost is not cost
effective. In regards to Alternate A-2, FTCH reports that the supplier of the Tetra Underdrain
System did not submit a bid to Rahm. Engineering and Water System staff concur in the
recommendation of FTCH not to accept the alternate bid items.
On October 3, 2000 (Commission Proceeding No. 67861) the City entered into a professional
engineering services agreement with FTCH for Repairs/Improvements to the Lake Michigan
Filtration Plant and authorized FTCH to proceed with the preliminary design engineering/study
phase services in connection with the same. Subsequently, on March 21, 2006 (Commission
Proceeding No. 74811) the City authorized FTCH to proceed with the design engineering phase
services for the Improvements to Filter Cell Nos. 9, 12, and 13 at the Lake Michigan Filtration
Plant. During the design phase, it was found that improvements to Filter Cell No. 14 adjacent
to Filter Cell No. 12 should be included in the project as the most efficient way of staging the
various filter cell improvement projects. It is recommended that FTCH now be authorized to
proceed with the construction engineering/inspection phase services for this project, including
the construction engineering/inspection phase services for Filter Cell No. 14.
In order to reduce overall project costs, the staff at the Lake Michigan Filtration Plant will install
new filter media material into the renovated filter cells. Water System staff is working with the
City’s Purchasing Department to bid the furnishing of the filter media material. The total
expenditures amount in the attached resolution includes an estimated amount for the purchase
of filter media material.
The attached resolution provides for the award of the construction contract for this project to
Rahm in an amount of $1,112,000 and authorization for FTCH to provide construction
engineering/inspection phase services at an estimated cost of $146,100, with total expenditures
not to exceed $1,671,000. The total expenditure amount includes the costs of the construction
contract, FTCH's construction engineering/inspection phase services including reimbursable
expenses, filter media material, testing, administration, and an approximate twelve percent
allowance for contingencies. This project is being financed by the Water System Fund
Revenue Bonds, for which a budget amendment in the Water System Fund is required.
RDV/GFK/CDH/sb
Attachment
cc:
Joellen Thompson
John Wierenga
Alex Thomas
Reviewed by E.O.D.
t:\cd06\bidaward\CD LMFP filter cells
112106
#05111
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution awarding a contract to Rahm Industrial Services, Inc. and authorizing Fishbeck,
Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. pursuant to a professional engineering services agreement to
provide construction engineering/inspection phase services all in connection with Improvements
to Filter Cells #9, 12, 13, and 14 at the Lake Michigan Filtration Plant.
_____________________________________
CORRECT IN FORM
_____________________
_____________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
_____________________________________
Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to adopt
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2000 (Commission Proceeding No. 67861) the City entered into a
professional engineering services agreement with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. for
Repairs/Improvements to the Lake Michigan Filtration Plant and authorized Fishbeck,
Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. to provide preliminary design engineering/study phase services
in connection with the same; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2006 (Commission Proceeding No. 74811) the City authorized
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. to provide design engineering phase services for
Improvements to Filter Cells #9, 12, and 13 at the Lake Michigan Filtration Plant ; and
WHEREAS, during the design phase it was found that improvements to Filter Cell No. 14
adjacent to Filter Cell No. 12 should be included in the project as the most efficient way of
staging the various filter cell improvements projects; and
WHEREAS, bids were received on November 7, 2006 for the following project: Improvements
to Filter Cells #9, 12, 13 and 14 at the Lake Michigan Filtration Plant (hereinafter referred to as
the “Project”) and Rahm Industrial Services, Inc. submitted a bid of $1,112,000 for which the
Engineer’s estimate is $1,120,000; and
WHEREAS, the City now desires to authorize Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. to
provide construction engineering/inspection phase services for the Project; therefore
RESOLVED:
1.
That the bid of Rahm Industrial Services, Inc. be accepted and that, upon approval by the
City Attorney, the Mayor be authorized to execute the contract documents for the Project
on behalf of the City.
2.
That, pursuant to the aforesaid professional engineering services agreement, Fishbeck,
Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. be authorized to provide construction engineering/inspection
phase services in connection with the Project at an estimated cost of $146,100, which is
included in the total not-to-exceed expenditures amount as referenced in Paragraph 3.
3.
That total expenditures for the Project be authorized in an amount not to exceed $1,671,000
which includes the costs of the construction contract, Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber,
Inc.'s construction engineering/inspection phase services including reimbursable expenses,
filter media material, testing, administration, and contingencies. Said amount of $1,671,000
to be charged to Code No. 4390530-986-216954.
4.
That the City Engineer is hereby authorized to execute the necessary change order to the
professional engineering services agreement with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc.
for the aforesaid construction engineering/inspection phase services in connection with the
Project.
5.
That the City Comptroller is hereby authorized and directed to make payment, in amounts
and to said payees, as the City Engineer requests in connection with the aforesaid Project.
6.
That the City, pursuant to Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations promulgated
pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, declares its intent to
reimburse itself the cost of the Project as referenced herein in an amount not to exceed
$1,671,000 through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds.
7.
That a copy of this resolution be available for inspection at the City Clerk's Office, 2nd Floor,
City Hall, 300 Monroe Avenue N.W., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503.
This resolution was drafted by Rick DeVries, P.E., Acting City Engineer
112106
#05111
Yeas
Nays
_____
Bliss
_____
_____
Jendrasiak
_____
_____
Lumpkins
_____
_____
Schmidt
_____
_____
Tormala
_____
_____
White
_____
_____
Mayor Heartwell
_____
Yeas:
_____
Nays:
_____
Adopted:
_____
Failed:
_____
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS
for
Improvements to Filter Cells #9, 12, 13, and 14
at the Lake Michigan Filtration Plant
Construction Contract
$1,112,000
Construction Engineering/Inspection Phase Services
by FTCH, including reimbursable expenses
146,100
Filter Media Material
160,000
Testing
Administration
Sub-Total
Contingencies (12%)
TOTAL
112106
#05111
2,000
71,723
$1,491,823
179,177
$1,671,000
Project: Improvements to filter cells #9, #12, #13 #14 at the LAKE MICHIGAN FILTRATION PLANT
T:\Bid Tab\05111.xls
EBO - Construction Worksheet
RAHM INDUSTRIAL
SERVICES LC
Original Bid Amounts (Total)
$1,112,000.00
Supplier Diversity (A)
Total MBE Participation MBE - 0.0%
MBE Discount Points
0.0
Total WBE Participation WBE - 1.0%
ADVANCED - 1.0%
WBE Discount Points
1.0
SUMMARY:
Supplier Diversity (A)
Workforce Diversity (B)
Economic Vitality (C)
Community Partnership (D)
Environment (E)
TOTAL DISCOUNT POINTS
Allowable Discount Points
Discount Amount $
$
Allowable Discount Amount
DISCOUNTED BID $
Discounted BID Ranking
REVISED 11/08/06
1.0
1.0
1.0
11,120.00
11,120.00
1,100,880.00
1
Project: Improvements to Filter Cells #9, #12, #13, #14 at the LAKE MICHIGAN FILTRATION PLANT
Bids Rec'd 11/07/06 at 11:00 am at the City Engineer's Office
T:\Bid Tab\05111.xls
ITEM
NO.
0
1
ITEM
UNIT
0
Filter improvements to filter #9, #12, #13, #14 and
adjacent filter #7 (west cell only) and #10 (west cell
only)
QUAN
0
RAHM INDUSTRIAL
ESTIMATE
SERVICES LC
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
0
1 $ 1,120,000.00
Lump Sum
0
Original Bid Amount (TOTAL)
Allowable Discount Points
Allowable Discount Amount
DISCOUNTED BID
Discounted BID Ranking
ENGINEER'S
0
$
1,120,000.00
0 $
1,120,000.00
UNIT PRICE
$ 1,112,000.00
TOTAL
$
1,112,000.00
$
1,112,000.00
1.0
11,120.00
1,100,880.00
1
$
$
A-1
ALTERNATES:
Furnish and install Liquid Applied Reinforced
Lump Sum Add
Membrane - Polyester Coat System (Spec Section
09840.1) in lieu of Polyurea Coating System included
in base bid.
A-2
Furnish and install Tetra Underdrain System (Spec
Section 11253.04) in lieu of Lepold Underdrains
System in Filter Cell No. 12
Lump Sum
1
$ 2,520,000.00
$
2,520,000.00
1
$
$
20,000.00
REVISED 11/08/06
Page 1 of 1
20,000.00
$ 1,692,284.00 $
NO BID
1,692,284.00
NO BID
DATE:
November 14, 2006
TO:
Mayor Heartwell and City Commissioners
FROM:
Mary Therese Hegarty
City Clerk
SUBJECT:
2007 CITY COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE
Attached is a resolution adopting the City Commission meeting schedule for calendar year
2007. The meeting schedule has been set in accordance with the Charter amendment
approved by the voters at the Primary Election on August 8, 2006 where it states at Sec. 5
“The City Commission shall meet in regular session twice each calendar month at such times
as it may prescribe by ordinance; provided, however, that at least one regular meeting each
calendar month shall be held in the evening.”
Please note that all meetings are scheduled to be held at 7:00 p.m., with the exception of May
1 and June 19, 2007. Also, three (3) meetings have been scheduled during the month of May
to allow the City Manager the opportunity to fully present his recommended budget.
The proposed meeting schedule with be placed on your Committee of the Whole agenda for
your meeting on November 21, 2006.
Attachments.
Copy: Kurt F. Kimball, City Manager
Philip A. Balkema, City Attorney
YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the City Commission Meeting
Schedule for calendar year 2007.
_____________________________________
CORRECT IN FORM
_____________________
_____________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
RESOLVED that the attached City Commission Schedule for calendar year 2007 be adopted.
Drafted by: Mary Therese Hegarty, City Clerk
Yeas
Nays
_____
Bliss
_____
_____
Jendrasiak
_____
_____
Lumpkins
_____
_____
Schmidt
_____
_____
Tormala
_____
_____
White
_____
_____
Mayor Heartwell
_____
Yeas:
_____
Nays:
_____
Adopted:
_____
Failed:
_____
CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS
2007 SCHEDULE
A quorum of the City Commission of the City of Grand Rapids is expected for official meetings
in the Commission Chambers on the Ninth floor of City Hall as indicated below:
January
January
9, 2007
23, 2007
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
*February
February
6, 2007
20, 2007
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
March
March
13, 2007
27, 2007
*April
April
10, 2007
24, 2007
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
May
May
May
1, 2007
15, 2007
29, 2007
2:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
June
June
5, 2007
19, 2007
7:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
July
July
10, 2007
24, 2007
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
August
August
14, 2007
28, 2007
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
September
September
11, 2007
25, 2007
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
*October
October
9, 2007
23, 2007
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
November
November
13, 2007
27, 2007
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
December
December
4, 2007
18, 2007
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
*Meetings scheduled at neighborhood locations – to be announced.
Committee of the Whole, Community Development Committee, Fiscal Committee, Committee on Appointments and Public Safety
Committee meet at various times on these dates. For specific time and location of Committee meetings, contact the City Manager’s
Office.
If you plan to attend a meeting and need special services due to a disability, contact Mary Therese Hegarty, City Clerk, 300 Monroe
Avenue N.W. at 456-3010 (TDD 456-3210).
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Grand Rapids City Commission will be meeting in Special Briefing Sessions
on the dates listed below. All meetings will be held in Room 601 of City Hall, 300 Monroe Avenue, NW,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, commencing at 10:30 a.m.
January 9, 2007
February 20, 2007
March 27, 2007
April 24, 2007
May 15, 2007
June 19, 2007
July 24, 2007
August 28, 2007
September 25, 2007
October 23, 2007
November 27, 2007
December 18, 2007
Agendas for these meetings will be available no later than 9:00 am the morning of the meetings at the office
of the City Manager. The meetings are open to the public.
Dated:
______________________________
Mary Therese Hegarty, City Clerk
DATE:
November 16, 2006
TO:
Greg Sundstrom
Chief Services Officer
FROM:
Jay D. Steffen
Director of Parks & Recreation
SUBJECT:
Proposed City Commission Policy - Use Of, And Alterations To,
Monument And Veterans Memorial Parks
I am seeking your assistance in having the City Commission review and adopt the proposed
City Commission Policy relative to Monument and Veterans Memoral Parks. Specifically, the
policy provides guidelines and procedures to follow when reviewing proposed uses and
alterations to these two parks.
As you will recall, this matter was raised publicly in May, 2006 in conjunction with the
temporary placement of several outdoor sculptures in these two parks. Subsequent
communications with interested individuals resulted in the City Manager convening a meeting
of city staff and concerned veterans groups. As a result of that meeting, research was
conducted, information shared and a draft policy circulated for review and comments. In
addition, a meeting of interested park neighbors was held on November 15, in which the
proposed policy was reviewed and comments received.
I believe the proposed policy will serve to clarify the unique nature of these two parks and
provide clear guidelines for any proposed uses or alterations to them.
JDS/krc
Attachment
YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends the following resolution
which would adopt a new City Commission policy which specifies procedures and provides
guidance for the appropriate uses of, and alterations to, Monument and Veterans Memorial
Parks.
CORRECT IN FORM
______________________
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
Com.
, supported by Com.
RESOLVED:
1.
That the attached policy which specifies procedures and provides guidance for
the appropriate uses of, and alterations to, Monument and Veterans Memorial
Parks be adopted.
This resolution was drafted by Jay D. Steffen, Director of Parks and Recreation.
,
DATE:
November 15, 2006
TO:
Eric R. DeLong
Deputy City Manager
FROM:
Susan Shannon
Economic Development Director
SUBJECT:
Resolution to Approve a Renaissance Zone Development Agreement
for MBtech Autodie, LLC
Attached is a resolution for the City Commission to approve a term sheet with MBtech Autodie,
LLC to designate property formerly owned by Autodie at 44 Coldbrook Street, NW as a
Renaissance Zone.
The property was formerly owned by Autodie, which announced in August that it was closing
after a year of downsizing. Shortly after this announcement, a German company called
MBtech began negotiations to buy the 500,000 square foot building and assets in order to start
a tool and die business that would utilize lean manufacturing practices and processes in order
to be more competitive in the global economy. MBtech negotiated with the existing workforce
represented by the UAW to rehire workers under their existing contract.
MBtech has also asked the City for assistance with the start-up of this new operation by
designating the site as a Renaissance Zone. This tax relief is needed as they train workers in
new lean manufacturing processes, and seek new contracts. They have asked for a seven
year duration of the zone. For the first four years, 100% of property and Michigan business
taxes would be abated and as is typical in our other zones, the final three years would provide
a step down reduction in the abatement.
MBtech has agreed to the following terms which includes employment guarantees and
performance bonds (see attached):
1. The Renaissance Zone designation is for seven years.
2. By 2008, a minimum of one hundred and fifty jobs will have been created. (A
job will be counted as anyone working at least 1500 hours in the past year.)
By 2009, there will be a minimum of one hundred and seventy-five jobs and
by 2010, two hundred jobs.
3. If in any year the company does not achieve the minimum number of jobs
guaranteed, the company will pay the City and the State the income taxes it
would have received from those jobs.
4. The company will pay the North Monroe TIFA $29,464 every year for the
taxes which would have been collected by the Authority.
5. Should the company terminate operations at any time during the seven year
Renaissance Zone designation it will repay all of the taxes that have been
abated to the City and State minus a credit for income taxes which have been
collected during that period.
6. The company will post a $4,000,000 performance bond as a guarantee for the
repayment of taxes should they leave.
The City’s property tax loss is $93,226 per year and the income tax generated by the new jobs
will be $60,000 - $80,000 per year. The approval of the Renaissance Zone will enable MBtech
Autodie to reemploy high paying manufacturing jobs (average $27.00/hour plus benefits) and
introduce an innovative tool and die process which will have a competitive advantage in this
much beleaguered industry.
SS/kad
Attachment
YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends the adoption of the following
resolution approving a term sheet with MBtech Autodie, LLC in connection with the designation
of certain property as a redevelopment renaissance zone pursuant to the Michigan
Renaissance Zone Act and authorizing an agreement with MBtech Autodie, LLC in accordance
therewith.
_____________________________________
CORRECT IN FORM
_____________________
_____________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
WHEREAS, MBtech Autodie, LLC (the "Company") has advised the City that it intends
to acquire the assets of Autodie International located at 44 Coldbrook Street, N.W. (the
"Property"), and will create new jobs at such location; and
WHEREAS, the City has agreed to apply to the Michigan Strategic Fund for
redevelopment renaissance zone status for the Property pursuant to the Michigan
Renaissance Zone Act, Act 376 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1996, as amended, MCL
125.2681, et seq. ("Act 376") subject to the amendment of Act 376 and in accordance with the
terms set forth in a term sheet presented at this meeting (the "Term Sheet").
RESOLVED, that the Term Sheet with MBtech Autodie, LLC is approved and the
Mayor and City Clerk are authorized and directed to execute the Term Sheet for and on behalf
of the City.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized and directed to
execute on behalf of the City an agreement with MBtech Autodie, LLC consistent with the
terms of the Term Sheet with such minor modifications as are not materially adverse to the
City approved as to content by the City Manager or his designee and as to form by the City
Attorney or special counsel.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that all resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith
are rescinded to the extent of the conflict.
Prepared by:
Richard A. Wendt, Esq.
Yeas
Nays
_____
Bliss
_____
_____
Jendrasiak
_____
_____
Lumpkins
_____
_____
Schmidt
_____
_____
Tormala
_____
_____
White
_____
_____
Mayor Heartwell
_____
Yeas:
_____
Nays:
_____
Adopted:
_____
Failed:
_____
TERM SHEET RELATED TO THE DESIGNATION OF THE AUTODIE
FACILITIES AS A REDEVELOPMENT RENAISSANCE ZONE
1.
Subject to the terms and conditions of this term sheet, the City of Grand Rapids
(the "City") agrees to file an application with the Michigan Strategic Fund (the "MSF") for the
designation of certain property located at 44 Coldbrook Street, N.W. (the "Property") as a
"redevelopment renaissance zone" ("RenZone Status") pursuant to the Michigan Renaissance
Zone Act, Act 376 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1996, as amended ("Act 376"), subject to
amendment as provided in paragraph 2 below.
2.
It is understood and agreed that, in order for the Property to be granted
RenZone Status, Act 376 must be appropriately amended and the MSF must approve
RenZone Status for the Property.
3.
Prior to the granting of RenZone Status the Property must be acquired and
owned by MBtech Autodie, LLC.
4.
Except as provided in paragraph 5 below, any business located or conducted
by MBtech Autodie, LLC within the Property during the time it has been granted RenZone
Status shall be entitled to the exemptions, deductions and credit as provided in Section 9 of
Act 376.
5.
RenZone Status for the Property shall be for a total of 7 years commencing with
the 2007 tax year. During the last three years of RenZone Status, the exemption, deduction or
credit referred to in paragraph 4 above shall be reduced by the following percentages:
a.
For the tax year that is 2 years before the final year of RenZone Status,
the percentage shall be 25%, so that the effective exemption, deduction or credit is 75%
of that which would otherwise have been provided under Section 9 of Act 376.
b.
For the tax year immediately preceding the final year of RenZone Status,
the percentage shall be 50%, so that the effective exemption, deduction or credit is 50%
of that which would have been provided under Section 9 of Act 376.
c.
For the final year of RenZone Status, the percentage shall be 75%, so
that the effective exemption, deduction or credit is 25% of that which would otherwise
have been provided under Section 9 of Act 376.
6.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this term sheet, MBtech Autodie, LLC
shall pay to the City of Grand Rapids Tax Increment Finance Authority (the "North Monroe
TIFA"), annually, during the period the Property is granted RenZone Status an amount equal to
the tax increment revenues that would have been due and payable by MBtech Autodie, LLC
and transferred by City Treasurer to the North Monroe TIFA had not the Property been granted
RenZone Status with appropriate credits being given for the reductions referenced in
paragraph 5 above. Such amounts shall be due and payable at the same time the ad valorem
real and personal property taxes representing such tax increment revenues would have been
due and payable had not RenZone Status been granted for the Property.
7.
MBtech Autodie, LLC shall have not less than the following number of
Equivalent Full-Time Jobs (as defined below in this paragraph 7) at the Property in each of the
following tax years: in 2008, 150 Equivalent Full-Time Jobs; in 2009, 175 Equivalent Full-Time
Jobs; and in 2010 through 2013, 200 Equivalent Full-Time Jobs. "Equivalent Full-Time Jobs"
means the total number of employees of MBtech Autodie, LLC that have at least 1,500 paid
hours during any given tax year, with each hour of straight time for any such employee to
count as 1.0 paid hour, each hour of overtime for any such employee to count as 1.5 paid
hours to the extent such employee was paid time and a half, and each hour of overtime for
such employee to count as 2.0 hours to the extent such employee was paid double time. If
MBtech Autodie, LLC does not have the required level of Equivalent Full-Time Jobs in any
given tax year as specified above, MBtech Autodie, LLC shall pay (i) to the City, an amount
equal to 1.0% of the following amount: the shortfall, if any, between the actual number of
Equivalent Full-Time Jobs and the required number of Equivalent Full-Time Jobs, multiplied by
the average hourly straight-time wage rate for all employees at the Property during such tax
year, multiplied by 1,500; and (ii) to the State of Michigan (the "State"), an amount equal to
3.9% of the following amount: the shortfall, if any, between the actual number of Equivalent
Full-Time Jobs and the required number of Equivalent Full-Time Jobs, multiplied by the
average hourly straight-time wage rate for all employees at the Property during such tax year,
multiplied by 1,500. The number of Equivalent Full-Time Jobs for each applicable tax year will
be determined as of the last payroll date for such tax year. Any payment required by the
preceding sentence shall be paid within 60 days of the end of the tax year in which the shortfall
of Equivalent Full-Time Jobs occurred. Any jobs transferred or relocated into the Property
from existing locations in the State will be excluded for all purposes of this paragraph.
8.
MBtech Autodie, LLC agrees to submit an annual report to the City and the
MSF for each year that the Property has RenZone Status identifying the number of Equivalent
Full-Time Jobs during such year. MBtech Autodie, LLC agrees to make available or cause to
make available to the City and the MSF such relevant employment records in order to verify
that the Equivalent Full-Time Jobs representation is correct.
9.
If MBtech Autodie, LLC shall no longer operate and maintain a business at the
Property during the time the Property has been granted RenZone Status¸ MBtech Autodie,
LLC shall promptly repay the City, the State and all other ad valorem property tax levying
jurisdictions levying ad valorem real and personal property taxes which would have been paid
had not the Property been granted RenZone Status less (a) with respect to payment to the City
(i) an amount equal to 1.0% of the wages and salaries paid to employees of MBtech Autodie,
LLC at the Property up to the date MBtech Autodie, LLC no longer operates and maintains a
business at the Property and (ii) any payments made by MBtech Autodie, LLC to the City
pursuant to paragraph 7 above and (b) with respect to payment to the State (i) an amount
equal to 3.9% of the wages and salaries paid to employees of MBtech Autodie, LLC at the
Property up to the date MBtech Autodie, LLC no longer operates and maintains a business at
the Property and (ii) any payments made by MBtech Autodie, LLC to the State pursuant to
paragraph 7 above. MBtech Autodie, LLC agrees to make available or cause to be made
available to the City and the MSF such relevant records of MBtech Autodie, LLC in order to
verify wages and salaries paid to employees. RenZone Status shall terminate effective at the
end of the last tax year during which it operated and maintained a business at the Property for
the entire tax year (the "Termination Date").
10.
In order to guaranty the contingent obligations of MBtech Autodie, LLC
contained in paragraphs 7 and 9 above, MBtech Autodie, LLC shall obtain and provide the City
an irrevocable letter of credit or performance bond in the amount of $4,000,000 payable in
favor of the City and in a form acceptable to the City permitting the City to immediately draw or
collect from such letter of credit or performance bond should MBtech Autodie, LLC fail to honor
its obligations under paragraph 7 and 9. The amount of such irrevocable letter of credit or
performance bond shall be reduced on an annual basis beginning January 31, 2008, and
continuing thereafter for each January 31 during which the Property has RenZone Status by an
amount equal to the sum of (a) an amount equal to 1.0% of the wages and salaries paid to
employees of MBtech Autodie, LLC at the Property during the immediately preceding tax year
and any payments made by MBtech Autodie, LLC to the City pursuant to paragraph 7 above
for such tax year and (b) an amount equal to 3.9% of the wages and salaries paid to
employees of MBtech Autodie, LLC at the Property during the immediately preceding tax year
and any payments made by MBtech Autodie, LLC to the City pursuant to paragraph 7 above
for such tax year. MBtech Autodie, LLC agrees to make available or cause to be made
available to the City such relevant records of MBtech Autodie, LLC in order to verify wages and
salaries paid to employees.
11.
This Term Sheet and its benefits may be assigned to any entity that purchases
the equity or assets of MBtech Autodie, LLC and any subsequent purchasers of such equity or
assets. If such assignment is made to an entity which is not an affiliate of MBtech Autodie,
LLC, the prior approval of the City shall be required which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
The undersigned parties agree to be bound by the provisions of this term sheet, it
being understood that such provisions, along with other normal and customary provisions, will
be incorporated in an agreement to be executed by the parties hereto.
MBTECH AUTODIE, LLC
Dated: ___________________,2006
By:
Its:
Dated: ___________________,2006
By:
George K. Heartwell, Mayor
Attest:
Mary Therese Hegarty
DATE:
November 15, 2006
TO:
Eric R. DeLong
Deputy City Manager
FROM:
Susan Shannon
SUBJECT:
Resolution to Approve a Renaissance Zone Extension Policy
Attached is a resolution to be submitted to the City Commission to approve a policy for
extending the time limit on certain parcels in the original 1997 Renaissance Zones. The State
legislature has passed a bill allowing communities to recommend extension of certain
Renaissance Zone properties which have not experienced significant investment. In order to
respond to requests for time extensions, the Economic Development Project Team has drafted
a policy (attached) describing criteria which would be used to evaluate the proposal. It is
planned that extensions will only be considered for properties which have had no activity and
for which guarantees would be provided for significant investment and job creation. In
addition, the history of ownership and amount of taxes which have been abated would be
considered. Extensions are not intended for property owners who accrued tax savings but did
not use those savings to upgrade their property. Extensions are also not intended for
properties in which the original owner made an unreasonable profit for the property because of
its Renaissance Zone designation.
The policy states that the City Commission must consider the impact of the property tax loss
on the $500,000 cap it established in 1997. At this time the available cap is $183,125.
The new law allows for extensions to be granted through 2011. Extensions can be given for
up to fifteen years after the date they are approved. For example, if an extension is approved
in 2008, the deadline would extend to no longer than 2023. The City can approve a shorter
time if it wishes.
It is expected that this tool will be used sparingly and as in the past, the property owner will
need to enter into a development agreement which guarantees investment and job creation.
SS/kad
Attachment
YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution to
approve a City Commission Policy entitled “Extension of Time Period for Existing Renaissance
Zone Parcels.”
_____________________________________
CORRECT IN FORM
_____________________
_____________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
RESOLVED that the attached City Commission Policy entitled “Extension of Time Period for
Existing Renaissance Zone Parcels” is hereby approved.
Drafted by Susan Shannon, Economic Development Director.
Yeas
Nays
_____
Bliss
_____
_____
Jendrasiak
_____
_____
Lumpkins
_____
_____
Schmidt
_____
_____
Tormala
_____
_____
White
_____
_____
Mayor Heartwell
_____
Yeas:
_____
Nays:
_____
Adopted:
_____
Failed:
_____
SUBJECT:
EXTENSION OF TIME PERIOD FOR EXISTING RENAISSANCE ZONE
PARCELS
PURPOSE: To provide guidelines for evaluating and approving requests for extension of
Renaissance Zone parcels for economic development.
GOALS:
The City’s goals in extending the time period for existing individual Renaissance
Zone parcels are:
1.
To create jobs;
2.
To encourage investment; and
3.
To clean up and reutilize vacant and underutilized properties.
POLICY:
BACKGROUND
In 1997, the City of Grand Rapids was selected as one of eleven Renaissance Zones in
Michigan. The City designated 530 acres, located in six areas, to be virtually tax free for
fifteen years. From 2000 to 2006, twenty-six more properties were added to existing Zones
including four new areas which were designated and five tool and die companies. The goal of
the program has been to encourage investment and create jobs by reutilizing vacant,
contaminated, and underutilized properties in blighted neighborhoods and industrial zones.
Through August 2006, $251,088,167 in private investment has been made in the Zone,
creating 2145 jobs. In 1997, the City agreed to invest a net $500,000 in forgiven property and
income taxes annually.
In 2006, the State of Michigan approved legislation which allows communities to apply to the
Michigan Economic Development Corporation to extend the time period for existing
Renaissance Zone parcels when a major economic development opportunity is proposed.
PROGRAM
The City will establish a program which allows individuals, businesses, developers and
business areas to submit proposals for extending the timeline for properties in the City’s
Renaissance Zone for significant new economic development projects. Applications will be
accepted to extend the time period for individual parcels for specific economic development
projects located within the existing Zones and will be evaluated on the basis of the criteria
identified in this policy.
REVIEW PROCESS
Proposal Content: All proposals must demonstrate that the project cannot reasonably be
facilitated in the existing Renaissance Zone time frame. They must identify the parcels being
proposed for extension of the Zone, the amount of real and personal property tax currently
assessed to the site(s), and verify that the property meets at least three of the threshold
criteria. Also, proposals should describe the type of use, amount of investment, jobs to be
created, and other pertinent information about the project. A pro forma showing the difference
in return on investment with and without Renaissance Zone savings must be submitted with
the proposal.
The applicant will supply a statement of Renaissance Zone outcomes achieved since inclusion
of the property in the zone, which include the number of years that the property has been in
the Zone, the total investment in the property and building, the investment in personal property,
the employment at the start of the Zone and the current employment at the site. The applicant
will provide an estimate of the tax savings, to date, from the Renaissance Zone designation.
Applicants must pay a $5000 application fee and agree to pay all legal fees associated with the
preparation of a Development Agreement.
Review: A proposal must meet a minimum of three of the threshold requirements will be
reviewed by the City’s Economic Development Project Team based on the extent to which the
project addresses the evaluating factors cited in this policy.
A review of the capacity, if any, below the modified (see next paragraph) $500,000 cap of
property and income tax revenue the City may forego to support the Renaissance Zone
program will be made as each application is reviewed.
INVESTMENT CAP LIMITATION
•
The original City Renaissance Zone established an investment cap in 1997 at $500,000,
focusing solely on lost City tax revenue.
•
This revised policy maintains the $500,000 cap, but will evaluate projects on a case-bycase basis to determine whether the project is cap neutral, adds cap capacity or reduces
available cap capacity.
•
Cap Capacity will be determined by analyzing the annual value of income tax receipts from
new jobs created within the City Renaissance Zones. The value will be used to calculate
the available cap capacity as follows:
$500,000
Base Cap Established 1997
($316,875)
Capacity Factor:
(Total Abated Taxes – Job Value) = Capacity Factor
$960,375 - $643,500
Available Cap Capacity as of August 2006
$183,125
Where:
Base Cap
=
Capacity Factor
=
Available Cap
=
The Cap of $500,000 established by City
Commission in 1997
The difference between the actual Cap and the
Job Value which indicates the amount of Cap
Capacity
The estimated amount of actual property and
Income tax abated less new income taxes
Job Value
•
=
The total number of jobs created by all projects
in the City’s Renaissance Zone multiplied by
an estimated income tax value of $300 per job
A project’s cap capacity impact will be determined by calculating the difference between
property tax loss and income tax to be generated by the proposal. Projects may be neutral,
may add cap capacity or may reduce cap capacity.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Successful applicants will be required to enter into a development agreement with the City
committing to the investment and/or job creation it has proposed and posting a performance
bond or other guarantee of performance acceptable to the City. The City Commission will
make a determination as to the number years each new or expanded area will be designated
as a zone on a case-by-case basis and in compliance with State law. In no case will the
designation be for more than fifteen years.
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Must meet a or b of the following criteria plus two others to be considered for a Renaissance
Zone Extension.
a. Project will be a catalyst for a major development or for multiple redevelopment
opportunities in the City.
b. Project will create significant new City income tax.
c. Property has been vacant or fifty percent of building(s) unoccupied, for at least one
year.
d. Project investment will be significant on a square foot basis.
e. Property is a contaminated site or functionally obsolete, as defined by current Michigan
law.
f. Project shows other evidence of under-utilization or disinvestment.
EVALUATION FACTORS
Proposals for extending existing Zone areas which meet the appropriate threshold criteria will
be considered based on the extent to which a project addresses the following evaluation
factors:
a. The amount of income tax to be generated by new jobs relative to the amount of local
City taxes abated.
b. The amount of investment in buildings and equipment.
c. The project allows a business to expand in the City, retains a significant number of jobs
in the City, and/or will add jobs.
d. The project includes other investment in neighborhood revitalization or public
infrastructure improvements or utilizes other public and private financing tools to
maximize redevelopment benefits.
e. In the case of residential property, the extent to which the project provides incentives for
housing that will deconcentrate poverty, create mixed use redevelopment or develop
downtown housing.
f. The amount of tax loss for the project does not exceed the amount the City Commission
identifies for support of Renaissance Zones.
g. The extent to which designation may adversely affect DDA or other City financial
obligations.
h. The project will enhance an area of the City and/or cause additional investment.
i. The project is consistent with the City’s Master Plan.
j. Compliance with the following City ordinances and policies:
1. All applicants must be current with all real and personal property taxes.
2. All applicants must not be under written orders for violations of the zoning
ordinance.
3. All applicants must have a satisfactory record of compliance with regulations
enforced by the City’s Environmental Protection Department.
4. If applicant’s project exceeds $600,000 or total employment upon completion of
project is likely to equal or exceed fifteen (15) persons, then they must receive
certification of the applicant’s equal opportunity practices from the Equal
Opportunity Department. If the project is below $600,000 and employment is not
likely to exceed 15, then the company is not required to be certified.
k. History of investment. What is the history of ownership of and investment in the
property since it was designated as a Renaissance Zone? What are the reasons that
the property is still blighted and underutilized?
OTHER CONDITIONS
The City reserves the right to not award Renaissance Zone status to any or all proposals, nor
is it obligated to abate taxes to the limit of capacity available. It may also decide to exceed the
cap, if it believes the benefits of a project to the City warrant doing so. New Renaissance Zone
designations are subject to approval by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation.
DATE:
November 15, 2006
TO:
Kurt Kimball
City Manager
FROM:
Eric R. DeLong
Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT:
Recommendation to Issue the Request for Proposals for Sale of the
201 Market Property
The City Commission authorized preparing the 201 Market Property for sale on January 10,
2006. This set in motion the formation of two work groups.
•
An internal work group, the Public Service Center Relocation Team, was formed to
determine the cost of relocating facilities currently located on the 201 Market Property.
The work group determined that the estimate of probable relocation costs in 2008
dollars is as follows:
Future Campus
Off-Campus Relocations
Total
$53,940,000
$ 9,950,000
$63,890,000
The estimate of probable relocation costs includes site acquisition, limited off-site
improvements, new building construction, relocation services, professional services,
and contingencies. The estimate also includes an allowance of $4,000,000 for
acquisition of replacement Information Technology operating equipment to ensure that
operations are not interrupted. It should be noted that the Off-Campus Relocation
estimates are based on new construction. Use of existing City facilities would reduce
these costs.
No site has been selected at this time, pending continued progress in marketing the site
through the Letter of Interest / Request for Proposal process. Adequate sites exist
within the City of Grand Rapids for the future campus.
•
An external work group, the 201 Market Steering Committee, was convened in January
and worked to develop a process for marketing the site. They recommended the use of
a flexible, two-stage process with the first stage consisting of advertising a Request for
Letters of Interest to secure information about interest in the site and the qualifications
of interested parties. The second stage would require detailed and comprehensive
responses to a Request for Proposals. This two-stage process was detailed to the City
Commission at their March 21, 2006 meeting and was approved at that time.
The Letter of Interest process was executed, and three responses were received. Review of
the responses by the Steering Committee resulted in a recommendation that:
1. The marketing of the 201 Market Property proceed to the Request for Proposals (RFP)
stage;
2. The RFP process be open to all interested parties; and,
3. Each of the three interested parties from the Letter of Interest stage also be encouraged
to continue in the RFP process.
The Steering Committee also recommended that the RFP process be rigorous and that it
include submission of very precise and detailed information.
City Commission heard the reports of both the Public Service Center Relocation Team and the
201 Market Steering Committee on August 29, 2006, and determined to proceed with
preparation of the Request for Proposal and issuance to the three entities that responded in
the Letter of Interest stage. The City Commission requested that they be presented with the
RFP prior to issuance.
Since that time, considerable work has gone into development of the RFP. A key step in that
process was the retention of Stainback Public/Private Real Estate (SPPRE) to assist with
preparation of the RFP, evaluation of responses to the RFP, and negotiation of any resulting
development agreement. Project staff and Mr. John Stainback of SPPRE collaborated on a
draft RFP that has been reviewed by a reconstituted 201 Market Steering Committee in four
meetings. A list of Steering Committee members is included as Attachment A. The Steering
Committee recommends authorization of the issuance of the RFP to the City Commission.
The recommended RFP blends our local experience with the national experience of SPPRE to
establish the best possible criteria and requirements to help ensure solid responses in this
critical next phase. The result is an RFP that carries forward the $35 million asking price from
the Letter of Interest stage of the process and requires production of significant, specific urban
design objectives, site planning, project financing, job creation, and project execution
information. The recommended RFP establishes evaluation criteria to be used by the Steering
Committee. Those responding to the RFP will need to include a non-refundable proposal
evaluation fee of $15,000 and an earnest money deposit of $50,000 that will be returned to any
party not selected.
The RFP would be issued as soon as possible, but no later than December 1, 2006.
Responses would be due back to the City by February 23, 2007. The evaluation process
would focus on the quality of each proposal based upon the criteria included in the RFP. Each
respondent would be interviewed by the Steering Committee. A recommendation would be
brought forward to the City Commission next spring.
The costs of marketing the property, including the retention of SPPRE, have been financed by
the City’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC). The EDC allocated $125,000 for this
project. To date, $83,415 have been spent or encumbered.
The recommended RFP for the sale of the 201 Market Property is included as Attachment B,
and a resolution authorizing the issuance of the RFP is attached for City Commission
consideration.
ERD/nlm
Attachments
YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution
authorizing issuance of a Request for Proposals for property located at 201 Market Avenue
(commonly referred to as the Public Works Island).
_____________________________________
CORRECT IN FORM
_____________________
_____________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved
the adoption of the following resolution:
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the City Commission authorized the preparation for
sale and offering of the property at 201 Market Avenue (commonly referred to as the Public
Works Island), consisting of 15.8 acres through the “Request for Proposals” method of sale;
and, further, authorized the formation of a stakeholder group, completion of a title search and
boundary survey, completion of an appraisal of the property to establish an asking price, and
securing services of a consultant to assist with programming for replacement facilities; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2006, the City Commission authorized the release for sale of
the property commonly known as 201 Market Avenue (Public Works Island) and further that
the property be offered to the public through the Request for Proposals method of sale
beginning with a Request for Letters of Interest in conformance with City Commission Policy
900-41, dated February 20, 2001, at an asking price of $35 million; and,
WHEREAS, On August 29, 2006, the City Commission received the reports of the
Public Service Center Relocation Team and the 201 Market Steering Committee and, further,
authorized the 201 Market Steering Committee to proceed with the marketing of the 201 Market
property (commonly referred to as the Public Works Island) by developing a Request for
Proposals process to be issued to only those parties who responded to the Request for Letters of
Interest;
RESOLVED, that the City Commission authorizes the issuance of the Request for
Proposals for 201 Market Avenue, substantially in the form as presented, to those parties who
responded to the Request for Letters of Interest generally in compliance with the process and
schedule outlined in the Request for Proposals.
RESOLVED, that the Economic Development Corporation be reimbursed for the
advance of soft costs to prepare the property for market from the proceeds of the sale of the
201 Market Property.
Drafted by: Eric R. DeLong, Deputy City Manager
Yeas
Nays
_____
Bliss
_____
_____
Jendrasiak
_____
_____
Lumpkins
_____
_____
Schmidt
_____
_____
Tormala
_____
_____
White
_____
_____
Mayor Heartwell
_____
Yeas:
_____
Nays:
_____
Adopted:
_____
Failed:
_____
ATTACHMENT A
201 Market Steering Committee
Commissioner Rosalynn Bliss
Rick Chapla
Gertrude Croom
Kayem Dunn
Robert Herr, CPA
Peggy Murphy
Robert Partridge
Sam Ojo
Commissioner James White
Staff: Eric DeLong
Susan Shannon
Dick Wendt
Dan Oegema
Eric Soucey
Haris Alibašić
Table of Contents
Section 1:
Section 2:
Section 3:
Section 4:
Section 5:
Section 6:
Section 7:
Section 8:
Introduction .............................................. 2
Design Objectives........................................ 6
The City’s Objectives .................................... 10
Submittal Requirements .............................. 14
Evaluation Criteria ...................................... 22
Developer Selection Process.......................... 28
General Terms and Conditions ....................... 31
Appendices ................................................ 34
Developer Request for Proposals - 201 Market Avenue
1
1
Introduction
2
Section 1 - Introduction
City’s most valuable assets, the Grand River.
Overview of the Developer RFP
This Request for Proposals (RFP) will be distributed only
to the three developers which responded to the Request for Letters of Interest (LOI) issued by the City of
Grand Rapids in March 2006. This developer RFP seeks
a detailed description of development team qualifications and a technical proposal for the finance and development of the 201 Market Avenue site.
The City’s vision for the development of the site is an
urban mixed-use development that includes a highly
pedestrian-oriented combination of housing, retail,
office and other arts and entertainment uses. The City
envisions a development that includes a wide range of
mixed-use uses, public amenities, and greenspace.
Concurrently, the City cautions developers that if they
do propose any civic facilities, these facilities must
compliment the existing civic facilities in the downtown area. They must also identify users and a proposed business plan for the civic facilities. Developers
are also encouraged to provide pedestrian and vehicular linkages from this site to downtown.
Another important feature of this developer RFP is the
realization that the finance, design and development
of this site will only be achieved using a partnership
approach. The following components of this project
require a strong collaboration between the City and the
selected developer:
•
It will be necessary for the City and the selected
developer to have a long-term working relationship.
•
The cost and timing of relocating city facilities and
utilities currently located on-site.
•
The interaction of the development and one of the
•
The coordination of the design of the proposed
mixed use development and the existing downtown.
•
The development of this site will require the completion of a rezoning process.
•
Tax revenue generated by the mixed use development of the site will be an essential component of
the Finance Plan.
•
The 201 Market Avenue site is located within 1,500
feet from the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route and
possibly the alignment of the future Light Rail Transit system. If in fact the site meets appropriate
criteria, the site would be classified as a Transit
Oriented Development (TOD).
Overview of the Development Site
The 201 Market Avenue site is located in downtown
Grand Rapids. This site includes 15.8-acres of land with
1,542 feet of frontage on the Grand River. The site also
has direct access to U.S. 131, a proposed transit corridor and Transit Center.
The design and development of the 201 Market Avenue
site are critically important to the City and to the longterm success of the Downtown.
The City is Seeking a Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Development Team
The desired characteristics of the development team
Project Site Aerial
3
include the following:
•
•
The development team must be flexible and creative in structuring the relationship with the City,
and in design, project financing, tenanting, etc.
The architect must be creative, yet realistic. The
architect must be able to listen to multiple parties,
yet generate a cohesive design which is compatible
with the character of the City.
•
The architect should have experience working with
development teams, and delivering vibrant and
exciting building design and pedestrian spaces.
•
The development team must include a LEED-
Downtown Grand Rapids Map
4
The City is encouraging developers to include a
public art fund equal to one percent (1%) of the
Total Development Budget for each phase of the
development. Art should be part of the fabric of
the design, not simply placed anywhere.
accredited professional working directly on the
project from initial design to completion.
•
Members of the team must have excellent financial
skills for structuring a complex, mixed use development.
•
The management team must demonstrate experience to concurrently direct the design, finance,
development and construction of multiple public
and private development components.
•
Urban Design Objectives
The major design objectives include:
•
•
•
•
•
The Urban Design Plan must include a marketdriven mix of uses, public gathering spaces of varying sizes and character, outdoor cafes, public art,
amenities, and a strong sense of place. Developers
shall provide linkages to both the River and downtown. This development cannot be isolated from
its surroundings.
The Urban Design Plan shall include open space
elements as an integrated part of the overall development plan, including as appropriate, both a central park or gathering places and linear open space
connections. The Urban Design Plan shall include landscape areas that contribute to the livability of the area by creating refreshing counterpoints to the intensive urban character of the
site. Plantings shall include plazas or lawn areas
suitable for planned or informal gatherings or
events, trees to provide shade and relief, and accents such as shrubs and floral displays.
Open space elements should be visible from the
Grand River and integrated with a linear walking
system along the River. The open space at 201
Market Avenue development should be a prominent
public gathering place.
Open spaces and pedestrian areas should include
other features, such as inviting shop entrances and
retail carts on sidewalks, to create an exciting
shopping environment.
Proposals must include a public art component.
The development of each building should be designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. The goal is
to create a project that maximizes the incorporation of 'green' building opportunities, and a goal
is for the project (elements of the project) to
achieve a LEED certification level. The City believes
that the ability to achieve these goals will be facilitated by working with an architect (and/or other
lead member[s] of design team) who has prior experience with design and construction of LEED certified buildings.
The Preferred Finance Plan Should:
•
Include a description of a viable process for managing and financing the $63.9 million relocation of
public facilities currently located at the site.
•
Include a description of proposed terms for purchase of the property.
•
Alternatively, if developers elect to propose a land
lease, their proposal should include various types
of land lease payments to the City. The City requires at a minimum that the base rent payment
be guaranteed. Such terms shall include a fair and
reasonable participation by the City in any proceeds from the sale, transfer or refinancing of the
leasehold improvements.
•
Limit investment of tax increment that is not used
for relocation of public facilities.
•
Include secured completion guarantees and other
financial and development safeguards protecting
the City from any financial performance problems,
and ownership, market and construction risks.
Ultimately, the City wants to enter into a relationship
with a development team that is responsive, timely,
creative, and that has staying power.
5
2
Design Objectives
6
Section 2 - Design Objectives
Overview
The mixed use development of the 201 Market Avenue
site will have a profound impact on the long-term viability and development character of the City and especially the downtown area. The City is very focused on
achieving quality urban design, architecture and development quality of this strategically located development site. The City does not want to constrain any initial creative design concepts developed by the three
development teams. The following “Design Principles”
are included to guide the development teams during
the RFP process.
The Design Principles are general and provide development teams ample opportunities to generate creative
urban design plans and architectural concepts. The
City expects a high level of interaction during the design process. The anticipated level of input and interaction with the development team during the balance
of the pre-development process is described later in
this section.
More specific principles include:
• A strong emphasis on a mixed use, pedestrian-
oriented, green and high density urban environment.
• Ground-level uses should be devoted, as much as
possible, to retail and restaurant establishments.
The retail should compliment rather than compete
with existing downtown retail.
• Public plazas should be designed to accommodate
regular daily use for passage, sitting, talking in
small groups, and dining, while also accommodating regular periodic events such as street fairs, performances, and meetings.
• Any civic facilities incorporated in the development
should not compete with existing downtown facilities.
• The development should integrate with the Grand
River in its design and offer new opportunities for
interaction with the waterway.
• Lighting for public areas should provide for night-
time visibility and security, while minimizing spillover lighting into adjacent residential areas.
• Public art should be integrated into the overall pro-
ject design, for both buildings and plazas and outdoor spaces.
• All public spaces must be accessible to persons with
physical disabilities.
• Plans should seek to achieve a Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) certified rating
certified by the U.S. Green Building Council.
• Demonstrated connections to the downtown enter-
tainment district, riverfront waterways, and pedestrian and public transit routes.
Grand River
7
Potential Opportunities for City Input on
Design
The City understands that the design principles are just
a starting point and expects there will be ample opportunities to interact with the development teams and,
later, the selected development team. The City wants
the development teams to understand that, at a minimum, it will want to discuss the planning and design of
the proposed projects at the following points of the
pre-development process:
• Review of design proposals in response to this RFP.
• Development Agreement negotiations.
• The Schematic Design (SD) phase.
• The Design Development (DD) phase.
• Early stages of completing the Construction Docu-
ments (CD).
The City’s development review procedures are described
in detail on the City’s website at
www.grand-rapids.mi.us/index.pl?page_id=4329. The
City will require that the project be subject to the development review process.
Future Land Use Map
8
There will be opportunities for public input and involvement during these steps, including possible developer
interviews.
Site Approvals and Development Review
In order to accommodate the desired mixed-use development of the site, the City anticipates that site approvals and development review will be accomplished
using the Planned Redevelopment District (PRD). This
designation is currently included in the City’s Zoning
Ordinance for developments which include retail space,
mixed use office, housing, entertainment, cultural and
institutional uses, or a mix of such uses.
Future Land Use Map
9
3
The City’s Objectives
10
Section 3 - The City’s Objectives
Overview
Developers are expected to propose a viable finance
plan in response to this Request for Proposals. The City
expects to see development and financing plans that
build upon the Letters of Interest (LOI) submitted by
the three developers earlier this year. Concurrently,
the City is clear that the developer must be able to
achieve a fair rate of return and meet the current requirements of the equity and debt capital markets.
Developers are expected to offer a finance plan that
meets the following objectives:
• Present a viable plan for purchase of the property,
land lease or other method of acquiring control of
the property.
• Create new jobs for the region, particularly in new
industries that are knowledge based. Jobs should
not be shifted from other areas of the City. Proposals should include ideas such as new corporate
headquarters or expanded offices from outside
Grand Rapids.
costs, it is estimated that the developer must make an
investment which will produce a taxable value (which is
normally fifty percent (50%) of fair market value) of a
minimum of $55 million three years after closing and
$70 million five years after closing.
The current taxable value is zero due to the tax exempt
status, so the first portion of taxable value will be created through the sale of the property unless an alternative financing plan is presented by the developer which
accomplishes the relocation with no financial risk to
the City. The property sale must close before the relocation process begins.
In any case, the developer will be required to provide a
secured guarantee for the balance of the relocation
cost above the proceeds of the land sale at closing on
the site.
Note: In the Request for Letters of Interest, the City
offered to cover a “brokerage fee” of up to 2% for a
licensed cooperating broker, who procures the selected
qualified buyer that closes on the transaction in accordance with the listing terms. None of the three developers had requested a brokerage fee so this provision is
withdrawn.
• Optimize the tax revenue generated from the site
and the proposed mixed use development.
• Limit City risk by providing secured, guaranteed
payments of any City issued bonds.
• Optimize private investment.
• Eliminate City risks, such as market, finance and
construction risk.
The City’s Expectations if Developers Propose an Outright Purchase of the Site
The City has established an asking price of $35,000,000
for the 201 Market Avenue site. If developers select to
execute a purchase of the site versus a land lease their
proposal must describe the purchase price, terms of
sale, and other considerations that would affect the
price offered for the site.
The City will use the proceeds of land sale and tax increment revenues generated from the new investment on
the property to finance the cost of relocating public
facilities currently housed on the site. The estimated
cost of the relocation is $63.9 million. In order to generate adequate tax increment revenue to cover these
The City’s Expectations if Developers’ Propose a Land Lease Structure
If a developer proposes a long-term land lease with the
selected developer the City no longer will consider selling the site. Therefore, an important part of evaluating
developer proposals will be based on the types, amount
and level of participation by the City for eight (8) types
of land lease payments listed below and described in
Appendix A.
• Construction Rent
• Base Rent (Indexed to the CPI, or other benchmark)
• Indexed Rent
• Percentage Rent
• Participation in the Net Sales Proceeds
• Maintenance, Operations and Security Payment
(MOS)
• “Home-Run” Insurance
• Land lease Payouts for any Condominium Develop-
ment(s)
11
Relocation of the Existing City Facilities OnSite
A major component of the finance plan is the logistics
and cost of relocating and constructing a new Public
Services Center.
The cost of acquiring a new 20-acre site, limited off-site
improvements, on-site improvements, new building
construction, professional services, relocation services
and project reserves has been estimated by Fishbeck,
Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. (FTC&H) to be $63.9 million in the Public Service Center Relocation Study
(located on the City’s website at www.) The relocation
of these facilities is expected to take 18 to 24 months
from the date of executing the Development Agreement.
The current plan is to use a combination of the sales
proceeds and tax increment revenue to finance the
relocation costs. If the developer wishes to propose an
alternative relocation plan that does not put the City at
risk, it will be considered.
Existing Utility Lines
Currently, there are several utility lines traversing the
201 Market Avenue site. These utility lines include:
•
The 138-inch East Side Trunk Sewer
•
The 48-inch Water Transmission Main
•
The 72-inch Outfall Sewer
•
The 18-inch Collector Sanitary
•
The 42-inch Storm Sewer
City staff believes that a developer can configure a
workable site layout so that the above listed utility
lines do not need to be relocated. The utility corridors
can be used for parking, drives, walkways, greenspace
or other compatible uses. The existing 6 inch and 8
inch on site water lines, which are considered private
laterals, can be used in place, relocated, or removed as
the site layout requires. If a developer feels it is necessary to relocate the north/south orientated 138-inch
East Side Trunk Sewer, the City will review costs and
relocation options with developers.
Developer Responsibilities
The developer will be responsible for the following
tasks. Some or all of these may be eligible for reimbursement from tax increment, where otherwise not
used for relocation of the City’s facilities.
•
Demolition of existing facilities
•
Site investigation
•
Site preparation
•
Utility relocation
•
Infrastructure improvements
Environmental Conditions
The property is believed to be a “facility” as defined in
Section 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Projection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of
Michigan of 1994, as amended. Development of the
property is believed to be eligible for inclusion in the
City’s Brownfield Plan pursuant to the Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act, Act 304 of the Public Acts
of Michigan of 1996, as amended. However, the City
makes no representations regarding the environmental
condition of the site. The City will make available any
records in its possession for review by bidders. The selected developer is expected to perform its own environmental site assessments subject to the terms of a
purchase and development agreement. The developer is
responsible for making its own analysis and decisions
regarding the conditions and appropriateness of the
site for their proposed development.
Potential Financing Incentives
The project may qualify for Brownfield incentives
which may be used to off-set costs of relocation of public buildings and other eligible activities such as demolition, site preparation, remediation and infrastructure. There are two types of Brownfield financial incentives:
1. Tax Increment Revenues
Under the Brownfield Act, all certain new property tax
increment from the development may be captured for
up to 30 years to reimburse the City and the developer
for eligible activities. Unless provisions are made otherwise, tax increment capture will be used first by the
City to pay the costs of relocation of public facilities
not covered by the proceeds from the sale of the site.
Increment not used for relocation of public facilities
may be reimbursed to the developer for demolition,
12
remediation, site preparation and public infrastructure
including relocation of utilities.
part of this RFP (See Section 4). This plan must address
the following:
The City will need a secured guarantee (Letter of Credit
or Performance Bond) to be provided by the developer
to ensure the City will be reimbursed if the development is not completed and therefore the tax increment
revenue is not sufficient to cover the debt service.
•
The terms of a land lease, purchase, or other
method of controlling the property.
•
The most effective way to cover the cost of relocating City facilities.
2. Michigan Business Tax Credit
•
If developers propose not to finance and develop
the entire mixed use development in one phase,
they must describe in detail the phasing of development, land acquisition, facility relocation, and the
relocation of utilities, if any.
•
Developers must provide financial projections for
proposed tax increment revenue. Developers
should identify required tax increment revenue for
other eligible activities for which they may request
reimbursement after the cost of relocation has been
satisfied.
A state business credit of up to 10% of the cost of the
development may be available to the developer by the
Michigan Economic Development Corporation.
Other incentives may be available subject to the impact
on Brownfield tax increment financing.
Summary of the Required Finance Plan
Developers are required to structure a finance plan as
Utility Lines On-Site
13
4
Submittal Requirements
14
Section 4 - Submittal Requirements
Submittal Procedures
Development teams are required to submit one original
unbound proposal and 25 copies of their 8½ x 11 inch
formatted response to this Request for Proposal and
one CD-ROM containing the submittal (.pdf preferred).
Proposals must be organized in accordance with the
two-part Submittal Requirements described later in this
Section. The CD-ROM should also include the drawings
described in the Preliminary Design section. Development teams must include, at a minimum, the requested
information and drawings as described in this section.
The City reserves the right to request additional information during the review period.
Responses to this Request for Proposals must be received no later than 12:00 noon EST on February 23,
2007. The unbound original 25 copies and CD-ROM
must be submitted by mail or delivered to:
Ms. Susan Shannon
300 Monroe Avenue. NW, 9th Floor
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Overnight delivery, such as Federal Express, DHL, etc.
will require the telephone number for the City, which is
616.456.3196.
The box of proposals must be labeled “Developer RFP
Submittal: 201 Market Avenue.” Proposals submitted
by facsimile or electronic mail will NOT be accepted.
Proposals received after the deadline will NOT be accepted.
Development teams should also send one (1) copy of
their entire submittal to:
are encouraged to independently verify the accuracy of
any information provided. The use of any of this information in the preparation of a response to this request
is at the sole risk of the development team.
Submittal Content Parts:
Part I—Developer Qualifications
Part II—Business Program and Design
Part III—Financial Analysis
Part IV—Financial Plan
Part V—Other
PART I—Developer Qualifications
The City is now requiring developers to submit a more
detailed description of their qualifications to finance,
design, develop and construct the 201 Market Avenue
site. Because the scope of development is so large,
this development will be a complex undertaking. It is
imperative that the selected developer have extensive
experience and the multi-disciplinary team to implement a project of this scope. Therefore, developers are
requested to provide the following information:
1. Identification Information
Provide name, address, email, and telephone number of the lead development company.
Note: If a developer has formed a special purpose
entity for this project, they must provide this information for the company, or companies which have
established the special purpose entity.
2. Proposed Principal and Project Manager
Mr. John Stainback
Stainback Public/Private Real Estate (SPPRE)
3100 Timmons Lane, Suite 310
Houston, TX 77027
Telephone: 713.621.3007
This single copy of the proposal should be received by
SPPRE by noon EST on February 23, 2007.
Respondents will be notified in writing of any change in
the requirements/specifications contained in the RFP.
Neither the City nor any of its officers, agents or employees, shall be responsible for the accuracy of any
information provided to any development team as part
of the Request for Proposals. All development teams
Developers are required to identify and provide resumes of the Principal and Project Manager assigned to this project. Developers are required to
provide a statement of assurance that the individuals indicated in this section will, in fact work on the
project. Any substitution of personnel at a later
date will require written authorization from the City
of Grand Rapids.
3. The Last Three (3) Mixed-Use Projects of Similar
Development Scope
Describe the last three developments completed
and relevant to this project. Provide photos and
illustrative urban design plans.
15
phase and not simply “spin-off” development projects to other developers. While this project will be
a phased development, ultimately the selected developer will have to provide, assuming a loan-tocost (LTC) of 80%, a minimum at-risk cash investment in the range of $25 to $30 million and debt in
the range of $85 to $120 million.
In addition, provide a brief overview of the Finance
Plan for the three projects.
4. The Last Three (3) Developments of Similar Development Scope
The finance and design of the mixed use development of the 201 Market Avenue site will involve
public and private partners as well as multiple financing instruments. It is essential for developers
to demonstrate their experience with complex development projects.
8. References
It is important for developers to provide the name,
address and telephone number for the entity providing debt financing for the last three (3) development projects. The selection team will be focused
on mixed-use developments and/or developments.
For development projects, please provide the above
information for the primary public partner, or government entity sponsoring the project.
5. Financial Capacity to Implement Projects of Similar
Development Scope
Describe the developer’s capacity to finance projects similar in scope to this project. More specifically, describe the sources of Construction Loans,
and/or Permanent Loans for the last three (3) development projects with a scope approaching or
exceeding $50 million, which is only a portion of
the estimated cost of this project.
9. Organization of the Multidisciplinary Team
Developers are required to prepare a team organization chart which includes all team member firms
and key individuals of the team. Please specify
primary service to be provided by each team member and the project office location. (Limit: 2
Pages)
6. Ability to Attract Quality National and Local Retail
and Office Tenants
Developers should provide evidence of their ability
to secure commitments from national and local retail and office tenants in the last five years. Preferred project will create new jobs for the region,
particularly in new industries that are knowledge
based. Jobs should not be shifted from other areas
of the City. Proposals should include ideas such as
new corporate headquarters or expanded offices
from outside Grand Rapids.
7. Ownership and/or Development Position in Recent
Projects
Briefly describe the company’s ownership and/or
development position for the last three development projects, ideally those projects will be mixeduse and/or developments. Please specify whether
the firm was a fee developer, equity investor, owner
and/or property manager.
Developers should know that the City is not seeking
a Master Developer for the development of the 201
Market Avenue site. The City is seeking developers
with sufficient experience with projects of similar
scope and complexity, and with at-risk cash investment. Developers must commit that they will develop all, or a major portion of each development
The City is particularly interested in the individuals assigned to this project by the developer and a
description of their role and key responsibilities.
The focus will be on the key individuals for the
developer, architect and construction company.
PART II—Business Program and Design
1. Building Program
(a) Market Demand Study
In response to the proposed mix of uses and scope of
development to be constructed on the 201 Market Avenue site, describe local market conditions, research, or
ideally a recently completed Market Demand Study used
to assess the market demand for the building uses contained in the proposal, such as
•
For-Sale Housing
•
Market Rate Rental Housing
•
Retail Space
•
Office Space
•
Hotel
•
Entertainment
16
•
Other
(b) Uses
Developers are required to submit a proposed marketdriven phased program for the project site. Developers
should specify the proposed building area in gross
square feet (GSF) and gross leaseable area (GLA), and
for housing specify the number of units and the square
footage of typical units. In addition, for the housing
units described above, specify the number of marketrate and affordable housing units, as well as rental
and/or owner-occupied units. Developers should also
specify the number of parking spaces required for each
use and the total number of parking spaces included.
(Limit: 3 Pages).
Developers should organize the building program into
proposed development components. This organization
should be based on proposed ownership and source of
financing.
2. Preliminary Urban Design Plan:
(e) Provide a separate plan for utility relocations, if
any. Show relationship of utilities to overall development plans in order to evaluate impact of development
on utilities.
(f) Provide at a minimum one elevation and building
section drawing (electronic versions as well) at a scale
of 1/8 inch: 1 foot, or ¼ inch: 1 foot.
(g) Provide one, or ideally three perspective sketches
illustrating the general character of the proposed development as it relates to the following:
•
View east from the Grand River (focused on the relationship of the development with the River edge)
•
View at an entry point along Market Avenue
•
View of a proposed major pedestrian space, or
•
View along the central vehicular and pedestrian
“spine” of the proposed development
The City wishes to be engaged with the development
team in the design of the project in each phase of the
project from the initial design, including offering suggestions and providing feedback. Consequently, as
part of this submittal developers are required to:
(h) Provide a detailed description of how and when the
development team proposes to work with the City and
City Commission throughout the design process with
opportunities for public input.
(a) Provide a narrative description of the architectural
and urban design approach to the proposed project,
including thoughts on general style, materials, colors,
and other design elements. (Limit: 2 Pages)
PART III—Financial Analysis
(b) Provide a description of any extraordinary preliminary design considerations, opportunities or concerns.
1. Development Budget (Limit: None)
(c) Provide a site-specific conceptual urban design plan
for the assumed building program and other phases of
development. The preliminary design should be presented at a scale of 1:40 on four (4) 30 by 48 inch presentation boards; electronic copies also are required
and should be included on the submitted CD-ROM (high
resolution .jpeg preferred). Plans should indicate all
proper site boundaries, yet extend to any adjacent sites
only to provide context for the preliminary urban design plan. The desired level of detail for the preliminary urban design plan should include proposed structures (building “footprints”), roof forms, building
shadows, walkways, general landscaping, surface parking lots, and vehicular access per the urban design
standards of page 4.
(d) Provide a Development Phasing Plan overlay on the
Urban Design Plan.
At a minimum, the Financial Analysis should include
four parts:
(a) The Development Budget will include the major
construction and development costs (hard costs) and
the soft costs required to finance, design, develop and
construct each of the public and private development
components of the full development being proposed.
The developer’s budget must account for the fee (1.0%
of the total development budget [TDB] for each development phase) to be paid to the City for its cost for
arrangement of project process.
(b) In addition, the developer should include the same
financial analysis described in Part III, sections 1, 2
and 3 for a “Building Program” which will result in a
taxable value of $70,000,000 by year five of the development. This will allow the City to make an “apples-toapples” comparison of each of the proposals. The
“Building Program” can be a subset of the total proposal. If the total proposal is equal to or less than tax-
17
able value of $100,000,000 developers do not need to
provide this additional analysis.
Note (4): City income tax is 1.3% for residents and .65%
for non-residents.
2. Pro Forma (Limit: None):
PART IV—Proposed Financial Plan
The Pro Forma should include an estimate of the incomes and expenses and corresponding Net Operating
Income (NOI) for the first ten years. Clearly state assumptions to a degree sufficient for the City to judge
the validity of the estimates. More detail is preferred
over less.
Provide in detailed written form information regarding
the finance of the proposed project. It is important to
address each of the parts set forth below. If an item is
not addressed, developers must provide an explanation
of why this is the case. Failure to address or otherwise
provide an explanation may result in the City determining a proposal to be non-responsive. At a minimum,
developers are required to present a six-part Finance
Plan. Developers are encouraged to offer proposals that
may include options that are not included in Sections 3
and 4 of this RFP.
Each Pro Forma should also include the land purchase
price or types and amounts of land lease payments to
the City, as well as the debt service and corresponding
Cash Flow Before Taxes and Depreciation (CFBTD). Developers are also required to present Leveraged and
Unleveraged Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Return
on Cost (ROC). For the condominium developments,
developers will provide Return on Equity (ROE).
It is imperative that a comparative analysis can be completed for the initial phase of the development. In
other words, developers are required to submit Pro
Formas the assumed Building Program for the initial
phase of the development.
Please include electronic copies (Excel, Argus, etc.) of
all financial analyses.
3. Tax Increment Financing (TIF):
The City also requires the developer to present the projected total Property Tax generated by each development phase in Years 1-30, as well as estimate the Sales
Tax revenue generated to the State in Phase 1 and in
each development phase in years 1-30.
In addition, each developer must present the projected
Transient Lodging Tax generated in each applicable
development phase in Years 1-30.
Note (1): The total millage rate for all seven government
entities is 46.5383 per $1,000 for non-residential properties and the Homestead Rate for owner occupied primary properties is 28.7125.
Note (2): Sales Tax is 6.0%, which is allocated to the
State of Michigan. There is no Sales Tax on groceries or
prescription medicines.
Note (3): Transient Lodging Tax is 5%, which is allocated
to the County of Kent.
1. Method of Site Acquisition
Respond to one of the following:
(a) Cash Purchase
Identify amount of offer and terms for securing ownership of the property.
(b) Land Lease
Provide responses to items in Appendix B.
(c) Other
Describe any other acquisition method other than cash
purchase or land lease for securing the property.
2. The Proposed Financial Plan
Developers are required to structure a Financial Plan,
which minimizes any capital outlay by the City to: 1)
relocate on-site city facilities, 2) relocate existing utility lines, and 3) prepare the site for development,
which includes demolition, site investigation and site
improvements, and 4) design and construct public improvements required by the proposed mixed use development of the site.
If financially feasible, developers should also demonstrate how to finance projects such as: 1) the linkages
from the site to downtown, 2) public gathering space
(s), and 3) public amenities.
Clearly, developers should focus on the City’s tax revenue generated by the mixed use development of the
City-owned site, including income tax as well as tax
revenue generated for entities other than the City.
18
3. The Equity and Debt Provided by the Developer
(Limit: 1 Page):
3. Preliminary Financial and Development Safeguards
for the City (Limit: 2 Pages)
Developers are also required to describe in detail the
amount of debt and equity provided by the developer.
The City is particularly interested in the amount of atrisk cash the developer (not a third-party entity) is
willing to invest in the proposed projects.
The City is risk averse. Consequently, developers are
required to submit a preliminary list of financial and
development safeguards for the City which will provide
a strong sense of protection from any “downside” of
the proposed project.
4. Financial Commitments (Limit: 3 Pages):
Clearly, the more extensive the list of safeguards, the
better.
Specifically identify the source(s) of all proposed project funding for the mixed use development and any
public facilities included in the initial phase of the project.
4. Preliminary Development and Construction Schedule
(Limit: None)
Submit a written statement from each financing source
that the equity and/or subordinate mortgage capital is
available for funding the proposed projects and that
the proposed project is consistent with the source’s
investment criteria for a project of this type and scope.
The City is requesting that developers submit a Development and Construction Schedule, which incorporates
items such as: the completion of the balance of the Predevelopment process, the time required to secure public and private financing and construction for the Phase
1 development. The Pro Forma should clearly correlate
with the construction timetable.
PART V—Other
5. Statement to Allow a Background Check
1. Jobs Created
The City will conduct background checks on all three
developers. Each developer is required to complete
and execute a release in a form to be issue by the City.
The City is requesting that developers estimate the
number of construction (temporary) and permanent
jobs that will be created in each phase of development
and provide a total for the ultimate build-out of the
site. Developers should provide a description of the
type of permanent jobs and an estimate of average pay
and an estimate of the amount of City and State income
tax the jobs will generate (City income tax is 1.3%,
State is 3.9%).
2. Preliminary Approval Rights for the City (Limit: 2
Pages)
The City is concerned that when it enters into a relationship with a developer, it will lose control over issues such as design, development quality and schedule. Therefore, the City is requesting that developers
submit a preliminary list of Approval Rights they are
willing to grant the City during the pre-development
process, construction and operation of development
components.
For example, the City will have the right to approve any
assignment or transfer of the land lease, subject to any
provisions for City participation in the sale, transfer or
refinancing of the leasehold, which is described in Land
Lease Terms, Appendix B, subsection (h).
6. Diversity Objectives
The City of Grand Rapids Sustainability Plan expresses a
commitment to social equity, including work force diversity and supplier diversity, environmental stewardship and economic vitality. Therefore, should the developer envision subcontracting any part of the work, if
feasible, they are encouraged to use their best efforts
to subcontract, create joint venture or otherwise enter
into business arrangements with minority, women and/
or disadvantaged business enterprises and local companies in the development of its proposed project.
PART VI—Proposal Fee Requirements
1. Earnest Money Deposit:
All developers submitting proposals are required to
provide an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of $50,000.
This deposit can be in the form of a cashier’s or certified check payable to the City of Grand Rapids. The EMD
paid by the selected developer shall be applied toward
the Purchase Price, or in the case of the land lease option, toward the first year’s rent, in the event a development agreement is entered into with the City. There-
19
after, the EMD would not be returned unless the development agreement is terminated because of a nonfulfillment of a contingency beyond the control of the
selected developer. This deposit will be returned to all
developers not selected to enter into an Exclusive Right
to Negotiate (ERN) with the City. For the selected developer, the deposit is non-refundable and will be credited to the purchase price at closing.
2. Developer Proposal Evaluation and Negotiation Fee:
Each developer submitting a proposal is required to
provide a $15,000 non-refundable check to the “City of
Grand Rapids” to cover a small portion of the cost to
evaluate developer proposals and assist the City in the
negotiation of the Development Agreement. This second check should also be included as part of the developer’s proposal submittal.
20
Developer RFP Checklist
RFP
Section
PART I
RFP
Page
RFP Item
Developer Qualifications
1.
Identification Information
15
2
Proposed Principal and Project Manager
15
3.
The Last Three (3) Mixed-Use Projects of Similar Development Scope
15
4.
The Last Three (3) Developments of Similar Development Scope
16
5.
Financial Capacity to Implement Projects of Similar Development Scope
16
6.
Ability to Attract Quality National and Local Retail and Office Tenants
16
7.
Ownership and/or Development Position in Recent Projects
16
8.
References
16
9.
Organization of the Multidisciplinary Team
16
PART II
Business Program and Design
1.
Building Program
16
2.
Preliminary Urban Design Plan
17
PART III
Financial Analysis
1.
Development Budget
17
2.
Pro Forma
18
3.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
18
PART IV
Proposed Financial Plan
1.
Method of Site Acquisition
18
2.
The Proposed Financial Plan
18
3.
The Equity and Debt Provided by the Developer
19
4.
Financial Commitments
19
PART V
Other
1.
Jobs Created
19
2.
Preliminary Approval Rights for the City
19
3.
Preliminary Financial and Development Safeguards for the City
19
4.
Preliminary Development and Construction Schedule
19
5.
Statement to Allow a Background Check
19
6.
Diversity Objectives
19
PART VI
Check
Proposal Fee Requirements
1.
Earnest Money Deposit
2.
Developer Proposal Evaluation and Negotiation Fee
19
Developer Request for Proposals - 201 Market
Avenue
20
21
5
Evaluation Criteria
22
Section 5 - Evaluation Criteria
Overview
at the site.
The City of Grand Rapids has incurred substantial costs
to acquire and ready the site for development. Now the
City is seeking a multi-disciplinary development team
to structure and implement the finance, design, development, construction and operation of the proposed
mixed use development of the site and the cost of preparing the site for maximum development. Development teams will be evaluated using the Evaluation Criteria described below.
Part II—Development and Design Concept
Part I—Developer Qualification
1. The experience of the developer, development team
and group with similar mixed-use development projects
of this scope.
1. Design compliments and is connected to the existing downtown.
2. Extent to which proposed uses are supported by
viable market data (i.e. market demand study).
3. Achievement of the City’s urban design objectives
described in Section 2.
4. Strength of the design will be a major criterion.
5. Achievement of the City’s project objectives including the pedestrian environment and activities created
at the edge of the Grand River.
2. The experience of the developer with major real estate partnerships.
6. Achievement of LEED certification.
3. Demonstrated extent of the development and/or
ownership position on similar projects.
7. Proposed uses compliment and do not detract from
downtown.
4. Demonstrated understanding of local market demand and supply.
8. Quality and feasibility of the project schedule.
Part III—Financial Analysis
5. Understanding of community issues and priorities.
6. Demonstrated understanding of, and ability to comply with, the design and regulatory process, as reflected in the development schedule, project concept,
and building program for the proposed projects.
7. Prior success of the development team with respect
to architectural and urban design quality and quality of
public spaces and amenities.
8. Articulation of clear lines of responsibility within
the developer’s organization on which the City can rely
during the balance of the pre-development and development processes.
9. Evidence of the developer’s ability to be creative
with design, development phasing and financing.
10. Evidence now and in the past that the developer
can secure national and local retail and office tenants
and significant new corporate presence not now located in the region.
11. Evidence of the developer’s experience structuring
agreements with hotel operators, if applicable.
12. Number and types of permanent jobs to be created
1. Extent to which the development budget provides a
foundation for and support of the proposal and financial Pro Forma.
2. Evidence that the Pro Forma for the private development components meet the current requirements of the
debt and equity capital markets.
3. Evidence that every effort was made to minimize the
City’s capital investment and risk.
4. Evidence that the developer has presented a Pro
Forma which includes assumptions that are economically sound and competitive.
5. Evidence that the developer has presented a Pro
Forma for the Building Program ($70,000,000 of taxable value) which includes assumptions that are economically sound and competitive.
6. The extent to which the tax increment projections
meet or exceed the City’s needs for relocation costs.
7. Under the land-lease option evidence that the City
receives a fair and reasonable share of the potential
economic return. The City is particularly interested in
the types and amounts of non-contingent, or guaran-
23
teed land lease payments proposed to be paid to the
City, as well as the type and amounts of contingent
land lease payments paid to the City.
Part IV— Proposed Financial Plan
1. If a cash purchase, the amount of the offer and
terms for securing ownership of the property.
2. If a land lease, the types, amount, and level of participation by the City for the eight types of land lease
payments.
3. If neither a cash purchase nor a land lease, the extent to which the proposed method of acquisition fully
meets the City’s financial requirement of a fair and equitable return for the property.
4. The financial capacity of the developer (including or
excluding joint venture entities) to successfully undertake the proposed projects.
5. The extent to which the proposed financing plan
limits capital outlay by the City and demonstrates how
any infrastructure projects are to be funded by the developer.
10. Guarantee of minimum tax increment necessary for
relocation costs of the existing facilities at the property.
Part V—Other
1. Number and quality of jobs created, particularly in
new industries for the region.
2. Evidence that the City will actively participate in key
decisions regarding design, building specifications,
scheduling and facility operations.
3. Evidence that the City is adequately protected from
any of the developer’s financial “downside.”
4. Evidence that the City is adequately protected from
cost overruns and completion problems.
5. Description of the specific type of guarantee security (e.g. letter of credit, performance bonds, etc.).
6. Demonstration of creative deal structuring, design
and financings.
7. Level of enthusiasm to implement this project.
6. Demonstrated ability to secure debt and equity.
7. The extent to which the development will generate
new property taxes and income taxes for the City and
other jurisdictions.
8. Demonstrated ability to minimize public partner
investment, reduce public partner risk, yet share in the
economic return.
9. Demonstrated quality and certainty of financial
commitments for all sources of proposed project funding.
8. Evidence that the developer will make an excellent
long-term partner for the City.
9. If applicable, evidence of supplier diversity, workforce diversity and local companies to be used on this
project.
The City reserves the right to add other evaluation criteria consistent with this Request For Proposals.
24
Evaluation Criteria Checklist
RFP
Section
PART I
RFP
Page
RFP Item
Developer Qualifications
1.
The experience of the developer, development team and group with similar
mixed-use development projects of this scope.
23
2.
Experience of developer with major real estate partnerships.
23
3.
Demonstrated extent of the development and/or ownership position on similar projects.
23
4.
Demonstrated understanding of local market demand and supply.
23
5.
Understanding of community issues and priorities.
23
6.
Demonstrated understanding of, and ability to comply with, the design and
regulatory process, as reflected in the development schedule, project concept, and building program for the proposed projects.
23
7.
Prior success of the development team with respect to architectural and urban design quality and quality of public spaces and amenities.
23
8.
Articulation of clear lines of responsibility within the developer’s organization on which the City can rely during the balance of the pre-development
and development processes.
23
9.
Evidence of the developer’s ability to be creative with design, development
phasing and finance.
23
10.
Evidence now and in the past that the developer can secure national and local
retail and office tenants and significant new corporate presence not now located in the region.
23
11.
Evidence of the developer’s experience structuring agreements with hotel
operators, if applicable.
23
12.
Number and types of permanent jobs to be created at the site.
23
PART II
Check
Development and Design Concept
1.
Design compliments and is connected to the existing downtown.
23
2.
Extent to which proposed uses are supported by viable market data (i.e. market demand study).
23
3.
Achievement of the City’s urban design objectives described in Section 2.
23
4.
Strength of the design will be a major criterion.
23
5.
Achievement of the City’s project objectives including the pedestrian environment and activities created at the edge of the Grand River.
23
6.
Achievement of LEED certification.
23
7.
Proposed uses compliment and do not detract from downtown.
23
8.
Quality and feasibility of the project schedule.
23
25
RFP
Section
PART III
RFP
Page
RFP Item
Financial Analysis
1.
Extent to which the development budget provides a foundation for and support of the proposal and financial Pro Forma.
23
2.
Evidence that the Pro Forma for the private development components meet
the current requirements of the debt and equity capital markets.
23
3.
Evidence that every effort was made to minimize the City’s capital investment
and risk.
23
4.
Evidence that the developer has presented a Pro Forma which includes assumptions that are economically sound and competitive.
23
5.
Evidence that the developer has presented a Pro Forma for the Building Program ($70,000,000 of taxable value) which includes assumptions that are
economically sound and competitive.
23
6.
The extent to which the tax increment projections meet or exceed the City’s
needs for relocation costs.
23
7.
Under the land-lease option evidence that the City receives a fair and reasonable share of the potential economic return. The City is particularly interested in the types and amounts of non-contingent, or guaranteed land lease
payments proposed to be paid to the City, as well as the type and amounts of
contingent land lease payments paid to the City.
23
PART IV
Check
Proposed Financial Plan
1.
If a cash purchase, the amount of the offer and terms for securing ownership
of the property.
24
2.
If a land lease, the types, amount, and level of participation by the City for
the eight types of land lease payments.
24
3.
If neither a cash purchase nor a land lease, the extent to which the proposed
method of acquisition fully meets the City’s financial requirement of a fair
and equitable return for the property.
24
4.
The financial capacity of the developer (including or excluding joint venture
entities) to successfully undertake the proposed projects.
24
5.
The extent to which the proposed financing plan limits capital outlay by the
City and demonstrates how any infrastructure projects are to be funded by the
developer.
24
6.
Demonstrated ability to secure debt and equity.
24
7.
The extent to which the development will generate new property taxes and
income taxes for the City and other jurisdictions.
24
8.
Demonstrated ability to minimize public partner investment, reduce public
partner risk, yet share in the economic return.
24
9.
Demonstrated quality and certainty of financial commitments for all sources
of proposed project funding.
24
10.
Guarantee of minimum tax increment necessary for relocation costs of the
existing facilities at the property.
24
26
RFP
Section
PART V
RFP
Page
RFP Item
Check
Other
1.
Number and quality of jobs created, particularly in new industries for the region.
24
2.
Evidence that the City will actively participate in key decisions regarding design, building specifications, scheduling and facility operations.
24
3.
Evidence that the City is adequately protected from any of the developer’s
financial “downside.”
24
4.
Evidence that the City is adequately protected from cost overruns and completion problems.
24
5.
Description of the specific type of guarantee security (e.g. letter of credit,
performance bonds, etc.).
24
6.
Demonstration of creative deal structuring, design and financings.
24
7.
Level of enthusiasm to implement this project.
24
8.
Evidence that the developer will make an excellent long-term partner for the
City.
24
9.
If applicable, evidence of supplier diversity, workforce diversity and local
companies to be used on this project.
24
27
6
Developer Selection Process
28
Section 6 - Developer Selection Process
Overview
Developer proposals in response to this Request for
Proposals will be evaluated by the City Commission, City
staff, Steering Committee and appropriate consultant.
Based on the evaluation criteria described in Section 5,
City staff will present to the City Commission a recommended ranking of the top team.
If the City decides to enter into exclusive negotiations
with one developer, the developer ranked number one
and the City will sign an Exclusive Right to Negotiate
(ERN) agreement. The Exclusive Right to Negotiate will
briefly describe the respective responsibilities and obligations that will exist during the 180-day period of
exclusive negotiations. The primary purpose of the
Exclusive Right to Negotiate is to set forth the City’s
commitment to not enter negotiations concerning the
site with any other party during the period of exclusive
negotiations.
For information concerning the procedure for responding to the Request for Proposals or needed clarifications of the terms, conditions, and requirements of this
Request for Proposals, please contact John Stainback,
President, or Will Reed, Vice President, SPPRE, at
713.621.3007.
It is preferred that all questions or clarifications be
submitted in writing to Mr. John Stainback, Stainback
Public/Private Real Estate (SPPRE), 3100 Timmons
Lane, Suite 310, Houston, TX 77027, or e-mailed to
[email protected].
All questions and requests for clarification must be
received no later than January 5, 2007. In conjunction
with the City, SPPRE will complete answers to all questions and distribute the questions and answers to developers by January 19, 2007.
Schedule for the Selection of a Developer
Deadlines and Procedures
Proposal Deadline:
The Qualifications (Part 1) and Technical Proposals
(Part 2) in response to this Request for Proposals are
due by noon EST , and must be prepared in conformance with the requirements described in Section 5.
Unless requested by the City, no additional information
can be submitted by developers after the February 23,
2007 deadline.
See the following page for the anticipated developer
selection schedule.
Procedure for Developer Questions or Clarifications:
The City Commission reserves the right to extend or
otherwise modify the schedule for selection of a developer. If and when such changes in the schedule were
to occur, notice will then be provided to developers still
involved at that stage of the selection process.
Developer Interviews
The developers receiving this Request for Proposals will
be required to present their qualifications, urban design plans and finance plan in Grand Rapids. Based on
the review of developer proposals submitted on February 23, 2007, the City will prepare several questions for
developers to answer at the interview sessions. The
developers will receive information and times for their
respective presentations in advance of the interviews.
29
Section 6 - Developer Selection Process
Developer Selection Schedule
November 6, 2006 – March 12, 2007
STEPS
DATE
Step 1: Developer RFP Issued
December 1, 2006
Step 2: Developers Submit Questions to City/SPPRE
January 5, 2007
Step 3: City/SPPRE Provide Answers to Developers
January 19, 2007
Step 4: RFP Proposal Due Date
February 23, 2007
Step 5: Steering Committee Completes Evaluation of Developer Proposals
TBD
Step 6: Steering Committee Completes Interviews of Developers
TBD
Step 7: Steering Committee Submits Ranking of Developers
TBD
Step 8: City Commission Considers Rankings
TBD
Step 9: City Commission Considers Recommendations
TBD
30
7
General Terms and Conditions
31
Section 7 - General Terms and Conditions
1. This Request for Proposal is only an invitation to
submit proposals and does not commit the City in
any way to enter into an agreement or to proceed
with the Project. The issuance of this Request for
Proposal does not obligate the City to pay any costs
whatsoever incurred by any respondent in connection with: (a) the preparation or presentation of
qualifications or a proposal; (b) any supplements or
modifications of this RFP; or (c) negotiations with
the City or other party arising out of or relating to
this Request for Proposal or the subject matter of
this Request for Proposal. The determination by the
City to select a particular respondent shall not imply
acceptance of the respondent's business offer,
which may be subject to further negotiation prior to
approval of a development agreement or other
agreements with the City. The development agreement and other agreements will be subject to approval by the City Commission.
2. Upon satisfaction or waiver of the Development
Agreement conditions, the City will convey the Site
to the developer in an ''as is" condition. It shall be
the sole responsibility of the developer to investigate and determine conditions of the Site, including
but not limited to, hazardous materials and utilities, and the suitability of such conditions of the
Site for the improvements and alterations to be
provided by the developer.
3. The information presented in this Request for Proposal and in any report or other information provided by the City to responders is provided solely for
the convenience of the interested parties. It is the
sole responsibility of interested parties to assure
themselves that the information contained in this
Request for Proposal or other documents are accurate and complete. No representations, assurances
or warranties pertaining to the accuracy of such
information are or will be provided by the City or its
advisors.
4. Except as specifically provided in any agreement to
be executed by the City and the successful respondent, the City expressly reserves the right at any
time, and from time to time, for its own convenience, and in the City's sole discretion, to do any or
all of the following:
•
Waive or correct any defect or technical error as
to form or content of this request or in any response, proposal or proposal procedure, as part
of the Request for Proposal or any subsequent
negotiation process;
•
Reject any and all proposals, without indicating
any reason for such rejection;
•
Reissue a Request for Proposals;
•
Modify or suspend any and all aspects of the
selection process, modify the scope of the Project or the required responses, modify the components of the development concept, or modify
the process indicated in this solicitation;
•
Request that responders clarify, supplement or
modify the information submitted;
•
Extend deadlines for accepting responses, request amendments to responses after expiration
of deadlines, or negotiate or approve final
agreements;
•
Negotiate with any, all or none of the responders to the Request for Proposal;
•
Make a selection for exclusive negotiations
based solely on the proposal selection process,
or negotiate further with one or more of the
responders;
•
During negotiation, expand or contract the
scope of the project, including adding or subtracting areas to or from the Site, committing or
withholding public financing or otherwise altering the project concept from that which was
initially proposed in order to respond to new
information, community or environmental issues, or opportunities to enhance public amenities; and/or,
•
If negotiations with the successful respondent
fail to proceed to the reasonable satisfaction of
the City, negotiate with and enter into a final
agreement with another respondent, or begin
the selection process anew.
5. By submitting a proposal, the respondent certifies
to the City that the respondent has not paid, nor
agreed to pay, and will not pay or agree to pay, any
fee or commission, or any other thing of value contingent on the award of a lease or other agreement
with the City related to the project, to the City or
any City employee or official or to any contracting
consultant hired by the City or the City for purposes
of the Project.
32
Section 7 - General Terms and Conditions
6. Responses about this Request for Proposal shall be
subject to Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA). Information will be made available to the
public in accordance with such law. At the request
of the respondent, and to the extent permitted by
law, personal or nonpublic financial statements
submitted in response to this Request for Proposals
(RFP) will not be publicly disclosed. However, neither the City nor SPPRE shall be responsible under
any circumstances for any damages or losses incurred by a respondent or any other person or entity
because of the release of such information.
7. The City will not return submittals or any information submitted in connection with a submittal.
8. The City reserves the right to disqualify any respondent to this Request for Proposal on the basis of any
real or apparent conflict of interest that is disclosed
by the responses submitted, or on the basis of other
data available to the City. This disqualification is at
the sole discretion of the City. Any false, incomplete, or otherwise unresponsive statements made
in connection with a proposal may be cause for its
disqualification at the City's discretion.
this Request for Proposal in its capacity as a landowner with a proprietary interest in the Site and not
as a regulatory agency of the City. Any respondent
also would be subject to applicable City ordinances
including but not limited to the City’s zoning ordinance.
11. The City will not pay a Finder's or Broker's Fee in
connection with this Request for Proposal. Developers shall be solely responsible for the payment of all
fees to any real estate brokers with whom such party
has contracted.
12. All facts and opinions stated in this RFP (including
any attachments, appendices or exhibits) and in the
additional reports and information are based upon
available information, and no representation or
warranty is made with respect thereto.
13. Developers will be required to sign and submit a
form stating their agreement to comply with the
Terms, General Terms and Conditions set forth
herein.
9. The City intends, through negotiations, to identify
the actions and activities that would be necessary to
develop the Site and thereby facilitate meaningful
environmental review. If the Project is found to
cause significant adverse impacts that have not
already been analyzed and/or have not been mitigated, the City retains absolute discretion to require additional environmental analysis, and to: (a)
modify the Project to mitigate significant adverse
environmental impacts; (b) select feasible alternatives which avoid significant adverse impacts of the
proposed project; or (c) reject or proceed with the
project as proposed depending upon a finding of
whether or not the economic and social benefits of
the project outweigh otherwise unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the project.
10. The responder shall be responsible for obtaining all
government approvals required for the project, and
the responder will be expected to pay all permit and
processing fees related to the development. In issuing this Request for Proposal , the City makes no
representation or warranties that the necessary
governmental approvals can be obtained which will
allow the development of the Site in accordance
with the guidelines set forth above herein. Responders should understand that the City is issuing
33
8
Appendices
34
Section 8 - Appendices
APPENDIX A
Land Lease Definitions
1. Construction Rent:
Construction Rent, or Holding Rent is paid by the private partner (“developer”) to the public partner during
the construction period. Construction Rent is typically
equal to the number of square feet of land in a phase
times “X” dollars per square feet until construction is
completed. These payments to the public partner can
be on a monthly or annual basis.
2. Base Rent:
In most partnerships, the Base Rent is the primary
source of non-tax income for the public partner. In
most partnerships, the Base Rent is paid annually and
payment to the public partner is guaranteed by the
private partner. Typically, the Base Rent is increased
“X” percentage every “Y” years, or tied to the Consumer
Price Index (CPI). Payment of the Base Rent begins
after construction has been completed.
3. Index Rent:
Commencing on the “X” anniversary of the date of stabilization and every “Y” years thereafter, the Base Rent
will be adjusted by the change in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) from the date of stabilization, or the previous adjustment date, as negotiated. Often CPI Adjusted
Rent, or Index Rent has priority after the developer has
received its Preferred Return, but before any distribution of Participation Rent.
4. Participation Rent:
The public partner should receive a percentage rent,
which is contingent on project performance. Typically,
the public partner receives “X” percentage of all cash
flow available from the project after payment of the
Base Rent, debt service, reserves for vacancy, retenanting and capital expenses, receipt by the developer of a preferred Return on Cost (ROC), and receipt by
the public partner of any CPI adjusted rent.
6. Maintenance, Operation and Security (MOS) Payment:
(Only applies to projects with a major public space) This
type of land lease payment is derived from developer’s
tenants. Each tenant will contribute to the cost to
maintain, operate and secure the public space. This
payment will be prorated according to the amount of
occupied Gross Leaseable Area (GLA). The tenant must
also contribute those portions of MOS resulting from
vacancy. This type of payment is also adjusted annually
to the CPI, but typically does not exceed a negotiated
percentage rate.
7. “Home-Run” Insurance:
This type of payment is a great way for public partners
to participate in the exceptional performance of a project, or in other words, if the developer hits a “homerun”. Basically, this payment is based on cash flow,
which is up and above the projected cash flow included
in the final Developer Pro Forma. If the project performs beyond the projected cash flow, the public partner shares in that cash flow.
8. Land Lease Payouts:
It is likely that a portion of the market rate residential
units would be for-sale condominiums. Developers are
encouraged to provide the City with one-time Land
Lease payouts based on the sale of condominium units.
The Land Lease Payout in Year Two exceeds the Present
Value (PV) of the Land Lease payments paid over the
term of 40-years. This allows the City to avoid leveraging the Property Tax generated annually by the proposed mixed use developments. In addition, the Base
Rent to be paid to the City by the private developer as
part of the Land Lease now applies only to the retail
space. In other words, the Land Lease Payout was
structured to provide the City with non-tax income
which exceeds the present value of the traditional Land
Lease structure.
5. Participation in Any Sale Proceeds, or Refinancing:
Clearly, this type of land lease payment is contingent
on the sale, or refinancing of the project. The typical
milestones are after construction is completed, year 5
or year 10.
35
Section 8 - Appendices
APPENDIX B
Land Lease Payment Terms
(a) Guaranteed annual Base Rent to be paid to the City
by the developer.
For all building types except condominium units, developers are required to propose a Base Rent to be paid to
the City annually for 40 years. The City urges developers to propose a guaranteed Base Rent payment.
For the Market-Rate Condominium units in the proposed Phase 1 Building Program, developers need to
determine the maximum land lease payout to the City
upon closing of financing. This one-time land lease
payment to the City is in lieu of the traditional Base
Rent paid over the term of the land lease for land under
the condominium units.
(b) Periodic adjustments to Base Rent, including
amount and timing of adjustments. Adjustments should
be based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as defined
by the Federal Reserve Bank.
(c) Percentage Rent on gross receipts of each project to
be paid to the City, including proposed percentage
rental rates.
If the developer includes condominium units in the
proposed Building Program, it needs to determine the
maximum amount of Net Proceeds from the sale of the
Market-Rate Condominium units paid to the City. This
one-time payment to the City would occur upon completion of sale of 95 percent of the units, or two years
after the developer receives the Certificate of Occupancy, which ever occurs first. The payment to the City
from the proceeds from the sale of the remaining 5
percent of the units is to be negotiated.
(d) Periodic adjustments to percentage rental rates
used for calculating Percentage Rent, including timing
of adjustments and methodology for determination of
adjustment.
(g) Length of lease term: 40 years. Developers must
provide the rationale for changing the proposed term
of the lease. The only exception may be for any condominium units. We will consider suggested increases to
the term of the land lease for land under condominium
units.
(h) City participation in net proceeds that developer
receives from the sale, transfer or refinancing of leasehold improvements.
(i) Maintenance/Repairs: During the term of the Lease,
the developer shall be responsible for all improvements, maintenance, repairs and operating expenses
associated with the private development components.
The responsibility of maintaining the public development components will be negotiated.
(j) Insurance and Bond Requirements: The developer
will be required to maintain insurance throughout the
term of the Lease. Coverage should provide for
amounts and limits determined appropriate by the City
in a form and with carriers acceptable to the City. Insurance coverage should include, but not be limited to,
comprehensive general liability, worker’s compensation, property insurance on the premises, automobile
liability, personal property, business interruption,
builder’s risk, host liquor law and food products liability insurance, protection and indemnity insurance, and
any other insurance required by law. The City must be
named as an additional insured.
(k) Performance and Payment Bonds: The developer’s
construction contractor will be required to furnish the
City with performance and payment bonds issued by a
responsible surety company licensed in Michigan and
satisfactory to the City in the City’s reasonable discretion, or other such instrument. Such bond shall guarantee installation of the improvements proposed to be
constructed at the sites and in an amount not less than
the value of said improvements.
(e) Construction Rent to be paid to the City during construction. These payments should be fixed and paid on
a monthly basis.
(l) All other proposed lease terms so that the City fully
understands the intent and basis of the proposal.
(f) Subordination: The City’s fee ownership and Base
Rent income stream will not be subordinated.
(m) Describe the options available at the end of lease
period.
36
DATE:
November 15, 2006
TO:
Kurt F. Kimball
City Manager
FROM:
Scott Buhrer
Rick DeVries
José L. R. Reyna
Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT:
Resolution Authorizing Repair/Reconstruction of the Fulton Street
Cemetery Wall (tabled October 31, 2006)
On November 12, 2005 a section of the Fulton Street Cemetery Wall adjacent to Fountain Street
east of Eastern Avenue collapsed. Since that time, City staff, consultants from Materials Testing
Consultants, Inc. (MTC), and Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr and Huber, Inc. (FTCH) have explored
various options for repair/reconstruction. In the process of consideration of repair/reconstruction
options, staff, MTC, and FTCH met with members of the Midtown Neighborhood Association, the
Historic Preservation Commission, representatives from other community stakeholder groups,
and polled affected residents.
Three major options were explored as potential repair/reconstruction methods for the Fulton
Street Cemetery Wall including:
A.
B.
C.
Replacing the existing wall with concrete gravity wall at an estimated cost of $2.1 million
Constructing a tiered wall in front of existing wall at an estimated cost of $2.6 million
Stabilizing the existing wall with soil nails at an estimated cost of $2.23 million
Financial Impact
The costs associated with operating and maintaining the City cemeteries is accounted for in
the City Cemeteries Operating Fund.
The Cemeteries Operating Fund is not self-sufficient. The fund relies on operating subsidies
from the General Operating Fund (FY2007 amount is $577,000). The costs of reconstructing
the Fulton Street Cemetery Wall will be accounted for in the Cemeteries Operating Fund and
the funding will be provided from bond proceeds. This will increase the annual debt service as
well as increase the amount of the annual subsidy required from the General Operating Fund.
We have been analyzing the impacts of the difference in cost between Option A, Option B, and
Option C, as well as the differences in the amount of the annual debt service that would result
if we financed the cost over a 10-year period vs. over a 15-year period. The results are shown
below.
15 YEAR AMORTIZATION:
REQUIRED
BOND
PROCEEDS
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
DEBT
SERVICE
TOTAL
INTEREST
PAID
TOTAL
COST OF
WALL
$2,100,000
$2,600,000
$2,230,000
$194,573
$239,968
$206,751
$748,588
$999,513
$871,262
$2,918,588
$3,599,513
$3,101,262
REQUIRED
BOND
PROCEEDS
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
DEBT
SERVICE
TOTAL
INTEREST
PAID
TOTAL
COST OF
WALL
$2,100,000
$2,600,000
$2,230,000
$264,606
$326,230
$281,065
$546,063
$662,296
$580,645
$2,646,064
$3,262,296
$2,810,645
OPTION A
OPTION B
OPTION C
OPTION A
OPTION B
OPTION C
In conclusion, the staff recommendation is to replace the Fulton Street Cemetery Wall with
Option A and to finance it over 15 years.
Attached is a resolution for City Commission’s approval of the recommendation.
With your approval, it is requested that the resolution be placed on the November 21, 2006
City Commission meeting agenda.
t:\CW06\CW Fulton St Cemetery Wall
112106
#05115
YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution
approving the Gravity Wall, Option A as the selected alternative for the Repair/Reconstruction
of the Fulton Street Cemetery Wall.
CORRECT IN FORM
_____________________________________
__________________________
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to adopt
WHEREAS, the City retained the services of Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. and
Materials Testing Consultants, Inc. to determine alternatives for the Repair/Reconstruction of
the Fulton Street Cemetery Wall; and
WHEREAS, a report outlining the alternatives for the Repair/Reconstruction of the Fulton Street
Cemetery Wall, including estimates of costs and evaluation criteria, was provided to the Mayor
and City Commissioners for their consideration; therefore
RESOLVED, that the City Commission hereby approves the Gravity Wall, Option A as the
selected alternative for the Repair/Reconstruction of the Fulton Street Cemetery Wall, and
authorizes the City Engineer to proceed with the implementation of the same.
This resolution was drafted by José Reyna, Assistant to the City Manager
t:\CW06\CW Fulton St Cemetery Wall
112106
#05115
Repair/Reconstruction of the Fulton Street Cemetery Wall
Background
On November 12, 2005, a segment of the wall along the north border of the Fulton Street
Cemetery collapsed. The wall was constructed in 1897 and borders the south right-of-way line
of Fountain Street. The cemetery is located in a neighborhood of homes and a sidewalk runs
east to west along the bottom of the wall. Although gravesites were not disturbed in the wall
failure, numerous gravesites are located relatively close to the wall.
The wall has a length of approximately 800 feet and a maximum height of 20 feet near the
midpoint of the wall. The wall retains a hill, which is highest near the midpoint, and gradually
slopes downward to the east and west ends. The collapsed segment of the wall is in the area of
maximum wall height and spans a distance of approximately 55 feet. The wall was originally
constructed with a consistent batter along the face of the wall. The wall both east and west of
the area of collapse has visibly moved to a more upright position and the top cap of the wall has
moved outward proportionally to the wall height. In addition to the outward movement of the
wall, a bulge is visible in the face of the uppermost 6 feet of the wall approximately 40 feet east
of the break. Movement of the stone above this height and separation at the bottom of the top
cap is evident.
The wall was constructed of sandstone faceblocks, irregular-shaped sandstone rubble mass
behind the face, and lime/sand mortar. It is a gravity wall, where the mass of the wall retains
the soil. The sandstone is relatively soft stone and many of the blocks have visible cracks.
Several faceblocks have fallen off of the wall along the wall's length. The lime/sand mortar has
degraded over the years from wetting, freezing, and thawing, and is relatively soft. The surface
cement mortar is generally in very poor condition throughout the wall, with numerous cracks and
areas that have moved and dropped off the wall.
Public Input
In the process of consideration of repair options, staff, MTC and FTCH met with members of the
Midtown Neighborhood Association, neighborhood residents, the Historic Preservation
Commission, representatives from other community stakeholder groups, and polled residents in
the area.
There were several issues raised during these meetings including the protection of the historic
nature of the cemetery, perception of crime, reduction of parking, and traffic flow. In addition,
there was interest expressed to enhance the appearance and historic character of the cemetery
while providing increased access into the cemetery. Also, there was much discussion regarding
the viability of options and their impact on the Cemetery and surrounding neighborhood.
Discussions, although progressing, had not resulted in a consensus on a preferred option.
Subsequent meetings were held with representatives from the City Engineer’s office, MTC,
FTCH, representatives from the Midtown Neighborhood Association, and the Historic
Preservation Commission. It was determined that additional public input would be sought for
evaluation of proposed options. A set of criteria on which options would be evaluated was
developed. There was concurrence for the criterion as proposed including:
1. Overall cost; consideration should be given to the direct, indirect, and long-term
maintenance costs of the project.
2. Structural Integrity; the selected design should provide the longest possible longevity for
the wall.
3. Historical sensitivity; the wall is not designated as an historical element of the cemetery;
however, the historic nature of the wall is considered a significant design element.
4. Minimal intrusion; the cemetery is designated as historically significant and reconstruction
should involve minimal intrusion into the cemetery.
5. Neighborhood impact; negative impact to the neighborhood from the reconstruction
should be minimized.
6. Traffic safety; traffic movement patterns should be maintained or improved as a result of
the project.
7. Parking; impact to available and/or necessary parking should not be adversely impacted
as a result of the project.
8. Safety and Security; safety and security in the area should be maintained or improved as
a result of the design.
9. Other considerations
a. Neighborhood impact (long-term) – Potential positive impact to the neighborhood
related to the design of the project should be given consideration.
b. Enhancement of historic nature of cemetery – ability to access cemetery for
historical and educational aspect of cemetery should be considered in the
design.
On September 21 and October 7, 2006, public meetings were held to review the options and
receive input. The general conclusions of the public meetings were as follows:
1. Overall cost; consideration should be given to the direct, indirect, and long-term
maintenance costs of the project.
a. Option A: Gravity Wall - Estimated cost is $2.1 million, lowest cost with minimal
requirement for ongoing maintenance cost.
b. Option B: Tiered Wall - Estimated cost is $2.6 million, highest cost with
significant indirect and ongoing maintenance costs.
c. Option C: Soil Nail - Estimated cost is $2.23 million, middle cost with minimal
requirement for ongoing maintenance cost.
2. Structural Integrity; the selected design should provide the longest possible longevity for
the wall.
Each option was determined to present high structural integrity if necessary
maintenance was conducted. Longevity projected to be at least 100 years.
3. Historical sensitivity; the wall is not designated as an historical element of the cemetery;
however, the historic nature of the wall is considered a significant design element.
a. Option A: The wall would be reconstructed resulting in appearance similar to
previously existing wall.
b. Option B: The design proposes to enhance the historical nature of the cemetery
by providing a focal entry point.
c. Option C: The wall will be reconstructed to include a facing that will project 18
inches beyond the existing wall.
4. Minimal intrusion; the cemetery is designated as historically significant and reconstruction
should involve minimal intrusion into the cemetery.
All options provide minimal intrusion into the cemetery. However, Option B will involve
no intrusion into the cemetery.
2
5. Neighborhood impact; negative impact to the neighborhood from the reconstruction
should be minimized.
The predominant concern expressed was that the resolution on design was delayed
and that construction should begin as soon as possible.
6. Traffic safety; traffic movement patterns should be maintained or improved as a result of
the project.
a. Option A: Maintains current traffic movement design.
b. Option B: Constricts traffic flow which could be perceived as a traffic calming
measure. However, concerns were expressed about the movement of traffic
during field events.
c. Option C: Maintains current traffic movement design.
7. Parking; impact to available and/or necessary parking should not be adversely impacted
as a result of the project.
a. Option A: Maintains current parking availability
b. Option B: Results in the elimination of 18 parking spaces.
c. Option C: Maintains current parking availability.
8. Safety and Security; safety and security in the area should be maintained or improved as
a result of the design.
Concerns were expressed regarding the crime rate and perception of crime due to
the wall. Consultation with Police personnel indicated that the cemetery and
Fountain Street have a minimal crime rate. However, the perception of security
could be improved through increased lighting of the cemetery and Fountain Street.
Any design selection would benefit with the incorporation of lighting elements.
9. Other considerations:
a. Neighborhood impact (long term) – Potential positive impact to the neighborhood
related to the design of the project should be given consideration.
i. Option A: Maintains current neighborhood configuration.
ii. Option B: Proponents claim that this option will enhance the neighborhood
by highlighting the cemetery as an historical asset, improve the public safety
perception, and promote pedestrian traffic.
iii. Option C: Maintains current neighborhood configuration.
b. Enhancement of historic nature of cemetery – ability to access cemetery for
historical and educational aspect of cemetery should be considered in the
design.
i. Option A: Provides no additional enhancement to historic nature of cemetery.
ii. Option B: Proponents claim that this option will create increased opportunity
for educational and historic opportunities.
iii. Option C: Provides no additional enhancement to historic nature of
cemetery.
In addition to the public meetings, the Traffic Safety Department issued a postcard survey to
households near the collapsed wall. The survey asked whether residents were in support of the
reduction or elimination of parking along Fountain Street adjacent to the cemetery wall. Eight
surveys were distributed; four were returned – one was in favor, three were opposed. A fifth
respondent, Mr. Craig Vredegood of 857 Fountain NE, submitted a letter opposing the elimination
of parking.
3
The public input process resulted in the identification of the Fulton Street Cemetery as a
significant historical asset that the City and the neighborhood may consider enhancing. None of
the options prevent the enhancement of the historic nature of the cemetery or potential benefits
as a community educational and historic asset.
In consideration of the input that was received, although there were proponents of particular
options, Options A and B met the criteria as established. In consideration of all variables to
consider, Option A best meets the criteria and is the recommended option for reconstruction of
the Fulton Street Cemetery Wall.
Alternatives
There were many alternatives considered. Three alternatives which will restore the integrity of the
wall and provide a long, useful life are viable. Descriptions of the options with the estimated costs
are listed below. A cross-section view of each alternative is included at the end of the report.
1.
Option A:
Gravity Wall
Estimated total project cost: $2,100,000
Description:
Replace approximately 500 linear feet of wall with height
over 7 feet with new gravity wall and new stone face.
Rehabilitate approximately 300 linear feet of face of wall in
remaining areas (deep tuck-pointing). Restore disturbed
areas.
2.
Option B:
Tiered Wall
Description: Construct three tiered retaining walls in front of
existing wall with height over 7 feet and attach new stone
facing. Rehabilitate approximately 300 linear feet of face of
wall in remaining areas (deep tuck-pointing). Place
landscaping and historic interpretive signage. Relocate private
utilities (gas and electric). Reconstruct Fountain Street, east
of Eastern Avenue. Restore disturbed areas.
3.
Option C:
Soil Nail Repair
Description:
Repair process involves stabilizing approximately 500 linear
feet of the existing wall of height over 7 feet with soil nails,
structural concrete, and stone facing. Rehabilitate
approximately 300 linear feet of face of wall in remaining areas
(deep tuck-pointing). Restore disturbed areas.
Financial Impact
The costs associated with operating and maintaining the City cemeteries is accounted for in the
City Cemeteries Operating Fund.
4
The Cemeteries Operating Fund is not self-sufficient. The fund relies on operating subsidies from
the General Operating Fund (FY2007 amount is $577,000). The costs of reconstructing the Fulton
Street Cemetery Wall will be accounted for in the Cemeteries Operating Fund and the funding will
be provided from bond proceeds. This will increase the annual debt service as well as increase
the amount of the annual subsidy required from the General Operating Fund.
We have been analyzing the impacts of the differences in cost between Options A, B, and C, as
well as the differences in the amount of the annual debt service that would result if we financed
the cost over a ten-year period vs. over a fifteen-year period. The results are shown below.
OPTION A
OPTION B
OPTION C
REQUIRED
BOND
PROCEEDS
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
DEBT
SERVICE
TOTAL
INTEREST
PAID
TOTAL
COST OF
WALL
$2,100,000
$2,600,000
$2,230,000
$194,573
$239,968
$206,751
$748,588
$999,513
$871,262
$2,918,588
$3,599,513
$3,101,262
REQUIRED
BOND
PROCEEDS
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
DEBT
SERVICE
TOTAL
INTEREST
PAID
TOTAL
COST OF
WALL
$2,100,000
$2,600,000
$2,230,000
$264,606
$326,230
$281,065
$546,063
$662,296
$580,645
$2,646,064
$3,262,296
$2,810,645
OPTION A
OPTION B
OPTION C
In conclusion, the staff recommendation is to replace the Fulton Street Cemetery Wall with
Option A and to finance it over fifteen years.
Recommendation
All three options will restore the functionality of the wall. Based on the cost of each option, both
for construction and maintenance, as well as the public input, it is recommended that the City
implement the Gravity Wall, Option A and fund the implementation from bond proceeds financed
over fifteen years.
t:\CW06\CW Fulton St Cemetery Wall attachment 1
112106
#05115
5

City Commission EPacket November 21, 2006

Transcription

Similar documents

July 2016.pub

BUY $1 GET $1 - Double Up Food Bucks

grand rapids, mi • van andel arena • sunday, october 16, 2016 • 6:00

Health Journal: The Priority Health Magazine for Healthy Living

28TH ANNUAL CON1=: RENe AND TRADESHOW .

our 2012 Annual Report

Game Post Mortems

MOVIE DAY

Bridging the Gap - Cascade Engineering

Ah‐Nab‐Awen Park