city council meeting

CITY COUNCIL MEETING City Hall – 270 River Avenue November 7, 2012 AGENDA 5:30 P.M. Pre‐Council Meeting (Council review of Agenda Items, No Action Taken) 7:00 P.M. Council Meeting (Action to be taken by Council on the following agenda items) 1. 2. 3. 4. *5. *6. 7. 8. 9. 10. *11. 12. 13. 14. New ROLL CALL Opening Prayer – Assistant City Manager Robinson Pledge of Allegiance Consent Agenda – All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and have previously been reviewed by Council, and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or a member of the audience so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence: A. Announcement of above by the Mayor B. Summary of the Consent Agenda by the City Clerk C. Requests to remove items D. Motion to approve Consent Agenda Items – ROLL CALL Approval of Minutes: Study Session held October 10, 2012 Absences Excused: Motion to excuse, if any. Special Presentations and Recognitions by the Mayor and / or Council Members. Special Order of the Day: None. Unfinished Business: A. Section 39‐166 and 39‐168 for permit uses in the PUD Zone District – Motion to remove from table – ROLL CALL. Adoption of Ordinances: None. Written Petitions and Communications: A. Tax Abatement Application PA198 for Code Blue Corporation, 259 Hedcor Street – Refer to staff for study and report. Communications from the Audience Reports from Special Committees: None. Reports from Boards and City Officers: A. Board of Public Works: 1. Receipt of One‐Year Franchise Agreements and Referral to BPW for Study and recommendation. B. Planning Commission: *1. Rezone Properties at 338, 342, 346, 350, 354 and 360 River Avenue from R‐TRN Traditional Residential Neighborhood District to PUD Planned Development District – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. C. City Attorney: *1. Expense Recovery Ordinance ‐ Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. *2. Super Drunk Driving Ordinance Amendment ‐ Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. D. City Clerk: None. E. City Manager: 1. Community & Neighborhood Services: *1.1 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – Schedule Public Hearing for Nov. 28, 2012 – Substantial Amendment to the 2012 / 2013 Consolidated Plan – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. 2. Parks, Recreation and Transportation Services: *2.1 Lincoln Avenue Improvement Project – Amend Action to also Approve Assessment Roll PV310A ‐ Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. *2.2 Washington Avenue Tunnel Lighting Evaluation and Maintenance – Award Bid – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. *2.3 Demolition of Structures 244 East 16th Street – Award Bid – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. 3. Fiscal Services & Purchasing: *3.1 Technology Services – Backup Device – Award Bid – Motion to accept as information – ROLL CALL. *3.2 Technology Services – Declare Items as Surplus – Motion to accept as information – ROLL CALL. *3.3 Centralized Vehicle Maintenance Fund – Sale of 1997 Storm Sewer VACTOR ‐ Award Bid ‐ Motion to accept as information – ROLL CALL. *3.4 Finance – Annual Adjustments of Interest Rates for Certain Special Assessments – Motion to accept as information – ROLL CALL. *3.5 Finance Department ‐ Quarterly Investment Report – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. Centralized Vehicle Maintenance Fund – Vehicle Purchases – Award Bids – Motion to adopt *3.6 recommendation – ROLL CALL. 4. Public Safety Services: *4.1 Police Division – Report Writing Software – Agreement with iyeTek – Motion to adopt recommendation. 5. Management & Administrative Services: 5.1 Gifts – Motion to accept with appreciation – ROLL CALL. 5.2 Citizen Survey – Survey Questions – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. *5.3 Tax Abatement – Schedule PA198 Public Hearing for Dec. 5, 2012 ‐ Code Blue Corporation, 259 Hedcor Street ‐ Motion to adopt recommendation ‐ ROLL CALL. *5.4 Human Resources – 2013 Health Insurance Rates – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. *5.5 Energy Conservation – Centennial Park LED Lighting Retrofit Projects – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. 5.6 Approval of Community Energy Task Force Planning Budgets (4) – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. *5.7 Formal Approval of a Citizen Community Energy Task Force Member – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. *5.8 Authorization for a New Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiency Task Force ‐ Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. *5.9 Change in Meeting Schedule – Cancel Nov. 21, 2012 & Schedule Meeting on November 28, 2012 – Motion to adopt recommendation – ROLL CALL. 6. Internal Services: None 15. Communications from the City Manager 16. Communications from the Mayor 17. Communications from Council Members 18. Motions and Resolutions by Council Members 19. First Reading of Ordinances: A. Section 39‐166 and 39‐168 for permit uses in the PUD Zone District – Subject to a Study Session on 11.14.12. *B. Super Drunk Driving Ordinance Amendment *C. Rezone Properties at 338, 342, 346, 350, 354 and 360 River Avenue from R‐TRN Traditional Residential Neighborhood District to PUD Planned Development District. *D. Expense Recovery Ordinance Motion to accept for first reading. 20. Adjournment PLEASE NOTE 


AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION: In addition to addressing the Council during public hearings and under “Communications from the Audience”, members of the Audience may address the Council, on items under “Reports from Boards and City Officers”, after a motion is pending on a particular item (except for items on the Consent Agenda), by approaching the microphone and waiting to be recognized by the Mayor. Audience participation shall be five minutes or less per item. HEARING ASSIST DEVICES: Hearing assist devices are available upon request in the Control Room near the lighted display case. The City Council Chambers is equipped with the Induction Loop System. Please adjust your hearing aid to the T‐coil setting to enhance reception of the amplified sound. CELL PHONES: Please be courteous and turn cell phones off during the meeting. Proposed Minutes Holland City Council Study Session, October 10, 2012 The City Council met in a study session at 5:30 p.m. in the Training Room at City Hall, 270 River Avenue, and Mayor Dykstra called the meeting to order. Council Members Present: Mayor Dykstra, Council Members De Boer, Trethewey, Peters, Burch, Vande Vusse, Whiteman, Hoekstra and Klomparens Council Members Absent: None Others Present: City Manager Cotton, Parks, Recreation and Transportation Director Syens, Civil Engineer Supervisor White, Recreation Division Manager Myers, Community & Neighborhood Services Assistant Director Osman, Executive Assistant Babinec and Assistant City Manager Robinson Item 1. Public Comments. There were not any comments expressed by the public at this meeting. Item 2. Citizen Survey, Methodology and Questions. City Manager Ryan Cotton explained options for conducting a citizen survey, including an option from the International City/County Managers Association and one from the Frost Center at Hope College. The most comprehensive and the least cost option is that offered by the Frost Center. Frost Center has provided a cost of $18,725 to conduct a statistically accurate survey over a four week period. Laurie Van Ark and Jerry Cullum of the Frost Research Center were present to discuss the process to be followed for the survey. It is felt that a telephone survey will be the best mechanism for conducting this survey. Draft survey questions will be brought to City Council over the next two study sessions. Item 3. Ordinance Amendment Regarding Yard Waste. The Council has placed on First Reading an ordinance that would require a one hauler proposal for yard waste pick up. Council also discussed in what manner the City should continue to conduct the spring clean‐up and fall leaf pick up programs. There may be an opportunity to change these programs depending upon the success of the new yard waste program. Council discussed the manner in which these programs are operated and options for changing them in order to reduce costs. Council would like to begin the yard waste program and then monitor whether there could/should be changes to the spring and fall programs. Item 4. Commercial Property Redevelopment Tool Boxes. City Manager Ryan Cotton commented on the need to develop means for improving the commercial corridor properties that have been experiencing deteriorating conditions. He is suggesting that a variety of state‐enabled tools be used to incentivize property improvements. Before staff spends an extraordinary amount of time on this, Mr. Cotton wants to be sure that Council first concurs with the approach. He distributed information on the number of police calls and code compliance issues experienced at the Wooden Shoe Motel and the Econo Lodge. Council did express support for proceeding. Item 5. Washington Avenue Design Options. City Engineer Brian White summarized options for improving the condition of S. Michigan/S. Washington Avenue. Part of the project will be a mill and asphalt overlay improvement, but this method will not be enough for the remainder of this road. He is recommending a “white topping” approach to improving the rest of the road. This option removes a portion of the asphalt and concrete surface and replaces this with a concrete surface. Council concurs with this option. It is estimated that this project will cost about $1.4 million and it should begin during the spring of 2013. Item 6. Windmill Island Non‐Motorized Bridge Connection and Potential Engineering Services Agreement. City Manager Cotton and Parks, Recreation and Transportation Director Jodi Syens reviewed a proposal to construct a non‐motorized bridge connection from Windmill Island to Holland Township. A design/engineering proposal has been received from Prein & Newhof and Bill Johnson in the amount of $12,200 for this project. This cost will be shared equally with Holland Township. Council expressed enthusiasm for the project and this will be brought to Council for action at the October 17 meeting. Item 7. 16th Street House Donation. Community & Neighborhood Services Director Phil Meyer reviewed a house along the south side of 16th Street, just east of the railroad tracks. The City has the opportunity to acquire the property at no cost. Council would like to see the house demolished and the property cleared. Item 8. Civic Center Approaches. City Manager Cotton commented on the existing conditions at the Civic Center. An immediate concern is the condition of the basement. Mr. Cotton is suggesting that $20,000 be used to have a design firm prepare alternatives for future use of this facility/property. Jodi Syens summarized the variety of activities that occur in the Civic Center. Council members discussed various ways to fund improvements to the building, including private partnerships. Options discussed were to restore the present building, remove the building altogether, or construct some type of larger facility that could accommodate greater convention‐type activities. A preliminary design was presented for the latter that was estimated to cost in the range of $17 million. Discussion also focused on whether the City should even have a Civic Center. The need for the City to provide such a facility has changed substantially since the Civic Center was constructed in 1954. Council also suggested that other convention centers be contacted to learn how they handle operations. It was clear that the purpose for such a building needs to be determined. Item 9. Status Report on Alternative Fire Service Delivery Research. Mr. Cotton reviewed how he intends to prepare recommendations to City Council on the provision of fire and public safety services. There are currently two vacancies in the police division of the Public Safety Department and he is recommending that these positions be filled due to the number and type of calls being received. This is not in keeping with the practice over the past six months of not filling positions that become vacant, but is necessary due to the nature of police activity. There will be a vacancy in the fire division occurring next week, but this position will not be filled. Staffing levels will not be reduced below the five minimum on shift, but this staffing level will be monitored over the coming months. Mr. Cotton informed Council that he, Assistant City Manager Robinson, Finance Director Vagle, Public Safety Director Messer, PS Fire Captain Tinney, and PS Captain Walters will be visiting Traverse City on Friday to discuss the fire services of the City and adjacent townships. This is the last visit of a tour of seven communities to review how they provide police and fire services. A report and recommendations will be prepared for presentation to Council in January 2013. There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Greg Robinson Assistant City Manager PLANNING COMMISSION CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 9A
Planning Commission Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: October 17, 2012 – November 9, 2012 Subject: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment‐ Permitted Uses in the PUD Zone District Over the course of this past summer, and per the request of the owner of Express Equipment located at 1883 M‐40 and owners of property further south at 1895 and 1923 M‐40, Planning Commissioners have been working on proposed text amendments to the PUD sections of the Zoning Ordinance that would allow automotive and machinery sales and services for targeted PUD zoned properties along M‐40 south of I‐196. In an attempt to reach a conclusion that will protect the nearby residentially zoned properties and sustain the overall vision for development of this corridor consistent with the Master Plan, the Commission held several sessions discussing zoning amendment possibilities to allow both expansion of existing automotive and machinery sales and services and to allow new such uses. Construction of new automobile and machinery sales and services in this zone district will require site plan review and therein can require screening and buffering of such uses, and the uses in this proposed ordinance are limited to the first 400 feet of the property adjacent to M‐
40. Further, this corridor also is covered by a corridor overlay zone requiring landscaping and other site conditions that should help mitigate the impact of these additional uses. Commissioners have concluded that they need to be more flexible regarding the uses allowed in the PUD zoned M‐40 frontage properties, while continuing to work towards the realization of the larger vision for this South End area. On October 9, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended to City Council to approve a first reading of a proposed ordinance amendment to amend Sections 39‐166 and 39‐168 of the Zoning Ordinance, and to subsequently approve the proposed ordinance amendments during the second reading of the ordinance. On October 17, 2012, Council tabled first reading of ordinance amendments to Sec. 39‐166 and 39‐168 for permit uses in the PUD Zone District to November 7, 2012 and subject to the October 24, 2012 Study Session review. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council approve a first reading of the proposed text amendments to Sections 39‐166 and 39‐168 regarding permitted uses in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District and subject to the November 14, 2012 Study Session review. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Report dated 10‐10‐12 2. PUD Text Amendments 3. M‐40 PUD Map Report prepared and by Mark Vanderploeg, City Municipal Planner and Reviewed by Phil Meyer, Director of Community and Neighborhood Services Department. Attachments to 9A
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF
HOLLAND, BEING ORDINANCE NO. ______ OF THE CITY OF HOLLAND,
BY AMENDING SECTIONS 39-166 AND 39-168 OF CHAPTER 39 OF SAID
CODE.
THE CITY OF HOLLAND ORDAINS:
Item 1. That the Ordinance Code of the City of Holland, Michigan, is hereby amended by
amending Section 39-166 to read as follows: (amendments in bold italics)
Sec. 39-166. - Specifically permitted uses.
The following uses either separately or in conjunction with the delineated uses, are permitted
in a PUD District:
(a) Cooperative, condominium or apartment residences.
(b) Single-family, duplexes, cluster housing, zero lot line housing.
(c) Nursing homes, retirement homes, licensed day care facilities.
(d) All uses permitted by Section 39-210 with required setbacks to be determined by the
planning commission.
(e) Executive, professional or administrative offices.
(f) Medical or dental clinics, dispensaries, therapy or treatments centers or hospitals and
those uses typically associated with a hospital.
(g) Radio and television broadcasting stations, excluding towers.
(h) Financial institutions.
(i) Retail sales and services.
(j) Automotive and machinery sales and services located south of I-196 and within 400 feet of the
M-40 right-of-way.
(k) Hotels or motels; accredited overnight sleeping establishments.
(l) Restaurants.
(m) Athletic and fitness clubs.
1
(n) Accessory uses that are customarily incidental to any principal use permitted in (a)
through (l) of this section; provided that such uses are in conjunction with an
existing permitted use on the premises; and provided further, that such accessory
uses shall not constitute, create or increase a nuisance in fact which adversely affects
a legal use of adjoining or nearby premises.
(o) All processing or storage of merchandise and materials shall be conducted wholly
within a completely enclosed building. Businesses and service uses may be permitted
without enclosure upon approval by the planning commission where appropriate.
(p) Mini-warehouses only on those portions of the property lying within three hundred
(300) feet of the right-of-way of US-31. For purposes of this section and Section 3925, mini-warehouse is defined as a building or group of buildings in a controlled
access, fenced and screened compound that contains relatively small storage spaces
of varying sizes and/or spaces having individual, compartmentalized and controlled
access for the dead storage of excess personal property of an individual or family
generally stored in residential structures, when such building or group of buildings
are not located on the lot of the residence. This may include the indoor and/or
outdoor storage of personally-owned recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers. Said
outdoor storage areas shall be covered with a durable hard surface and shall
comprise no more than fifteen (15) percent of the total property area.
The facilities may also be utilized for storage of goods and materials of a commercial
business provided that access to such facilities is necessary only on an occasional
basis. The facility is for storage only, and in no event may the buildings or property
be utilized for repairs, assembly, fabrication, processing activities, or wholesale sales.
No retail sales may be conducted on-site without prior planning commission review
and approval of any such change of use for compliance with PUD and site plan
requirements.
(q) Wholesale and warehousing businesses with total gross floor areas of twenty-five
thousand (25,000) square feet and less, only on those portions of the property lying
within three hundred (300) feet of the right-of-way of US-31.
(r) Parking facilities; outdoor, open air and/or enclosed or partially enclosed markets;
community festival places; and special event venues.
(s) Sidewalk and outdoor cafes pursuant to Chapter 32, and pursuant to the enclosure
requirements of Section 39-25.
Item 2. That the Ordinance Code of the City of Holland, Michigan, is hereby amended by
amending Section 39-168 to read as follows:
2
Sec. 39-168. Specifically prohibited uses.
(a) Mobile home parks.
(b) Automotive and machinery sales and service, except for automotive and machinery sales
and services located south of I-196 and within 400 feet of the M-40 right-of-way.
(c) Facilities which produce hazards to the public in the form of noxious odors,
excessive radiation, dirt, heat, noise or vibrations which are perceptible without
instrument at the building exterior; or other potential hazards or nuisances. In
applying this criteria, environmental guidelines of Section 39-74 shall be applicable.
All other provisions of Chapter 39 shall remain in full force and effect.
ORDINANCE ADOPTION DATE: ___________________________
ORDINANCE EFFECTIVE DATE: ___________________________
H:\Winword\AMEND\M-40 PUD Text Amendments October 2012.doc
3
Attachments to 9A
11A*
City Clerk’s Office 270 River Avenue Holland, Michigan 49423 (616) 355‐1301 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council November 7, 2012 Industrial Facilities Exemption PA 198 1) Code Blue Corporation 259 Hedcor Street Number of existing jobs retained at this site: Number of new jobs at this site to be created: 31 16 Summary: Code Blue Corporation is a pioneer in developing and producing vandal‐resistant Blue Light Emergency Phones installed in thousands of education, corporate, hospital, airport and municipal locations worldwide. Code Blue offers American made Help Point, Emergency Signaling, Incident Response and Systems Management solutions with full diagnostic capabilities. Land and building improvements Machinery, equipment, furniture & fixtures Total Project Cost Anna Perales Deputy City Clerk $ 730,600 $ 415,400 $ 1,146,000 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14A1
To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 1, 2012 Subject: Receipt of One‐Year Franchise Agreements and Referral to Board of Public Works (BPW) for Study and Recommendation Summary and Background New electric franchise agreements are needed with Holland Charter, Park, Laketown and Fillmore Townships. Holland Charter Township approved an ordinance with a 30‐year revocable franchise earlier in August. That franchise has been accepted by the both the Board of Directors of the Board of Public Works and Holland City Council. On November 6, 2012, the Holland Charter Township electorate voted to make that franchise irrevocable. The remaining three (3) townships approved one‐year revocable franchise agreements via ordinances passed at their respective board meetings earlier in October. These authorizations permit continued power service by the BPW yet are problematic since they are not long enough to ensure cost recovery of new BPW electric capital investment, or reinvestment, in these communities. The expectation of the three (3) outlying townships is that a one‐year understanding would permit time for certain additional rights to be negotiated. Despite the uncertain merits of this expectation, the matter deserves study by the BPW Board and staff since these agreements are unusual in nature. Recommendation It is recommended that Council refer the requested agreements to the Board of Public Works General Manager and Board of Directors for study and recommendation. Respectfully submitted, Dave Koster Ryan Cotton BPW General Manager Holland City Manager Attachments: One‐year ordinances Report prepared by: Ryan Cotton, City Manager Attachments to 14A1
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14B1*
Planning Commission Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Recommendation to Rezone Properties at 338, 342, 346, 350, 354 and 360 River Avenue from R‐TRN Traditional Residential Neighborhood District to PUD Planned Development District Discussion During the January 24, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners observed that two residential properties located on the west side of River Avenue between 14th and 15th Streets were both recently condemned by the City and ordered to be demolished. Commissioners discussed if they should be proactive regarding the zoning of those two properties as well as the other residential properties fronting on River Avenue between 14th and 15th Streets, but no immediate course of action was determined. Subsequently, the two structures on 342 and 350 River Avenue were demolished and the sites were cleared. All of the residential properties fronting on the west side of River Avenue on this block are zoned R‐TRN Traditional Residential Neighborhood District, and the properties are all Master Planned for Neighborhood Commercial purposes. In August 2012, the Planning Commission again took up the zoning of these properties and whether the City should send a message through zoning to the owners and real estate market that the City would rather see these properties redeveloped for commercial uses, a potentially higher density residential use, or mixed commercial and residential use vs. detached single family housing. During the September 25 Commission meeting, Commissioners reviewed some conceptual plans noted in the Center of Centers Plan and in additional staff analyses (illustrative sketches attached) what type of commercial and residential buildings, uses and zoning may be best suited for the redevelopment of these properties. Commissioners decided that the PUD Planned Unit Development District would offer the most redevelopment flexibility regarding a mixture of allowable uses, required building setbacks, on‐site parking and other site planning issues. The Commission then scheduled a public hearing for October 23. During the October 23, 2012 public hearing, one couple from W 14th Street questioned the rationale for the rezoning and noted concern over how a redevelopment project may impact their residential property. Staff also noted verbal comments from an E 13th Street resident near Hope College stating the City should preserve our affordable housing stock. The Planning Commission then noted that the rezoning of the subject properties to the PUD District is compatible with the Master Plan, that the rezoning is a reasonable and necessary action to promote redevelopment that is compatible with the Master Plan, that the rezoning to the PUD District will promote redevelopment opportunities that are more in line with the development trends along this corridor vs. the existing R‐TRN District, and the rezoning will have no adverse affects on utility services and the delivery of emergency services. Recommendation: It is recommended by the Planning Commission that City Council approve the rezoning and accept for first reading a proposed ordinance amendment to rezone 338, 342, 346, 350, 354 & 360 River Ave from the R‐TRN Traditional Residential Neighborhood District to the PUD Planned Unit Development District. Attachments: Rezoning map, Planning map, Ordinance amendment, Illustrative Sketches Report prepared on behalf of the Planning Commission by: Mark Vanderploeg, City Planner; and reviewed by Phil Meyer, Community & Neighborhood Services Director. 14B1* Ord
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF
HOLLAND, BEING ORDINANCE NO.
OF THE CITY OF HOLLAND, BY
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF HOLLAND, MICHIGAN, WHICH
MAP IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN SECTION 39-5 OF SAID CODE.
THE CITY OF HOLLAND ORDAINS:
That the Zoning Map of the City of Holland, Michigan, incorporated by reference in Section
39-5 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Holland be and the same is hereby amended as
follows:
The zone district classification of the following described properties is hereby changed from the
R-TRN Traditional Residential Neighborhood District to the PUD Planned Unit Development
District:
Lots 1 and 27-31 of Block 5, Assessor’s Plat No. 2, City of Holland. (Commonly known as 338,
342, 346, 350, 354 & 360 River Avenue)
The zone district classification of all other areas shall remain unchanged.
ORDINANCE ADOPTION DATE: _____________________________
ORDINANCE EFFECTIVE DATE: _____________________________
H:\Winword\AMEND\338 through 360 River Avenue Rezoning November 2012.doc
City Master Plan
Planning Designations
Health
Clinic
14th Street
NC
Neighborhood Commercial
TRN
Lakeshore
Pregnancy Ctr
Traditional Residential Neighborhood
Legend
15th Street
SPA 1
Special Planning Area 1
Mid-Town
Residential
River Ave
Mid-Town Center
Allstate Ins
Shell Gas Station
Parcel
Landuse
One Family Residential
One and Two Family Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
General Industrial
Industrial Park
Multiple Family Residential (High Density)
Multiple Family Residential (Medium Density
Mixed Density Residential
Offices
Public Parks
Public/Quasi - Public Use
Agriculture
Special Planning Area
Traditional Residential
ArcView 3.1
2\2\2012 ArcView User
Rezone properties
from R-TRN to PUD
Zone District
C-1
Health
Clinic
14th Street
R-TRN
C-1
PUD
C-
Lakeshore
Pregnancy Ctr
15th Street
Mid-Town Center
C-5
C-1
C-5
Allstate Ins
Mid-Town
Residential
River Ave
Proposed Rezonng of
338, 342, 346, 350,
354 and 360 River Avenue
Shell Gas Station
C-1
ArcView 3.1
2\2\2012 ArcView User
14.C1*
City of Holland
Office of the City Attorney
321 Settlers Road
Holland, Michigan49423
Phone: (616) 392-1821
FAX: (616) 392-4769
REPORT TO MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF HOLLAND CITY COUNCIL
TO:
Mayor and Members of Council
FROM:
Vincent L. Duckworth, City Attorney
RE:
City Attorney / Expense Recovery Ordinance
DATE:
November 7, 2012
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
Enclosed is a draft Expense Recovery Ordinance as prepared by the City Attorney's Office at the
request of Chief Matt Messer of the Holland Department of Public Safety.
The proposed ordinance would allow the City to recover expenses associated with the
investigation, arrest and prosecution of persons convicted of offenses relating to the operation of
vehicles while the influence of alcohol and or drugs and persons convicted of making false
statements to law enforcement personnel.
The expenses available for recovery are as outlined by State Law, MCL 769.1f. Various
municipalities and local government units, including Ottawa County, have similar expense
recovery ordinances presently in effect. The State statute applicable to expense recovery
provides, in part, as follows:
(8) A local unit of government may elect to be reimbursed for expenses under this section
or a local ordinance, or a combination of this section and a local ordinance. This subsection
does not allow a local unit of government to be fully reimbursed more than once for any
expense incurred by that local unit of government.
MCL 769.1f(8).
If this ordinance is approved, a proposed fee schedule is also submitted for Council approval.
The fee schedule is consistent with the Ottawa County fee schedule as adopted by the Board of
County commissioners and those expenses actually incurred by the City in the prosecution of
these crimes. Ottawa County’s fee schedule was based on an independent cost of service
assessment performed for the county in 2010. Based on the similarities of law enforcement
services and resources used for prosecution of these crimes, a similar fee schedule by the City of
Holland is supported.
The proposed ordinance would add a new Article VXIII and Sections 2-121 through 2-128 to the
Codified Ordinances of the City of Holland.
It is respectfully requested that the proposed Ordinance and Fee Schedule be adopted by Holland
City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent L. Duckworth
Vincent L. Duckworth
Deputy City Attorney
VLD/yrm
14C1* Attach. Fee Schedule City of Holland – Expense Recovery Ordinance Expense Activity Law Enforcement Expense OWI Arrest Blood Draw Accident Investigation False Report Arrest Prosecution Expense ‐ District Court Plea at Arraignment Plea at Pretrial Plea at Final Pretrial – but before Jury Selection Conviction after Bench Trial Conviction after Jury Trial Recovery Fee $400 $100 $50 $50 $50 $75 $100 $150 $250 14C 1* Ord
ORDINANCE NO._____
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF HOLLAND,
MICHIGAN, BEING ORDINANCE NO. ________, OF THE CITY OF HOLLAND, BY
ADDING A NEW ARTICLE AND NEW SECTIONS, WHICH NEW ARTICLE SHALL BE
DESIGNATED AS ARTICLE XVIII, EXPENSE RECOVERY, AND WHICH NEW
SECTIONS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS SECTIONS 2-121 THROUGH 2-128 OF
CHAPTER 2 OF SAID CODE.
Section 1:
The City of Holland ordains that Article XVIII and Sections 2-121 through 2-128 of
Chapter 2 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Holland are hereby added and shall read as
follows:
Sec. 2-121. Purpose. The Holland City Council has determined that it is in the best
interests of the City of Holland to provide for the recovery of municipal expense incurred with
with the arrest and prosecution of certain criminal offenses leading to a conviction as permitted
by Act 372 of the Public Acts of 2000, as amended, MCL 769.1f, et seq. and the general powers
of the City pursuant to Section 2.1 of the City Charter.
Sec. 2-122. Definitions.
(a)
The term “expense of prosecution” shall mean:
(1)
The salaries, wages, or other compensation, including, but not
limited to, overtime pay of prosecution personnel for time spent investigating and
prosecuting the crime or crimes resulting in conviction.
(b)
The term “law enforcement personnel expense” shall mean
(1) The salaries or wages, including overtime pay, of law enforcement
personnel for time spent responding to the incident from which the conviction
arose, arresting the person convicted, processing the person after the arrest,
preparing reports on the incident, investigating the incident, and collecting and
analyzing evidence, including, but not limited to, determining bodily alcohol
content and determining the presence of and identifying controlled substances in
the blood, breath, or urine.
(2) The salaries, wages, or other compensation, including overtime pay, of
fire department and emergency medical service personnel, including volunteer
fire fighters or volunteer emergency medical service personnel, for time spent in
responding to and providing fire fighting, rescue, and emergency medical services
in relation to the incident from which the conviction arose.
(3) The cost of medical supplies lost or expended by fire department and
emergency medical service personnel, including volunteer fire fighters or
volunteer emergency medical service personnel, in providing services in relation
to the incident from which the conviction arose.
Sec. 2-123. Liability for expenses of arrest and prosecution for certain offenses.
(a)
Upon conviction of any of the following offenses, the person convicted
shall reimburse the City of Holland for law enforcement personnel expense as well as the
expense of prosecution:
(1) A violation or attempted violation of section 601d, 625(1), (3), (4), (5),
(6), or (7), section 625m, or section 626(3) or (4) of the Michigan vehicle code,
1949 PA 300, MCL 257.601d, 257.625, 257.625m, and 257.626, or of a local
ordinance substantially corresponding to section 601d(1), 625(1), (3), or (6) or
section 625m or 626 of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.601d,
257.625, 257.625m, and 257.626.
(2) Felonious driving, negligent homicide, manslaughter, or murder, or
attempted felonious driving, negligent homicide, manslaughter, or murder,
resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle, snowmobile, ORV, aircraft,
vessel, or locomotive engine while the person was impaired by or under the
influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, as defined in section
7104 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7104, or a combination of
intoxicating liquor and a controlled substance, or had an unlawful blood alcohol
content.
(3) A violation or attempted violation of section 82127 of the natural
resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.82127.
(4) A violation or attempted violation of section 81134 or 81135 of the
natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL
324.81134 and 324.81135.
(5) A violation or attempted violation of section 185 of the aeronautics
code of the state of Michigan, 1945 PA 327, MCL 259.185.
(6) A violation or attempted violation of section 80176(1), (3), (4), or (5)
of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL
324.80176, or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 80176(1)
or (3) of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451,
MCL 324.80176.
(7) A violation or attempted violation of section 353 of the railroad code
of 1993, 1993 PA 354, MCL 462.353.
(8) A violation or attempted violation of section 411a(2) of the Michigan
penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.411a (false report of a crime).
Sec. 2-124. Imposition of penalties by court. Nothing contained in this Ordinance
shall prohibit the applicable court of jurisdiction from imposing law enforcement personnel
expenses and the expenses of prosecution as part of a sentence following conviction of any of the
offenses listed in Section 2-123, as authorized by MCL 769.1f, provided, however, that the City
of Holland shall not be reimbursed more than once for the expenses incurred in the arrest,
processing and prosecution of any individual.
Sec. 2-125. Procedures to determine and recover expenses. The law enforcement
personnel expenses and expenses of prosecution for the offenses listed in Section 2-123 shall be
determined and recovered as follows:
(a)
Charge against person. Any expenses incurred by the City, including law
enforcement personnel expenses and the expenses of prosecution, resulting from an
offense listed in Section 2-123, shall be charged against the individual convicted of that
offense. The charge constitutes a debt of that person and is collectible by the City in the
same manner as a contractual obligation.
(b)
Expense Recovery Schedule. The Holland City Council may, by
resolution, adopt a schedule of expenses specifying the law enforcement personnel
expenses and the expenseof prosecution for the offenses listed in Section 2-123. Any
adopted schedule of expenses shall be available to the public from the Holland City
Clerk’s Office. The schedule adopted by the City Council may be a flat fee based upon a
study of average expense sustained in arresting, investigating, and prosecuting to
conviction any of the listed offenses in Section 2-123. In the absence of an adopted
schedule, the City may seek its actual expense incurred as a result of the conviction. The
City Manager may annually adjust the schedule of expenses under this Ordinance and
shall promptly notify the City Council of such adjustment.
(c)
Billing. The City of Holland Finance Department shall, within ten (10)
days of receiving itemized expenses, or any part thereof, incurred for the arrest,
investigation, and prosecution to conviction of an individual for an offense listed under
Section 2-123, submit a bill to that individual for such expenses by first class mail or
personal service. The bill shall require full payment in thirty (30) days from the date of
mailing or personal service.
(d)
Failure to pay; procedure to recover expenses. Any individual responsible
for expenses under this Ordinance who fails to pay those expenses within the time
required by this Ordinance shall be in default. In case of default, the City of Holland may
file a civil suit to recover the total amount of expenses or may contract with a collection
agency to recover such expenses on behalf of the City.
Sec. 2-126 Conflict with criminal laws; coordination of collection efforts.Nothing
within this ordinance shall be construed to conflict, contravene, enlarge or reduce any criminal
liability or responsibility, including fines imposed by a judge for any criminal offense under
Michigan law. If recovery of law enforcement personnel expenses and the expense of
prosecution are required as part of a criminal sentence, the City of Holland Finance Department
shall work with the applicable court of jurisdiction to coordinate recovery of such expenses.
Sec. 2-127 Severability. The phrases, sentences, sections, and provisions of this
Ordinance are severable; if any portion of this Ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or
otherwise unenforceable, the remaining sections of the Ordinance shall remain in full force and
effect.
Sec. 2-128 Repeal of conflicting ordinances. All other ordinances, parts of ordinances
or amendments to such ordinances which conflict with this Ordinance are repealed to the extent
of such conflict.
Section 2:
All other Sections of Chapter 2 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
ORDINANCE ADOPTION DATE:
____________________________
ORDINANCE EFFECTIVE DATE: ____________________________
14. C2*
City of Holland
Holland, Michigan 49423
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
321 Settlers Road
Holland, MI 49423
Phone (616) 392-1821
Fax (616) 392-4769
REPORT TO MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF HOLLAND CITY COUNCIL
TO:
Mayor and Members of Council
FROM:
Andrew J. Mulder, City Attorney
RE:
Super Drunk/High BAC
DATE:
November 7, 2012
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
On October 31, 2010, Michigan’s new “super drunk” law, MCL 257.625(1)(c) went into
effect. As a result, Michigan drivers with a bodily alcohol level (BAC) of .17 or more grams of
alcohol (per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine) face
enhanced penalties which exceeded the authority granted to a city under the Home Rule Cities
Act. In February 2012, Governor Snyder approved Public Act 7 of 2012 which allows a city to
adopt MCL 625(1)(c) to allow for the prosecution of high BAC offenders at the local level.
The division of fines and costs for misdemeanors are set by statute, MCL 600.8379.
Currently, Super Drunk cases are handled by the Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
and the City does not receive any portion of the fines and/or costs collected for a conviction of
the same. The adoption of the proposed ordinance to Section 18-8 would allow prosecution
under the Holland City Ordinance, with the Court distributing a portion of the fines and/or costs
to City.
At the time the super drunk law was enacted, our office calculated that 41% of the drunk
driving cases cited under the City Ordinance now were being prosecuted as a state statute
violation. Presently, the fine imposed for a 1st offense High BAC drunk driving matter is on
average $352. (The total fines and costs range from $1,200 to $1,700 depending on court
appointed attorney fees). Because the City receives 1/3 of the total fine in ordinance matters, the
City would realize about $117 per each 1st offense High BAC matter. Assuming that
approximately 40 cases per year are 1st offense High BAC matters, then the City is not
recovering about $4,680.00 in fine money it could otherwise recover. Moreover, by authorizing
municipal enforcement of the High BAC matters, additional OWI offense expenses could be
recovered should the City also adopt an expense recovery ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew J. Mulder
Andrew J. Mulder
City Attorney
AJM/lc
Page 2
14C2*Ord
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF HOLI.AND, MICHIGAN, BEING ORDINANCE NO
OF THE CITY OF HOLLAND, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 1B-4 and 1B-7 OF CHAPTER 18 THE
HOLI.AND CTTY ORDINANCE CODE AND BY ADDITNG A NEW SECTION IN CHAPTER 18 WHICH NEW
SECTION SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS SECTION TB-4.1OF SAID CODE,
Section 1:
The City of Holland ordains that Sections 1B-4 and 1B-7 of Chapter 18 of the Holland City Ordinance Code are
hereby amended shall read as follows:
Sec.
18-4.
Code and Amendment and Revisions Adopted.
Pursuant to Public Act 260 of 1999, MCL 117,3, the Michigan Vehicle Code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to
257.923, as effective on November 3,2003, and all future amendments and revisions to the Michigan Vehicle
Code when they are effective in this state are incorporated and adopted by reference, Such code as adopted
shall also be known as the Holland Vehicle Code.
Sec. 18-4.1 Adoption of MCL 257.625(LXc)
More.
-
Operating with an Alcohol Content ot .17 or
Pursuant to Public Act 7 of 2012, the City of Holland adopts by reference section 625(1Xc) of the Michigan
Vehicle Code, 1949 PA 300, MCL257.625(1Xc), and as subsequently amended, which shallbe punishable by
one or more of the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Community seruice for not more than three hundred sixty (360) hours,
imprisonment for not more than one hundred eighty (180) days, and
a fine of not less than $200 or more than $700.
Section 2:
Sec.
18-7.
Prosecution Limitations - Penalties.
The penalties provided by the Michigan Vehicle Code are adopted by reference, provided, however, that the
City of Holland may not enforce any provision of the Michigan Vehlcle Code for which the maximum period of
imprisonment is greater than 93 days nor for which the offense may be punished with a fine in excess of
$500; except, however, that a violation of H257.625(1Xc) is punishable by one or more of the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Community seryice for not more than three hundred sixty (360) hours,
imprisonment for not more than one hundred eighty (180) days, and
a fine of not less than $200 or more than $700.
Section 3:
All remaining provisions of Chapter 18 shall remain in full force and effect.
Ordinance Adoption Date:
Ordinance Effective Date:
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E1.1*
City Manager Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – Schedule Public Hearing ‐
Substantial Amendment to the 2012/2013 Consolidated Plan City Council is being requested to schedule a public hearing to receive comments in regard to a Substantial Amendment to the 2012/2013 Consolidated Plan. At the close of last fiscal year (June 30, 2012), staff determined that the City has $13,160.26 in unexpended funds that can be reallocated. These funds are left over from the following three projects:  City of Holland ‐ Smallenburg Park Improvement Project…………..$9,084.36  Center for Women in Transition – Children & Family Services……$2,565.10  City of Holland Program – Administration…………………………………..$1,510.80 It was also determined that two of the City’s planned projects for this year will not happen and as such that funding should also be reallocated to ensure the money is expended in a timely manner and is out in the community. These two projects are:  Southshore Village Parking Lot……………………………………………………$50,602.00  Westcore Neighbors Nuestra Casa……………………………………………..$25,000.00 This means that a total of $88,762.26 is available to be reallocated in the FY13 CDBG Program. After a thorough review of the City’s CDBG Program and in consultation with the Community Development Committee, it is recommended that the above funding be reallocated to the following projects:  Washington Square Vacant Building/Lot Rehab and Reuse…………$45,000.00  City of Holland Park Improvements…………………………………………….$25,762.26  Down Payment Assistance for Homeowners……………………………….$18,000.00 Public notices are being published to request comments during a 30‐day public comment period, to announce the public hearing, to announce the proposed budget transfers, and the availability of the Substantial Amendment to the Consolidated Plan. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council schedule a public hearing for Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 270 River Avenue in order to obtain citizen comment on the Substantial Amendment of the Consolidated Plan and the proposed reuse of FY2013 Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Funds. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Report prepared by: Joel Dye, Community Development Coordinator and reviewed by Phil Meyer, Director, CNS
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E2.1* City Manager Report To: Date: Subject: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council November 7, 2012 Lincoln Avenue Improvement Project – Amend Action to Also Approve Assessment Roll PV310A On October 17, 2012, City Council held a public hearing on the assessments for the Lincoln Avenue, 16th to 24th Street, Improvement project. As indicated in the report, there are two (2) large parcels zoned residential (R‐TRN) that are either vacant or have a single‐family use; therefore, the square footage portion of the assessment on these parcels was proposed to be established as a deferred assessment and not payable unless the property is developed for something other than an agricultural or single family use. The proposed deferred assessments were established via assessment roll PV310A. The affected property owners were notified of this proposed action prior to the hearing. Due to a miscommunication, the report to City Council only made reference to the approval of the regular assessment roll PV310, and did not specifically include the approval of assessment roll PV310A. The City Attorney has indicated that, since the notice went out to the property owners regarding the deferred or alternate assessment in advance of the final roll hearing, the only additional action that needs to be taken is to have Council amend the resolution approving the roll to indicate approval of both the regular assessment roll PV 310 and the deferred assessment roll PV310A.
Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council amend the resolution adopted at the October 17, 2012 Council meeting, so that the resolution indicates approval of the Lincoln Avenue, 16th to 24th Street, Improvement Project Final Assessment Roll PV 310 and the Final Deferred Assessment Roll PV310A. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton, City Manager Report prepared by: Jodi Syens, Director of Parks, Recreation & Transportation 14E2.1 *Attach
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E2.2*
City Manager Report To: Date: Subject: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council November 7, 2012 Washington Avenue Tunnel Lighting Evaluation and Maintenance – Award Bid In December of 2004, the Washington Avenue tunnel was put into service. The life expectancy of the lighting in the tunnel is approximately 5 years and, since this threshold has passed, the lights are starting to show significant signs that they have exceeded their useful life. City Engineering Division staff have conducted an extensive review of alternative lighting technologies for the tunnel and, after this review, believe that replacing the existing high pressure sodium (HPS) lights is the most appropriate course of action at this time. It is expected that at some point in the future light emitting diode (LED) technology may be both advanced enough to achieve the appropriate lighting distribution and be cost effective for installation in the tunnel; however, at this point in time, the technology to distribute LED lighting over a large area is still evolving and the upfront cost for the LED fixtures is too expensive. Other technologies, such as induction lighting, are not able to produce efficiency improvements over the current HPS technology in terms of lumens produced per watt of energy used. This is an extremely important criterion that must be taken into account as there are specific lighting standards that need to be followed for a tunnel of this size (reference tunnel lighting standard IESNA RP‐22‐11). Following this investigation and review, bid specifications were developed and bids opened on October 25, 2012, for a maintenance project which includes re‐lamping the tunnel lighting with the same HPS lights that are currently in use as well as some work to clean and maintain the light fixtures throughout the tunnel, repair a faulty circuit to one bank of lights in the tunnel, and record light levels in the tunnel. A total of four (4) bids were received, as follows: Company Bid Amount 1. Strain Electric Company $41,490.84 2. Windemuller Electric, Inc. $55,471.00 3. DVT Electric, Inc. $58,850.00 4. J. Ranck Electric, Inc. $61,654.00 The bids received were competitive with the bid from Strain Electric providing unit prices for materials somewhat lower than the other bids. A materials list was required as part of the bid and the materials from Strain Electric have been checked and do comply with the specifications. There is currently a $50,000 line item in the Streets Capital Projects Fund for this work. It is anticipated that the project would begin on or about November 15th and be completed by the end of November, depending on availability of materials. This is important in order to address some lights that currently not operating correctly and to have them repaired before winter. In order to complete the work safely and efficiently, one bore of the tunnel will be worked on at a time with traffic in that direction detoured around the tunnel. At the end of the project, light levels will be measured with the intent of shutting down a portion of the existing light fixtures (approximately 25%) in order to realize savings in energy costs. This savings has been roughly estimated at approximately $8,000/year. The portion of the bid from Strain Electric to replace bulbs and ballasts amounts to approximately $33,000. If desired, some of the savings in electricity costs could be targeted toward a future LED conversion project. Recommendation: It is recommended that bid of Strain Electric Company in the amount of $41,490.84 for the Washington Avenue tunnel lighting evaluation and maintenance project be accepted; that a project budget in the total amount of $49,990.84 (including a contingency amount of $8,500) be established for the project in the Streets Capital Projects Fund; and that the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contracts for the project, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Memorandum from Brian White with a Chart regarding Lumens. Report prepared by: Jodi Syens, Director of Parks, Recreation & Transportation Brian White, Civil Engineering Supervisor Attachments to 14E2.2
CITY OF HOLLAND
ENGINEERING MEMO
To:
Jodi Syens
From: Brian White
CC:
Date: November 5, 2012
Re:
Washington Avenue Tunnel - Comparison of Lighting Technology.
Several lighting technologies have been reviewed by staff in order to investigate possible long term energy
savings for the lighting in the tunnel. Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), Induction Lighting and the current High
Pressure Sodium (HPS) light technology were all reviewed and a comparison of the light efficiency (or
efficacy, in terms of lumens produced per watt) of each technology is listed below. As the table of light
efficiencies indicates, HPS lights have a higher efficiency than induction lights. While the LED lights do
have a higher efficiency than HPS lights, the LED lights ability to spread or distribute that light over a large
area is limited.
Lighting Efficiency / Efficacy (lumens/watt)1
Light Emitting Diode
(LED)2
High Pressure
Sodium (HPS)
Induction
Lighting
87+
87
54
Notes:
1. Lighting efficiency figures calculated using data from the Sylvania product catalog.
2. LED lights have the ability to produce many more lumens per watt when compared to HPS and
Induction Lights, however, the LED lights ability to spread or distribute light over a large area is
limited.
The goals for the tunnel lamping project are as follows: first, to provide the most efficient lighting possible,
based on the highest lumens/watt, at the lowest cost; second, to comply with the specific lighting standards
as detailed in IESNA RP-22-11; and third, to achieve some energy cost savings where possible. After
extensive review of these factors, consultation with experts, and evaluation of available information, the
recommendation of staff is to proceed with re-lamping the tunnel lights using HPS technology as the tunnel
is not a good place to try and apply the LED technology at this point in time.
 Page 1
CITY OF HOLLAND
ENGINEERING MEMO
To:
Ryan Cotton, Jodi Syens
From: Brian White
CC:
Greg Robinson, Mark Vanderploeg
Date: October 24, 2012
Re:
Washington Avenue Tunnel Lighting Maintenance Project
Back in 2005, the tunnel carrying Washington Avenue traffic under the runway at Tulip City Airport was
built. The tunnel was designed by Mead & Hunt out of Milwaukee and built by Kamminga & Roodvoets,
Incorported, a local construction company.
The lighting in the tunnel consists of an array of high pressure sodium (HPS) light fixtures that have been
designed and built to tunnel lighting standards set forth in the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA) RP-22-96. This document (recommended practice) has been updated twice since the
tunnel was designed, once in 2005 and again in 2011. The current document includes a comprehensive 43
pages worth of standards and requirements. It includes pavement luminance recommendations,
recommendations on the distribution of light along the length of the tunnel bore (with an emphasis on eye
adaptation), ambient factors that affect the luminance recommendations and emergency lighting
requirements, among many other items.
The HPS lights are now at the end of their useful life (which is typically about 5 years) and a decision has to
be made as to how tunnel lighting shall be provided in the future. Over the past year or so, City staff has
reviewed several different lighting options for the tunnel which include the following.
1. Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) – A distributor for General Electric made a presentation to staff that
included an LED light designed specifically for tunnel applications. This was a pretty new light and
assembly housing. The general consensus of staff is that, while LED is ultimately where we want to be for
lighting the tunnel, the technology is still relatively new and evolving. LEDs still have a difficult time
providing ambient light (as opposed to focused light). Even though LEDs are very cheap to operate, they
are currently extremely expensive to purchase. The conceptual cost to retrofit the tunnel with LED lighting
is on the order of $300,000 to $400,000. One other point worth mentioning, LEDs are evolving so rapidly
that replacement parts may not be readily available in the future. According to some lighting designers, this
factor has already been realized by some other local agencies. In summary, LEDs do offer the best in
lighting efficiency in terms of light produced per energy used (lumens/watt), however, experts in the lighting
field indicate that it will be several years before LEDs can effectively produce good quality ambient light with
an affordable up-front equipment cost.
2. Induction Lights – The distributor for General Electric as well as another local company made
presentations to staff that included the use of induction lights for lighting the tunnel. Induction lighting has
been around for a while, but can still be considered a newer method of lighting and it is commonly referred
to as the “electrodless” light because there are no electrodes or wire connections in the lamps. Induction
z Page 1
lights are similar to fluorescent lights in that they use gasses as the light element. While induction lights
have the ability to produce different colors of light, the light efficiency (or efficacy) is still below that of HPS.
Comparison of a 150 watt induction light to one using HPS, using product data from a Sylvania product
catalog, results in the induction light being able to produce 54 lumens per watt vs. the same HPS light being
able to produce 87 lumens per watt (about a 38% deduct in light production with the induction light). In
addition, some induction lights use electromagnetic fields created by radio frequencies (RF) to excite the
gasses inside the light and these may interfere with our emergency radio transmitter that sends a trouble
call from the tunnel back to our fire department as well as the potential to interfere with RF traffic at the
airport. In summary, while the ability of induction lighting to provide a whiter light may be attractive, the
efficiency or efficacy (light production/watt) of this lighting technology is significantly below that of HPS, and
this disparity must be taken into consideration, especially when considering the strict pavement luminance
requirements that exist with the tunnel lighting standards, this, combined with the potential RF interference
concerns make induction lighting unattractive.
3. High Pressure Sodium (HPS) – High pressure sodium lights are currently used in the tunnel. The
specific HPS light used includes a standby feature that allows the light to reach full luminance very quickly
once it’s turned on, includes a dual arc feature that doubles the life expectancy (about 5 years) and includes
a quartz re-strike bulb for outage situations. While HPS is an older lighting technology it still has a
reasonable light efficiency or efficacy in terms of the amount of light produced per watt of electricity used. In
reviewing the lighting plans for the tunnel, with guidance from a lighting expert based out of Grand Rapids,
we believe that once the existing fixtures are re-lamped, the lighting levels in the tunnel will significantly
exceed the requirements set forth in the standard and we’ll be able to turn off some of the HPS fixtures.
This process will be completed using actual light level measurements taken in the field after the re-lamping
occurs. We conservatively estimate the ability to turn off approximately 25% of the existing HPS fixtures.
In reviewing the electric bills for the tunnel, the City currently spends approximately $40,000 to $45,000 on
electricity usage for the tunnel per year. This includes operation of the storm water pumps as well as
climate controls in the control building. Taking that into account, we believe that turning off 25% of the
fixtures will translate into a savings of approximately $8,000 per year.
It is with this information in mind that the City currently has a request for bids out on the street for re-lamping
the existing HPS fixtures. In addition to re-lamping, the bid has line items to clean the existing fixtures,
check light levels and perform some trouble shooting and repairs on what is believed to be a faulty electrical
circuit. The bid does include specific line items for the lamp and ballast replacements, so once the bids are
received, we’ll be able to see just how much the re-lamping costs will be in addition to the other
maintenance that is needed. With the bid information in hand, we’ll also be able to make a comparison of
the upfront costs vs. the expected savings per year from reduced energy costs.
z Page 2
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E2.3*
City Manager Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Demolition of Structures 244 East 16th Street – Award Bid. On June 20, 2012, Council approved acquisition of the property located at 244 East 16th Street through Ottawa County’s tax foreclosure process. Acquisition of the property was for public benefit; specifically, to improve the drainage conditions along the Maplewood Inter‐County Drain near the intersection of 16th Street and Lincoln Avenue. Since the City acquired the property, representatives from Habitat for Humanity’s ReStore have been on the property to salvage building materials and the Holland Police Department has also conducted training exercises on the property. With the reconstruction of Lincoln Avenue coming to a close, staff has been pursuing plans to remove the structures at 244 E. 16th Street and have the area regraded in order to help mitigate the potential for flooding in the future. On October 30, bids were opened for the demolition project, with one bid received as follows: Company Bid Amount 1. Dan Hoe Excavating, Inc. $6,200.00 The bid has been compared to other demolition projects recently completed, including the low bid of $11,200 from Klaasen Construction for #342 River Avenue and the low bid of $8,900 from JMB Demolition for #350 River Avenue, and has been determined to be competitive. The property acquisition and building demolition will be funded from the Streets Capital Projects Fund, Lincoln Avenue Reconstruction Project. Demolition and restoration of the area is scheduled to be completed by Thanksgiving. Recommendation: It is recommended that the bid for the demolition of the structures at 244 E. 16th Street be awarded to Dan Hoe Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $6,200, and that the issuance of a purchase order for the project be authorized. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Report prepared by: Jodi Syens, Director of Parks, Recreation & Transportation Brian White, Civil Engineering Supervisor OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E3.1*
Purchasing Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Technology Services – Bids for Backup Device Bids to replace the backup device for the City of Holland Department of Technology Services were opened on October 11, 2012. Council approval to award the bid to Trivalent Group the low bidder at a cost of $18,131 is requested. This exceeds the budgeted amount of $15,000 by $3,131.59, which can be funded from the contingency line item in the Tech Services budget. One of the most critical components of maintaining the integrity of the city’s electronic data is the backup systems. Over the years this has changed from tape backup to hard disk storage, which has improved the reliability and is much more efficient. The equipment purchased in FY09 is at maximum capacity and needs to be replaced with current, more robust equipment. Two bidders responded with both bids meeting specs. CATS Company cost was $24,216. Trivalent’s bid of $18,131.59 included a discount of 35% on the appliance if the old equipment was traded in. Per specifications, both bids included a one‐year service agreement. Trivalent is an existing vendor that has provided excellent service over the past years. Recommendation: It recommended that Council award the bid for the backup device to Trivalent Group, the low bidder, at a cost of $18,131.59 to be paid from the Technology Services Fund. It is further recommended that the existing Unitrends backup device be declared surplus to be traded in as part of the purchase. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Memo from Matt VanDyken, Bid Forms and Vendor detail Report prepared by: Tim Vagle, Director of Finance Attachments to 14E3.1*
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E3.2*
City Manager Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Technology Services – Declare Items as Surplus The Technology Services Department purchases replacement items throughout the year as equipment fails, well as large bid purchases for planned/scheduled replacement (as approved by Council at the last meeting). Typically replaced items are stored throughout a fiscal year then recycled all together for efficiency purposes. A list of items to be recycled is attached and Council declaration of these items as surplus is requested. The equipment will be recycled at whatever recycler will take the equipment at no cost to the City. Comprenew and Goodwill have been used in the past. For security purposes, all mass storage devices (hard drives, etc.) will be removed and shredded by a certified vendor at a later date. Recommendation: It recommended that Council declare various Technology Services equipment/items as described and included in the attached list as surplus and staff be authorized to recycle and dispose of all items as deemed appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: List from Technology Services Report prepared by: Tim Vagle, Director of Finance Attachment to 14E3.2*
Make
NEC Monitor
NEC Monitor
APC APC Dell
Gateway
Gateway
Gateway
emachine
APC APC Gateway
Gateway
Gateway
comaq
mxtreme
hp hp Canon
panasonic TV
panasonic TV
hp hp lenovo
lenovo
lenovo
gateway
panasonic TV
IBM
brother
gateway
sony
cisco
philips
gateway
acer acer acer acer optiquest
epson Projecto
hp dell
hp Gateway
Model
xm‐2960
xm‐2960
SmartUPS 1000 SmartUPS 1250
Optiples gx150
e2610d
e2300
e2300
t5212
su1000rm2y
br800
e2600d
e2600d
e2300
kvm
mx200‐p4
Scanjet 5100c
Laserjet c4170a
np1020
ct27611u
ct27g12w1
8710w
8510p
4446
4446
4446
cx210s
cf029l3lgzbm
typewriter
mfc‐5440cnz
e4300
tc‐we605s
air ap350
pr1302c122
cpd‐15f23
monitor x223w
monitor v193w
monitor v193w
monitor v193w
vs11443
emp‐73
gl350
poweredge 2650
dl380
e9525r
Serial Number
5100716
5100713
ws9711572346
s95046130981
ff1q511
40300124
35695695790
35695785
grd6810005138
as0211112077
qb0342237394
36944881
36944885
35695794
l078b0a72h9621
0804m000490d005
mx86j21pyn
usgz076667
nud06653
md60660122
lc83350916
cbd8342khq
cnu7220tgy
l3‐cwk2l
l3‐cbf3c
l3‐cbl12
38919902
5hksa51969
204301010500p
u61091k5f611070
35695803
8850389
vdf0534s09f
69625490
8471173
etalap08076950069704216
etlbp0c016815058464000
etlbp0c01681505dc14000
etlpb0c01681505dc44000
qcw083602245
eyc0360064k
usm52303g6
7d5js51
ea11mnd33w
40488456
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E3.3*
City Manager Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Centralized Vehicle Maintenance Fund – Sale of 1997 Storm Sewer Vactor Sealed bids for the sale of the 1997 Storm Sewer Vactor truck were opened on October 19, 2012. Although not the highest cash bid, approval of the bid from the City of Zeeland as the most beneficial to the City of Holland is requested, at a price of $34,500. Council may recall discussions last February at which time approval for the purchase of a new Vactor was given from Jack Doheny Supplies as a sole source supplier. Consideration was given to retain the 1997 as a backup, trading it in, or selling it outright. At that time Council declared it surplus, due to concerns that retaining it as a backup could prove to be very costly with potential maintenance on equipment not utilized regularly. A trade‐in price of $25,000 was considered as an option, with staff authorized to see if better prices could be received with an outright sale. Delivery on the new Vactor truck is expected in early December and bids were solicited. Three bids were received: 1. Jack Doheny Supplies $27,500 $34,500 2. City of Zeeland 3. Standard Equipment Co. $36,611 After much staff discussion including City of Zeeland staff, the Transportation Services Department strongly believes it is in the City of Holland’s best interest to sell the 1997 Vactor to the City of Zeeland who has offered to make the vehicle (and staff) available to Holland in an emergency situation, or as a backup if major repairs for the new Vactor are needed. This is better than retaining ownership of the old equipment, as it will be utilized and maintained regularly at no cost to Holland, plus be available if needed. It also affirms collaboration with a neighboring community with whom we have a long history. The Purchasing Ordinance does not specifically address the sale of items, but the basic guidelines are followed for the sale of items, including Council approval when items exceed $10,000 in value. Although this was declared as surplus and the Purchasing Coordinator was authorized to dispose of the item in the best interest of the city, since the price exceeds the $10,000 threshold, Council action is requested. While more cash could be received for the item now, staff believes additional value exists from the Zeeland bid that exceeds the cash offer made by Standard Equipment. The specifications in the bid document clearly stated that the City of Holland has the right to accept or reject all bids. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council award the bid to buy the 1997 Storm Sewer Vactor truck to the City of Zeeland at a price of $34,500. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Bid forms and Purchasing Report from February 2012 Council meeting. Report prepared by: Tim Vagle, Director of Finance 14E3.3 Attach
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E3.4* City Manager Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council. Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Finance –Annual Adjustments of Interest Rates for Certain Special Assessments On October 20, 1999, City Council adopted a new policy on interest rates for special assessment projects. Prior to October 20, 1999, the interest rate was 10% for all special assessment projects. However, this rate was adjusted only when the City sold bonds for a project. The revised interest rate was then set between .5 and 1% above the rate for which the bonds were sold. On all special assessment projects not funded from bond issues, especially small projects funded from various revolving funds within the General City and the Board of Public Works (BPW), the interest rate would remain at 10%. The policy for the non‐bonded projects, as of October 20, 1999, was based on interest rates determined by the prime rate of major U.S. banks, as printed in the Wall Street Journal, minus 1.5%. This resulted in interest rates as follows: Year 11‐1‐1999 11‐1‐2000 11‐1‐2001 11‐1‐2002 11‐1‐2003 11‐1‐2004 11‐1‐2005 11‐1‐2006 11‐1‐2007 11‐1‐2008 11‐1‐2009 11‐1‐2010 11‐1‐2011 11‐1‐2012 Rate
6.75%
8.00%
5.00%
3.25%
2.50%
3.25%
5.50%
6.75%
6.00%
2.50%
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
(8.25% minus 1.5%)
(9.5% minus 1.5%)
(5.5% minus1.5%)
(4.75% minus 1.5%)
(4.0% minus 1.5%)
(4.75% minus 1.5%)
(7% minus 1.5%)
(8.25% minus 1.5%)
(7.50% minus 1.5%)
(4.00% minus 1.5%)
(3.25% minus 1.5%)
(3.25% minus 1.5%)
(3.25% minus 1.5%)
Minimum Rate 2% (3.25% minus 1.5%)
Under the policy established by the City Council, the new rate must be evaluated annually. The policy was initially adopted with a 10% maximum and a 5% minimum; however, the Council changed the minimum to 2% in 2002. The current prime rate is 3.25%, which would result in an interest rate on bonded special assessments at the minimum rate of 2.00% (3.25% minus 1.5% = 1.75%). Recommendation: It is recommended that the interest rate for non‐bonded capital improvement special assessment rolls be set at 2.00%, effective November 7, 2012. It is further recommended that the interest rate on special assessments for the fill‐in‐the‐gap program be set at 2% for this year, also effective November 7, 2012. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Wahmhoff Memo Report prepared by Tim Vagle, Finance Director. Attachment to 14E3.4*
Fiscal Services Department
Tim Vagle, Director
October 22, 2012
To:
Ryan Cotton
Tim Vagle
From: Melissa Wahmhoff
Re:
Annual Adjustment of Interest Rate for Certain Special Assessment Rolls
At the November 7, 2012 Council Meeting
By Council Action 99.755 dated October 20, 1999 (and later amended by Council
Action 02.719 dated November 6, 2002), an interest rate policy was established for
special assessment rolls that are not pledged to special assessment bonded debt
(a.k.a., unbonded special assessment rolls). The policy states that the adjustment shall
be equivalent to the Prime Rate of major U.S. banks, as printed in The Wall Street Journal,
minus one-and-one-half percent (1.5%). Parameters include an interest rate ceiling of
10% and a minimum rate of 2%.
In conformance with this policy, the interest rate on unbonded special assessments is to
be adjusted at the first City Council meeting of November each year.
Presently, the interest rate applied to such special assessment rolls is 2.00%. The current
Prime Rate as listed in The Wall Street Journal is 3.25% (effective 12/16/08).
Based upon this information, it is requested that City Council retain the interest rate on
unbonded special assessments at 2.00% (3.25% minus 1.5% = 1.75%, use minimum rate
though) effective November 7, 2012.
It is further recommended that City Council also retain the interest rate on assessments
for the fill-in-the-gap program at 2.00% for this year, also effective November 7, 2012.
Thank you.
Note: We will monitor the Prime Rate up to November 7 as listed in the Wall Street
Journal for any revision that may impact this action.
270 South River Avenue * Holland, MI 49423
m 616.355.1370 * f 616.355.1470 *
* www.cityofholland.com * www.enjoyhollandmichigan.com
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E3.5* City Manager Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Finance Department – Quarterly Investment Report Attached is the quarterly investment report for the first quarter of the fiscal year (July – September 2012) as required by Public Act 20. Investment earnings continue to be lower than the prior fiscal year, as historic low rates continue to be the fiscal policy prescription provided by the Fed in their attempts to stimulate the economy. As reflected, the year to date interest is about 25% lower than the prior FY. The current annualized rate is .789%. Rather remarkable given the one to three year term for city investments. For the most part, the City has stayed short in its investments as there doesn’t seem to be rate incentives to tie up funds for longer durations, and should interest rates change, there is flexibility to move to better yields. Recommendation: It is recommended that Council receive the quarterly investment report as presented. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Cash and Investment Portfolio Report and Comparative Analysis of Average Daily Cash and Investment Balance and Investment Income. Report prepared by Tim Vagle, Finance Director CITY OF HOLLAND - CASH AND INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO STATUS REPORT
At Close of Business Day: September 30, 2012
Attachments
Cash or Investment Type
Fifth Third
Bank of
Holland
Macatawa
Chemical
Mercantile
Flagstar
Huntington
to 14E3.5*
United
Other
Financial
Federal MI Commerce Consumers
Cr. Union (Paragon) Cr. Union Arrangements
TOTAL
Percent Of
Grand Total
POOLED
Short-Term Money Management:
- Cash in Bank Dep Acct
- Money Mkt Acct
- MBIA
- CDARS Certificates of Dep
- CDARS Accr Interest Rcvb
- Certificates of Deposit
- Accrued Interest Receivable
Total Short-term
292,376
2,200,788
-0-
3,483,392
1,000,000
3,532
1,000,000
468
700,000
173
1,450,883
293
1,200,120
325
700,000
342
2,000,053
495
-0-0-
-0-0-
-0-0-
3,496,696
4,483,861
700,173
1,451,175
1,200,445
700,342
2,000,548
298,980
-0-
102,165
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Long-Term Money Management:
- Money Market Account
4
- Certificates of Deposit
-0- CDARS Certificates of Dep
- CDARS Accr Interest Rcvb
- Commercial Paper
2,521,840
- U.S. Treasuries / Instrumentalities:
> Par Value
3,000,000
> Market Value Adj
12,561
> Accrued Interest Rec'v
13,099
Total Long-term
5,547,504
TOTAL POOLED
9,044,200
5
298,975
-0-
292,381
6,085,320
2,002,543
1,900,184
466
8,051,056
5,629
0.96%
20.02%
6.59%
6.25%
0.00%
26.49%
0.02%
3,903,194
18,337,580
60.34%
6,300,000
43,255
-0-
4
-06,300,000
43,255
2,521,840
0.00%
0.00%
20.73%
0.14%
8.30%
9.87%
0.04%
0.04%
39.13%
102,165
2,002,543
1,900,184
466
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
6,343,255
3,000,000
12,561
13,099
11,890,759
4,483,861
700,173
1,451,175
1,200,445
700,342
2,000,548
298,980
-0-
102,165
10,246,449
30,228,339
99.47%
-0-0-0-
-0-0-0-
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
130,886
130,886
0.43%
30,000
30,000
0.10%
160,886
160,886
0.53%
30,389,225
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
SEGREGATED
Deposits for Various Purposes
>
>
- With Blue Cross Blue Shield:
> Health & Dental Claims (d)
- With HUB Insurance Group:
> Gen Liability/WorkerComp Claims
TOTAL SEGREGATE
GRAND TOTALS
% of Short-Term Portfolio =
% of Long-Term Portfolio =
Percent of Total Portfolio =
-09,044,200
19.07%
46.65%
29.76%
-04,483,861
24.45%
0.00%
14.75%
-0700,173
3.82%
0.00%
2.30%
-01,451,175
7.91%
0.00%
4.78%
-01,200,445
6.55%
0.00%
3.95%
-0700,342
3.82%
0.00%
2.30%
-02,000,548
10.91%
0.00%
6.58%
-0298,980
1.63%
0.00%
0.98%
-0-00.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-0102,165
0.56%
0.00%
0.34%
10,407,335
21.29%
53.35%
34.25%
CITY OF HOLLAND
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF "AVERAGE DAILY CASH & INVESTMENT BALANCE" AND "INVESTMENT INCOME"
FOR FISCAL YEARS 2011-2012 AND 2012-2013
Month
Average
Daily
Balance
Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Accrued
Capital
Market
Interest
Gains
Write Up
Income
(Losses)
(Down)
Year-to-Date
Investment
Income
Average
Daily
Balance
Fiscal Year 2012-2013
Accrued
Capital
Market
Interest
Gains
Write Up
Income
(Losses)
(Down)
July
21,741,706
20,145
(1,975)
18,170
22,618,295
11,341
August
40,805,709
22,319
(4,975)
35,514
38,435,533
13,176
(569)
25,580
September
31,682,096
19,993
(6,295)
49,212
31,371,034
12,988
(2,554)
36,014
3 Month Total
31,409,837
62,457
(13,245)
49,212
30,808,287
37,505
(1,491)
36,014
October
27,903,681
17,757
(4,390)
62,579
November
27,267,829
19,803
2,920
85,302
December
25,736,486
19,363
1,425
106,090
January
25,009,371
17,925
(2,772)
121,243
February
24,585,598
15,680
(3,640)
133,283
March
23,308,569
16,468
1,754
151,505
April
21,948,296
14,308
May
21,932,234
13,071
6,886
185,403
June
21,454,507
11,430
(3,025)
193,808
26,114,674
208,262
(14,454)
193,808
12 Month Total
0
(367)
0
1,632
Year-to-Date
Investment
Income
0
165,446
Annualized Rate of Return - Current Fiscal Year
July 1, 2012. - September 30, 2012
On Interest Income Only
On Total Investment Income (Interest, plus Capital Gains and minus Capital Losses)
0.483%
0.464%
Annualized Rate of Return - Prior Fiscal Year
July 1, 2011 - September 30, 2011
On Interest Income Only
On Total Investment Income (Interest, plus Capital Gains and minus Capital Losses)
0.789%
0.622%
July 1, 2011 - June 30, 2012
On Interest Income Only
On Total Investment Income (Interest, plus Capital Gains and minus Capital Losses)
0.797%
0.742%
12,973
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E3.6*
REV Purchasing Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Centralized Vehicle Maintenance Fund – Vehicle Purchases – Award Bids Sealed bids for the purchase of six (6) Police Division vehicles, five (5) Tahoes and one (1) Caprice, one (1) 4x4 one‐ton truck with plow for use in the Cemeteries, and two (2) 3/4 ton pickup trucks for use in the Parks Department to replace existing fleet vehicles as included in the FY13 budget were opened on November 5, 2012. Council approval to purchase five (5) Chevrolet Tahoe vehicles from Shaheen Chevrolet, low bidder, at a total cost of $121,985; one (1) Chevrolet Caprice from Berger Chevrolet, lowest bidder meeting specs, at a cost of $27,224; and three (3) Ford trucks from Barber Ford, low bidder, at a cost of $61,005 is requested. Police Vehicles The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $135,000 for the purchase of five (5) Tahoes for use in the Police Division and $27,500 for one (1) Caprice sedan, all as marked vehicles. 2013 Chevrolet Tahoe Price Quantity Subtotal Total Cost Shaheen Chevrolet $25,597 5 $127,985 *Alternate Bid (2/2011s) $22,597 2 $ 45,194 $25,597 3 $ 76,791 $121,985 Berger Chevrolet $25,853 5 $129,265 DeNooyer Chevrolet $26,725 5 $133,625 The alternate bid, recommended by staff, from Shaheen Chevrolet is for two (2) 2011 Demo vehicles that meet specs. One has 7,000 miles on it and the other has 45 miles. By purchasing these demo vehicles with full warranty, the City would save $6,000 resulting in a total cost $13,015 under budget. Last year two Tahoes were purchased at a cost of $25,691 each. 2013 Chevrolet Caprice Price Shaheen Chevrolet $27,420 Berger Chevrolet $27,224 DeNooyer Chevrolet $27,126* (*Does not meet specs – excludes 9C1 Police package, FE9 Emissions, Federal requirements, 1SB Police Preferred Equipment Group, AEH Seats etc.) The FY13 budget includes $27,500 for the purchase of a Chevrolet Caprice, which first became available in the 2012 model year. Staff wants to add this sedan into the fleet to see how it performs as a complement to the Tahoes and substitute for the Ford Crown Victoria sedans, which was a staple in the fleet for many years. The lowest bid meeting specs from Berger Chevrolet is $276 under the budgeted amount. Trucks The FY13 budget includes $35,500 to replace one (1) 4x4 one‐ton truck with plow and dump box for use in the Cemeteries. The dump box was not included in the specs. $42,000 was budgeted to replace two (2) 3/4 ton pickup trucks for use in the Parks Department. Bidder 4X4 One‐Ton Truck Plow option ¾ Ton Pickup (2) Barber Ford $22,687 $5,550 $19,159/each Signature Ford $22,950 $6,105 $19,422/each Berger Chevrolet $23,534 $5,200 $20,982/each DeNooyer Chevrolet $24,074 $5,310 $24,243/each Elhart GMC $24,332 $5,310 $21,537/each Staff is not recommending purchasing the plow option for the one‐ton truck at this time, as it is expected that a plow could be purchased separately for about $5,000. Also the dump box is estimated to cost $3,000. Both will be installed by city staff. The low bid of $22,687 plus the additional cost of $8,000 for these items should bring this purchase well under the budget. Accepting the low from Barber Ford for the other two ¾ ton pickup trucks will result in savings from the budget in the amount $3,682. The disposal of vehicles will be handled at a separate time and Council declaration as surplus will be requested at that time. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Accept the low bid from Shaheen Chevrolet of $25,597 each, $76,791 total, for the purchase of three (3) 2013 replacement Chevrolet Tahoes for use in the Police Division. 2. Accept the alternate low bid from Shaheen Chevrolet of $22,597 each, $45,194 total, for the purchase of two (2) 2011 demo Chevrolet Tahoes for use in the Police Division. 3. Accept the low bid from Berger Chevrolet for a 2013 Chevrolet Caprice at a cost of $27,224 for use in the Police Division. 4. Accept the low bid from Barber Ford for a 2013 4x4 one‐ton truck at a cost of $22,687 for use in the Cemeteries. 5. Accept the low bid from Barber Ford for two (2) 2013 ¾ ton pickup trucks at a cost of $19,159 each, $38,318 total for use in the Parks Department. 6. That the cost of all of these purchases be funded through the Centralized Vehicle/ Equipment Fund. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Police Vehicle Bid Opening Report & Bid Forms. Report prepared by: Tim Vagle, Director of Finance Attachment to 14E3.6*
Truck & Police Vehicle Bid Opening Report 11/5/2012 Police Five (5) Chevrolet Tahoes: Shaheen Chevrolet Tahoe: $25,597.00 each Total for (5) $127,985.00 *Tahoe Alternate Bid: $22,597.00 – (2) TWO ONLY Total for (2): $45,194.00 Total for (3): $76,791.00 Total for Alternate Bid: $121,985.00 Berger Chevrolet Tahoe: $25,853.00 each Total for (5) $129,265.00 DeNooyer Chevrolet Tahoe: $26,725.00 each Total for (5) $133,625.00 Shaheen Chevrolet has (2) 2011 Chevrolet Tahoes demos that meet our specifications. They were used by the salesman to show other departments throughout the State of Michigan. One has 7000 miles on it and the other one has 45 miles on it. They both have the same warranty as new. We have budgeted $27,000.00 for each Chevrolet Tahoe or a total of $135,000.00 total. I recommend that we save the $6000.00 and purchase the 2 demos and 3 new Chevrolet Tahoes from Shaheen Chevrolet for a total of $121,985.00. Respectfully submitted: Dale Vander Weide Chevrolet Caprice Shaheen Chevrolet Caprice: $27,420.00 Berger Chevrolet Caprice: $27,224.00 *DeNooyer Chevrolet Caprice: $27,126.00 We budgeted $27,500.00. I recommend that we purchase the Chevrolet Caprice from Berger Chevrolet as they have met all specifications. *DeNooyer Chevrolet did not include the following options: 9C1 Police Package FE9 Emissions, Federal requirements 1SB Police Preferred Equipment Group AEH Seats, Front Bucket, Cloth with Heavy‐Duty Foam, 6‐Way Power Driver, Vinyl Rear Bench includes seat back security panel (includes (6A3) heavy‐duty vinyl floor covering. Respectfully submitted: Dale Vander Weide T Trucks: Two (2) 4X2 Pickup Trucks: Budgeted $21,000.00 each Barber Ford: $19,159.00 each Total: $38,318.00 Signature Ford: $ 19,422.00 each Total: $38,844.00 Berger Chevrolet: $20,982.00 each Total: $41,964.00 DeNooyer Chevrolet:$24,243.00 each Total: $48,486.00 Elhart GMC: $21,537.00 each Total: $43,074.00 One (1) 4X4 Pickup Budgeted $35,500.00 including snowplow and dump box. (We will purchase and install ourselves) Barber Ford: $22,687.00 Snowplow option $5550.00 Signature Ford: $22,950.00 Snowplow option $6105.00 *Berger Chevrolet: $23,534.00 Snowplow option $5200.00 DeNooyer Chevrolet: $24,074.00 Snowplow option $5310.00 Elhart GMC: $24,332.00 Snowplow option $5310.00 I recommend that we purchase all three (3) trucks as highlighted above without the snowplow option from Barber Ford in the amount of $61,005.00 They all meet specifications. Respectfully submitted: Dale Vander Weide OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E4.1*
City Manager Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Public Safety/Police Division – Report Writing Software Council approval is requested for authorization to enter into an agreement with iyeTek for police crash reporting software as part of compliance with the Michigan crash reporting form UD10, which will replace “Report Beam” the current software. There is no cost to acquire the software, which is utilized by police and sheriff departments throughout Ottawa County. The City attorney has reviewed the agreement. Information is attached from Captain Buursma describing a grant that was obtained by Ottawa County for this purpose. The City had been excluded from the initial grant since it already had software in place, but the vendor has agreed to allow the City to utilize the software with no acquisition costs, thereby allowing all departments in the County to have the same. Similar to the Report Beam software, fees from the sale of reports are split with the iyeTek and the City of Holland and there are no annual costs. There have been problems with the old software in getting auto‐fill data fields to work properly, which has resulted in inefficiencies, duplication of work, etc. Despite the efforts and time invested by our Technology Services staff to work with Report Beam to find a solution, none has been found. Also, Ottawa County and the City have been working toward implementation of an “e‐citation” program, which can be handled by iyeTek. Recommendation: It recommended that Council approve the Police Agency Information Agreement with iyeTex for police crash reporting software with no cost to the City; that the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the City, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachments: Memo from Captain Bob Buursma and Agreement with iyeTek Report prepared by: Tim Vagle, Director of Finance Attachments to 14E4.1*
October 15, 2012
To: Mr. Ryan Cotton
From: Captain Robert Buursma
Ref: Agreement with iyeTek
Mr. Cotton,
The police division of the Holland Department of Public Safety regularly responds to
traffic crashes and by state statute is required to complete a crash report on the State of
Michigan crash reporting form, known as the “UD10”. Several years ago the State of
Michigan began a system to allow for electronic submission of these crash reports and
while it is not required for agencies to submit the forms with this method, the state
prefers an electronic submission.
The police division has been using a vendor and reporting system, Report Beam, since
shortly after electronic crash reporting became an option. However, the officers find the
system to be very difficult to use. The program is supposed to allow for an ‘auto-fill’ of
many of the fields using the information returned from Secretary of States on the in car
computer. This has never worked properly for us with Report Beam and as a result much
extra time is spent by officers completing each crash report. IT staff has attempted to
work with Report Beam for the last couple years to correct the problem but thus far, no
solution has been found.
Ottawa County received a grant from the State of Michigan for all agencies in Ottawa
County, with the exception of Holland, to purchase the software and related equipment
necessary to transition to electronic crash reporting. Holland was not awarded any
portion of the grant due to our already having electronic crash reporting.
Prior to grant approval, representatives from various agencies in Ottawa County,
including Holland, worked to identify a vendor for the Ottawa County project. Out of
that process, iyeTek was selected as the vendor for agencies in Ottawa County.
Once the grant was approved, with Holland at that time removed, iyeTek indicated they
would still allow Holland to be included, at no cost to our department. Instead, with the
rest of the county going to their system, they wanted Holland to be included in the
project.
Using an electronic crash reporting system also allows citizens and insurance companies
to purchase a copy of a crash report on-line, rather than having to come into the police
building to get a copy of the report. Both Report Beam and iyeTek utilize a similar
method being that when purchasing a report, a ‘convenience’ fee is included and paid to
the vendor.
The Ottawa County Courts are also expected to be moving to an electronic citation
method for the submission of traffic citations. iyeTek also provides this service and
Ottawa County is in the process of working out agreements with iyeTek for e-citation.
Each agency will need to use iyeTek as the vendor for this project.
The HDPS is requesting to move to iyeTek for crash reporting and asking council to
approve the agreement. Several factors which lead to this include the problems
experienced by the HDPS with the Report Beam system, for consistency in the county in
that all other agencies in Ottawa County moving to iyeTek, the fact that iyeTek is
providing the software at no charge and that the HDPS will be required to use iyeTek as
the vendor for e-citations. In addition, Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office has begun to use
the system already and have found that the software works properly and does not have
any of the problems the HDPS has encountered with the Report Beam software.
The HDPS does not have any written agreement with Report Beam which would need to
be cancelled.
The agreement with iyeTek has been reviewed and approved as to form by the Holland
City Attorney. I am requesting that council approve the agreement with iyeTek so the
HDPS can transition over to using iyeTek as the electronic crash reporting vendor.
Respectfully Submitted
Robert Buursma
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN City Manager Report 14E5.1 To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Gifts The City Manager’s office is pleased to report receipt of the following gifts: Parks, Recreation and Transportation Services Department – Recreation Division:  Donations collected at the 2012 Softball Tournament Fund Raiser for the Sal Perez Scholarship Fund: Revenues (6 teams – cost $180 each) $1,080 Buffalo Wild Wings 500 In‐Kind Donations: Buffalo Wild Wings – $200 in gift cards distributed as awards Superior Sports ‐ $80 worth of softballs for tournament games It is recommended that these donations be accepted with appreciation; credited to the appropriate account; and an expression of gratitude be forwarded to the donors. Respectfully Submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN City Manager Report 14E5.2 REV To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Citizen Survey – Survey Questions Acceptance Attached please find a copy of the survey questions received from The Frost Research Center on the Citizen Survey. Questions will be asked to rank a number of items in the following areas: quality of life, City services, and future projects and will be comparing the average ranking with other communities of similar size. On October 29, 2012, the survey was reviewed in more detail with Mayor Dykstra, Councilmembers De Boer, Peters, Klomparens, and representatives of The Frost Center. It is anticipated that calling will begin on November 12, and will probably last for 2‐3 weeks. We are also planning to get out a news release encouraging residents to take the call and participate. It is hoped that survey results could be available to Council during the preparation of fiscal year 2013 budget. Note These survey questions remain in draft form pending further discussion on the precise wording of Question #10. Respectfully Submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Attachment: Survey Questions Report prepared by Sinka Babinec, Executive Assistant Attachment to 14E5.2
CITY of HOLLAND CITIZEN SURVEY
Hello. This is ____________________ calling from the Frost Research Center at Hope
College. We’re calling on behalf of the City of Holland to invite you to participate in a 15minute telephone survey in order to gain an understanding of City resident opinions of a
variety of Holland City public services. May I please speak to the adult with the most
recent birthday?
All information you provide will be confidential and only reported to city officials in group
form. Also, you can choose to stop participating in the interview at any point in the
telephone call. Would you like to participate in the interview?
[If yes:] Great. Thanks.
Are you at least 18 years old?
1=Yes (continue)
2=No (terminate)
Do you currently live in the City of Holland limits?
1=Yes (continue)
2=No (terminate)
What is your zip code?
1=49423 (continue)
2=49424 (terminate)
3=Other (terminate)
Are you a City of Holland government employee or Board of Public Works (BPW)
employee?
1=Yes (terminate)
2=No (continue)
(Caller – indicate which phone list)
1 = Landline list
2 = Wireless list
3 = Hispanic oversample list
Community/Neighborhood Information
The first set of questions deals with Holland-area quality of life indicators.
1. How long have you lived in the City of Holland?
Use 1 for less than one year.
1
____ # of years
2. What three things do you like most about Holland?
3. What three things would you most like to change about Holland?
4. Do you rent a home or apartment or are you a homeowner?
Rent, own, other ________________
5. If you have lived in a city or cities other than Holland, how would you compare
Holland with other places you have lived? Would you say you like Holland …





better,
about the same, or
less, than another city.
I don’t know
Refused
6. What do you think will be the three most important local issues the City of Holland
will face within the next few years?
7. How safe do you feel in your neighborhood during the daylight hours? Do you feel…
[Caller read categories not numbers]
(4=Very Safe, 3=Somewhat Safe, 2=Somewhat Unsafe, 1=Very Unsafe)
Or (8=don’t know, 9=refused)
8. How safe do you feel in your neighborhood during the night-time hours? Using the
same scale, do you feel… [Caller read categories again if participant does not recall
the scale]
(4=Very Safe, 3=Somewhat Safe, 2=Somewhat Unsafe, 1=Very Unsafe)
Or (8=don’t know, 9=refused)
9. The City doesn’t allow overnight parking on City streets. Should overnight parking
be allowed during warmer months?
(1=Yes, 2=No, 8=Don’t know, 9=Refused)
10. What action, if any, should the City of Holland take regarding anti-discrimination laws
specific to sexual orientation, that is, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgendered
people? (Choose one answer)
1)
Holland City Council should change the ordinance to provide protection
for such persons.
2)
The City of Holland should let the city residents vote on it in an election
referendum.
2
3)
4)
5)
The City of Holland should not take any specific action, but defer to
federal and state law on this issue
Don’t know
Refused
City of Holland Government Services
The next set of questions deals with City of Holland Government services.
11. How do you rate the quality of each of the following City of Holland government
services? After I say the type of service, please rate this service as very good,
good, average, poor, or very poor. [Caller read categories not numbers]
(5=very good, 4=good, 3=average, 2=poor, 1=very poor, 8=don’t know, 9=refused)
(RANDOMIZE ITEMS)
 Street maintenance (potholes, sweeping)
 Street snow removal
 Sidewalk snow removal
 Storm water drainage
 Police department services
 Emergency medical response by fire department
 Fire department services
 Parks in the city
 Civic Center Recreation facilities
 Recreation programs for youth
 Recreation programs for adults
 City Council
 Animal control
 Sidewalks
 Spring and fall cleanup—curbside
 Enforcement of Property Maintenance
 Overall City of Holland employees
12. Are there specific services currently offered by the City of Holland that you think
should be reduced to conserve City costs?
13. Are there any specific services that are not currently provided that you would like the
City of Holland government to offer?
14. Have you had contact with City of Holland government employees, other than City
Council or the Mayor, within the past year?
1=Yes (go to 17)
2=No
3
15. Think of your most recent interaction with a City of Holland Employee. How would
you rate the service you received during this most recent interaction? Would you
say it was… [Caller read categories not numbers]
5=Very good
4=Good
3=Average
2=Poor
1=Very poor
8=Don’t know (Do not read)
9=Refused (Do not read)
16. During your most recent interaction, in what department did the employee work?









Public Safety (Police & Fire)
Parks & Recreation
Code Inspection
Board of Public Works (BPW; utilities)
Assessment
Streets/Sidewalks Maintenance
City Clerk’s
Administration
Other
Public Safety & Financing Questions
The City of Holland is looking at possible cost-effective alternatives to paying for and
delivering public services.
17. As you think about ALL the services the City of Holland provides and the taxes you
pay to support those services, which of the following best describes your view:
1= I would prefer to KEEP the services as they are now, even if it means RAISING
my taxes.
2= I would prefer to KEEP the services as they are now, but only if my taxes STAY
THE SAME
3= I would prefer to SOMEWHAT REDUCE the services I receive, if it means my
taxes STAY THE SAME
4= I would prefer to SUBSTANTIONALLY REDUCE the services I receive, if it
means my Taxes WILL BE LOWER
18. As you think SPECIFICALLY about the Fire and Police services the City of Holland
provides, and the taxes you pay to support those services, which of the following
best describes your view:
4
1= I would prefer to KEEP the services as they are now, even if it means RAISING
my taxes.
2= I would prefer to KEEP the services as they are now, but only if my taxes STAY
THE SAME
3= I would prefer to SOMEWHAT REDUCE the services I receive, if it means my
taxes STAY THE SAME
4= I would prefer to SUBSTANTIONALLY REDUCE the services I receive, if it
means my Taxes WILL BE LOWER
19. Currently the City of Holland spends about 50% of all city tax dollars on its Police,
Firefighting force, & EMS. To what extent do you support each of the following
options for providing these services? After I say the option, please indicate whether
you…
(5=Strongly Support, 4=Somewhat Support, 3=Neither Support nor Oppose,
2=Somewhat Oppose, 1=Strongly Oppose; 8=don’t know, 9=refused)
(RANDOMIZE ITEMS)
 Maintain Full-time firefighter Fleet who are at the fire stations 24/7 and respond
to calls for service directly from those stations
 Maintain a Volunteer or “part-paid” firefighters Fleet who respond to service calls
from their home or business by going to the fire station to get their equipment
and then respond to calls for service.
 Collaborating with other area fire departments to merge Fire & emergency
medical services into one larger Holland area fire department
 Cross-training Public Safety officials to perform other duties (like police services)
when they are not responding to calls for fire service.
20. How familiar are you with how surrounding governments (Holland & Park Townships
and City of Zeeland) manage their firefighting & emergency medical services.
Would you say you are very familiar, somewhat familiar or not at all familiar?
(3=Very Familiar, 2=Somewhat familiar, 1=Not at all familiar, 9=Refused)
21. To what extent would you support a City income tax if it meant lower property taxes?
(5=Strongly Support, 4=Somewhat Support, 3=Neither Support nor Oppose,
2=Somewhat Oppose, 1=Strongly Oppose; 8=don’t know, 9=refused)
Special Projects
22. Next I’m going to read you a list of special projects the City of Holland could be part
of in the next 3 to 5 years. Please indicate what priority level you believe the City of
Holland government should make the project; a high priority, moderate priority, low
priority, or not at all a priority. [Caller read list not numbers]
(3=high priority, 2=low priority, 1=not a priority at all, 8=don't know, 9=refused)
5
(RANDOMIZE ITEMS)






Expand and renovate Windmill Island Gardens for tourism and regional use
Renovation/expansion of Bouws Pool
Assist with conversion of rental units to single-family home ownership
Van Raalte Farm Renovations
Build an outdoor refrigerated ice rink
Waterfront Improvement and Re-development of the industrial portions of the
waterfront.
23. Which of the following type of events and activities are reasons you have visited the
Civic Center in the past 3 years… (More than 1 may apply for all but last option).







Recreation Program
Performances
Sporting Events
Shows & Exhibitions
Farmer’s Market Event inside the Civic Center Building
Other
I have not attended the Civic Center Grounds in the past 3 years (mutually
exclusive response option)
24. What should the City of Holland do with the Civic Center Building? Should they…
Build a New Civic Center
Renovate the existing Civic Center
Demolish and not replace the Civic Center
Energy Policy
The next set of questions has to do with energy use. The City of Holland is exploring
opportunities to reduce its carbon foot-print by reducing energy use and looking to
cleaner sources of energy.
25. How familiar are you with the Sustainable Energy Study and Report, known as the
Community Energy Plan, that the City of Holland has been working on for the past
two years? Would you say that you
1=haven’t heard of it at all
2=heard of it, but I don’t really know much about it
3=feel well informed about it
26. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: The City of Holland
should offer monetary incentives to encourage people to make their buildings or
home more energy efficient. Do you…
(5=Strongly Agree, 4=Agree, 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree, 2=Disagree, 1=Strongly
6
Disagree, 8=don’t know, 9=refused)
27. Which of the following statements best describes your level of interest in learning
more about how you can better manage your family’s energy use or cost?
1=Very interested
2=Somewhat interested
3=Not at all interested
28. Compared to your current electric use, generated from fossil fuels, what is the
MOST that you’d be willing to pay more for electricity that is generated
from clean or renewable sources (e.g., solar, wind, landfill gas, etc.)?
1= 5% LESS than I’m paying now
2= 0% MORE than I’m paying now
3= 5% MORE than I’m paying now
4= 10% MORE than I’m paying now
5= 15% MORE than I’m paying now
6= 20% MORE than I’m paying now
7= more than 20% MORE than I’m paying now
Demographics
The last few questions are about you and your household and allow us to tell how
representative our survey responses are to the population of the city.
29. What is your age? [read categories]
1=18-24
2=25-34
3=35-44
4=45-54
5=55-64
6=65-74
7=75 years of age or older
30. Are you Hispanic?
1=Yes
2=No
31. What is your race?
1=White or Caucasian
2=Black or African American
3=American Indian and Alaska Native
4=Asian
5=Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander
6=some other single race (specify)
7
7=multiracial (specify)
32. What was the highest level of school you completed?
1=Some Grade school
2=Grade school
3=Some high school
4=High school graduate / GED
5=Some college/vocational
6=Vocational graduate
7=College graduate
8=Some graduate school
9=Graduate degree
33. What street do you live on? (If they question this, tell them it’s just to place them in
their Ward for reporting purposes.)
34. What is your closest cross-street?
35. Gender of respondent
1=female
2=male
36. Do you have a cell phone only, a landline only, or both?
1=cell phone only
2=landline only
3=both
37. Have you ever used an electronic device to seek government services or information
through the City of Holland web site?
1=Yes
2=No
If so, how would you rate the City of Holland’s website?
(5=very good, 4=good, 3=average, 2=poor, 1=very poor, 8=don’t know, 9=refused)
38. Where do you get most of your information about City of Holland news and issues?





Holland Sentinel
Grand Rapids Press
WHTC / 92.7 Van.FM
WJQ / WPNW
Public Access TV
8




City Website
Other Websites (Name: ____________________)
Other Newspapers (Name: __________________)
TV Stations
39. If the City of Holland developed an occasional (monthly or quarterly) newsletter,
would you be interested in receiving it?
1)
2)
3)
Yes, electronically
Yes, paper copy
No
40. Any other comments or something we didn’t cover that is on your mind.
9
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E5.3*
City Manager Report To: Date: Subject: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council November 7, 2012 Tax Abatement – Schedule Hearing on a PA 198 Industrial Facilities Tax (IFT) Abatement Transfer for Code Blue Corporation, 259 Hedcor Street Code Blue Corporation at 259 Hedcor Street has filed an application for tax abatement that is currently under review by staff. Founded in 1989 to address the growing need for security solutions which integrate interactive voice with other common security technologies, Code Blue is the industry leader in emergency communication systems that are innovative, powerful, flexible, cost effective and durable. Code Blue produces vandal‐resistant Blue Light Emergency Phones installed in thousands of education, corporate, hospital, airport and municipal locations worldwide. Code Blue offers American made Help Point, Emergency Signaling, Incident Response and Systems Management solutions with full diagnostic capabilities. Due to rapid growth, the company requires at least 16 additional employees and space to accommodate increased production demand. The building at 259 Hedcor Street has been vacant for several years and can be updated to accommodate the needs of Code Blue. This project will be located at 259 Hedcor Street. The project period is expected to be from October 31, 2012 until October 31, 2013. Their application is for: Land and Building Improvements $ 730,600 Machinery and Equipment $ 415,400 TOTAL $1,146,000 Sixteen (16) new jobs are expected to be created within two (2) years of project completion; 31 existing jobs are expected to be retained. Recommendation: It is recommended that a public hearing on the requested tax abatement for Code Blue Corporation at 259 Hedcor Street be scheduled for Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in City Hall; and that the Deputy City Clerk be instructed to publish and mail the required notice. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton, City Manager Attachments: Tax Calculations (2) Report prepared by Tim Vagle, Finance Director. Attachments to 14E5.3*
PA 198 ABATEMENT ESTIMATED TAX CALCULATIONS
Date:
October 25, 2012
Company:
County and School District:
Total Project
Completion Date:
Code Blue Corporation
Allegan/Holland
October 31, 2013
REQUESTED IMPROVEMENT COSTS
Equipment/Furniture
2015 purchases
2014 purchases
2013 purchases
Total
Real Property
Land Improvements
Building Improvements
Total
Combined TOTAL
$
$
$
$
Taxes WITH Abatement (PA 198)
City Millage
Pers Prop Non-City Millage
Real Estate Non-City Millage
Total Millage
Industrial
4
Personal Property
34.7884
Ottawa-Zeeland
57.6184
33.6184
Allegan-Holland
Allegan-Hamilton
60.3294
56.2394
36.3294
32.2394
The following assumptions are being accepted as true:
1. The current tax rates will remain constant for the years projected
2. The Real Estate value of the IFT property remains constant for the entire projection
3. The Personal Property depreciation factors being used are this year's State recommendations
4. An amendment to MCL 380.1211 (ref PA 37-40), in conjunction with MBT changes, reduced
415,400
415,400
Industrial Personal Property millages by 24 mills. The assumption is made that this reduction
will remain in effect for the duration of this abatement.
$ 730,600
$ 730,600
$ 1,146,000
Personal Property estimated Assessed Value
Real Property estimated Assessed Value
TOTAL ESTIMATED Assessed Value
Taxes WITHOUT Abatement
City Millage
Pers Prop Non-City Millage
Real Estate Non-City Millage
Total Millage
Industrial
Real Estate
58.7884
Total Tax Rates
Ottawa-Holland
Real Estate
13.7364
46.5930
60.3294
6.8682
26.2965
33.1647
$
$
$
Pers. Prop
13.7364
22.5930
36.3294
6.8682
11.2965
18.1647
Year 1
186,930
365,300
552,230
$
$
$
Year 2
162,006
365,300
527,306
$
$
$
Year 3
141,236
365,300
506,536
$
$
$
Year 4
124,620
365,300
489,920
$
$
$
Year 5
112,158
365,300
477,458
$
$
$
Year 6
99,696
365,300
464,996
$
$
$
Year 7
91,388
365,300
456,688
$
$
$
Year 8
83,080
365,300
448,380
$
$
$
Year 9
74,772
365,300
440,072
$
$
$
Year 10
66,464
365,300
431,764
$
$
$
Year 11
62,310
365,300
427,610
$
$
$
Year 12
56,079
365,300
421,379
$ 7,585.65
$ 4,223.31
$ 17,020.42
$ 28,829.38
$ 7,243.29
$ 3,660.20
$ 17,020.42
$ 27,923.91
$ 6,957.98
$ 3,190.94
$ 17,020.42
$ 27,169.35
$
$
$
$
6,729.74
2,815.54
17,020.42
26,565.70
$ 6,558.55
$ 2,533.99
$ 17,020.42
$ 26,112.96
$ 6,387.37
$ 2,252.43
$ 17,020.42
$ 25,660.23
$
$
$
$
6,273.25
2,064.73
17,020.42
25,358.40
$
$
$
$
6,159.13
1,877.03
17,020.42
25,056.58
$
$
$
$
6,045.01
1,689.32
17,020.42
24,754.75
$
$
$
$
5,930.88
1,501.62
17,020.42
24,452.93
$
$
$
$
5,873.82
1,407.77
17,020.42
24,302.01
$
$
$
$
5,788.23
1,266.99
17,020.42
24,075.65
$
$
$
$
77,532.90
28,483.88
204,245.07
310,261.85
$ 3,792.83
$ 2,111.65
$ 9,606.11
$ 15,510.59
$ 3,621.64
$ 1,830.10
$ 9,606.11
$ 15,057.86
$ 3,478.99
$ 1,595.47
$ 9,606.11
$ 14,680.57
$
$
$
$
3,364.87
1,407.77
9,606.11
14,378.75
$ 3,279.28
$ 1,266.99
$ 9,606.11
$ 14,152.38
$ 3,193.69
$ 1,126.22
$ 9,606.11
$ 13,926.01
$
$
$
$
3,136.62
1,032.36
9,606.11
13,775.10
$
$
$
$
3,079.56
938.51
9,606.11
13,624.19
$
$
$
$
3,022.50
844.66
9,606.11
13,473.28
$
$
$
$
2,965.44
750.81
9,606.11
13,322.36
$
$
$
$
2,936.91
703.88
9,606.11
13,246.91
$
$
$
$
2,894.12
633.50
9,606.11
13,133.72
$
$
$
$
38,766.45
14,241.94
115,273.34
168,281.72
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,365
1,408
7,414
12,187
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,137
1,032
7,414
11,583
$
$
$
$
3,080
939
7,414
11,432
$
$
$
$
3,023
845
7,414
11,281
$
$
$
$
2,965
751
7,414
11,131
$
$
$
$
2,937
704
7,414
11,055
$
$
$
$
2,894
633
7,414
10,942
$
$
$
$
38,766
14,242
88,972
141,980
Total Tax Savings
City
PP Non-City
RE Non-City
Total
Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
3,793
2,112
7,414
13,319
3,622
1,830
7,414
12,866
3,479
1,595
7,414
12,489
3,279
1,267
7,414
11,961
3,194
1,126
7,414
11,734
PA 198 ABATEMENT ESTIMATED TAX CALCULATIONS
ASSUMING PROPOSED PERSONAL PROPERTY CHANGES WILL TAKE EFFECT
Date:
June 8, 2012
Company:
County and School District:
Total Project
Completion Date:
Ventura Manufacturing, Inc
Allegan/Hamilton
January 5, 2014
REQUESTED IMPROVEMENT COSTS
Equipment/Furniture
2014 purchases
2013 purchases
2012 purchases
Total
Real Property
Land Improvements
Building Improvements
Total
Combined TOTAL
$
$
$
$
Taxes WITH Abatement (PA 198)
City Millage
Pers Prop Non-City Millage
Real Estate Non-City Millage
Total Millage
Industrial
4
Personal Property
34.1446
Ottawa-Zeeland
57.4146
33.4146
Allegan-Holland
Allegan-Hamilton
59.6856
57.9256
35.6856
33.9256
The following assumptions are being accepted as true:
1. The current tax rates will remain constant for the years projected
2. The Real Estate value of the IFT property remains constant for the entire projection
3. The Personal Property depreciation factors being used are this year's State recommendations
4. An amendment to MCL 380.1211 (ref PA 37-40), in conjunction with MBT changes, reduced
528,696
528,696
Industrial Personal Property millages by 24 mills. The assumption is made that this reduction
will remain in effect for the duration of this abatement.
$
$
$
528,696
Personal Property estimated Assessed Value
Real Property estimated Assessed Value
TOTAL ESTIMATED Assessed Value
Taxes WITHOUT Abatement
City Millage
Pers Prop Non-City Millage
Real Estate Non-City Millage
Total Millage
Industrial
Real Estate
58.1446
Total Tax Rates
Ottawa-Holland
Real Estate
13.7364
44.1892
57.9256
6.8682
25.0946
31.9628
Pers. Prop
13.7364
20.1892
33.9256
6.8682
10.0946
16.9628
$
$
$
Year 1
237,913
237,913
$
$
$
Year 2
206,191
206,191
$
$
$
Year 3
179,757
179,757
$
$
$
Year 4
158,609
158,609
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
3,268.07
4,803.28
8,071.35
$
$
$
$
2,832.33
4,162.84
6,995.17
$
$
$
$
2,469.21
3,629.14
6,098.35
$
$
$
$
2,178.71
3,202.18
5,380.90
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
10,748.32
15,797.44
26,545.77
$
$
$
$
1,634.04
2,401.64
4,035.67
$
$
$
$
1,416.16
2,081.42
3,497.58
$
$
$
$
1,234.60
1,814.57
3,049.18
$
$
$
$
1,089.36
1,601.09
2,690.45
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
5,374.16
7,898.72
13,272.88
$
$
$
$
1,634
2,402
4,036
$
$
$
$
1,416
2,081
3,498
$
$
$
$
1,235
1,815
3,049
$
$
$
$
1,089
1,601
2,690
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
5,374
7,899
13,273
Total Tax Savings
City
PP Non-City
RE Non-City
Total
Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E5.4*
REV City Manager Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: 2013 Health Insurance Rates The City currently has a flexible benefit program for its non‐union employees which allows each employee to choose a combination of fringe benefits which best fits personal needs. Part of this program is health insurance. Currently, there are four (4) health plan options, a dental option, and an opt‐out alternative. In 2013 for non‐union groups the POS plan will be eliminated leaving three (3) health plan options. The base plan for which the City funds 80% of the premium is the PPO‐10 plan. If the employee does not successfully complete the City’s Wellness program, then the City share is 60% of the premium. The City’s Employee Health Insurance program is basically self‐funded. However, the program is self‐insured up to $100,000 on a per individual basis and there is a group limit which is adjusted annually. Therefore, the City has insurance coverage if individual or group aggregate costs are exceeded. Priority Health is the City’s Third Party Administrator (TPA) and administers the employee health and dental insurance claims. The current Administrative Fee per contract per month has remained the same at $49.00. The specific and aggregate stop loss insurance for 2012 is $58.53 per employee per month, and adjusted to $66.25 per month per employee in 2013, or an increase of 13.19%. The Health Plan illustrative rates were increased by 15.48% for all active employee plans. Priority Health was asked to recommend plan adjustments to help lower the illustrative rate. The recommendation was to increase the prescription drug co‐pay from $15/$30 to $15/$50 which would allow for a rate decrease of 3.81% from 15.48% to 12.67%. Under the Affordable Care Act any plan that existed on March 23, 2010 was allowed to make routine changes to their health care plans without losing their “grandfather” status. Plans will lose their “grandfather” status if they choose to cut benefits or increase out of pocket costs. A change from a prescription drug co‐pay of $15/$30 to $15/$50 will cause the Active Non‐Union and pre‐65 retiree plans to lose its grandfather status; however, the City employees and the pre‐65 retirees will gain consumer protections with the addition of 100% coverage for colonoscopies, and 100% coverage for women’s health services including contraceptives. The 12.67% rate and un‐grandfathering would be implemented for non‐union groups. Meetings are in progress which offers the Unions an opportunity to choose the 12.67% rate and benefit changes over the 15.48% rate increase. Following is a table indicating the 2013 health and dental insurance rates and the proposed 12.67% and 15.48% rates for 2013: HEALTH‐PPO 10 PLAN 12.67% rate increase One Person Two Person Family 2012 $15/30 Drug Co. Pay Bi‐Weekly $210.96 $485.20 $527.40 Annual $5,484.96 $12,615.20 $13,712.40 2013 $15/30 Drug Co Pay Illustrative Illustrative Bi‐Weekly Annual $237.69 $6,179.94 $546.67 $14,213.42 $594.22 $15,449.72 Illustrative % Change 12.67% 12.67% 12.67% 2013 Illustrative Annual $443.82 $1020.50 $1109.16 Illustrative % Change 23.70% 23.54% 23.54% 2013 $15/30 Drug Co Pay Illustrative Illustrative Bi‐Weekly Annual $243.62 $6,334.12 $560.32 $14,568.32 $609.05 $15,835.30 Illustrative % Change 15.48% 15.48% 15.48% DENTAL One Person Two Person Family 2012 Bi‐Weekly $13.80 $31.77 $34.53 Annual $358.80 $826.02 $897.78 Illustrative Bi‐Weekly $17.07 $39.25 $42.66 HEALTH‐PPO 10 PLAN 15.48% rate increase One Person Two Person Family 2012 $15/30 Drug Co. Pay Bi‐Weekly $210.96 $485.20 $527.40 Annual $5,484.96 $12,615.20 $13,712.40 The proposed 2013 illustrative rates for Pre‐65 retirees are proposed to be increased as follows: Pre 65 Retiree PPO Plan 10 Monthly Rates with change to 15/50 RX 2012 Retiree 2013 Retiree Illustrative Co‐Pay 2012 Illustrative Co‐Pay 2013 Rate Rate $448.91 $198.91 $516.34 $266.34 $1,032.49 $582.49 $1,187.58 $737.58 $1,122.27 $672.27 $1,290.84 $840.84 2013 Est. Contracts Single 24 Dual 26 Family 4 City Contribution to Premium Single $250 / Month Dual $450 / Month ($500 / Month Firefighters) Premium % Change + 15.02% + 15.02% + 15.02% Co‐Pay
% Change + 33.90 + 26.63 + 25.07 Pre 65 Retiree PPO Plan 10 Monthly Rates with current 10/40 RX 2013 2012 Retiree Est. Illustrative Co‐Pay 2012 Contracts Rate Single 24 $448.91 $198.91 Dual 26 $1,032.49 $582.49 Family 4 $1,122.27 $672.27 City Contribution to Premium Single $250 / Month Dual $450 / Month ($500 / Month Firefighters) 2013 Illustrative Rate $536.79 $1,234.62 $1,341.97 Retiree Co‐Pay 2013 $286.79 $784.62 $891.97 Premium % Change + 19.58% + 19.58% + 19.58% It is recommended that City Council approve: 1. The proposed 2013 illustrative rates as presented; 2. The PPO‐10 Plan as the base plan for 2013; 3. That Priority Health be maintained as the City’s Third Party Administrator and; 4. The elimination of the POS Health Plan for Non‐Union Employees Respectfully Submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Report prepared by: Chanda Schab‐Koryto, Human Resources Director Co‐Pay
% Change + 44.18 + 34.70 + 32.68 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN City Manager Report 14E5.5* REV To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Energy Conservation – Centennial Park LED Lighting Retrofit Project The General City has been in discussion with the Holland Board of Public Works concerning a lighting efficiency demonstration project that would be funded in part by BPW Energy Optimization funds. It is desired that the project be in a highly visible public space since this is a demonstration project, intended to serve as a model. Centennial Park is highly visible and has somewhat inefficient metal halide lights. This park meets the BPW program criteria and is identified in the City’s Energy Conservation Plan as being a candidate for a lighting retrofit. The BPW has $20,000 to $25,000 available to assist with this project and the remainder of the cost would be funded through the City’s Municipal Capital Improvement Fund. The General City will administer the project and seek reimbursement from the BPW upon completion. The total project cost is estimated at $37,000. Staff has sought bids for this project and the following have been submitted: Company Total Cost Per Unit Cost Kendall Electric $17,250.00 $345.00 King Luminaire $28,600.00 $572.00 Standard Electric $31,300.00 $626.00 Robert C Shaver $36,250.00 $725.00 Michigan Lighting Systems $42,532.00 $860.64 Spring City $45,850.00 $917.00 Holophane $46,277.50 $925.55 The low bid submitted by Kendall Electric did not include a dimmer feature as required by the specifications. Staff contacted Kendall and they provided a cost for a 100% to 50% dimmer and this bid remained the lowest. However, the BPW prefers a greater range in the dimmer and the third bid (Standard Electric) provides this. Also, Standard Electric provided this dimmer product in its original sealed bid submittal without a further request by staff. The second low bid (King Luminaire) did not submit a sample product as required by the bid specifications, so this bid is not considered qualified. Finally, the globes on the lights in Centennial Park are aging and becoming discolored. Although not required, the Standard Electric bid includes new globes. Kendall Electric submitted a price for globes which brings its total bid to $28,562.50. The BPW feels strongly that the Standard Electric bid provides a dimmer product much more in keeping with the intent of the program. This bid totals $31,300 and the BPW will fund 80% ($25,040) of this cost. The General City share is $6,260 plus installation. A City budget of $10,000 should be adequate for this project. It is estimated that the annual energy savings from the LED lights will amount to $2,838 which is a 71% reduction from the current energy costs. This is a 3.5 years payback for the City’s portion of this cost. Recommendation It is recommended that City Council accept the bid submitted by Standard Electric in the amount of $31,300 for the installation of LED lighting and globes in Centennial Park; that the BPW fund $25,040 of this project cost; that a total City budget for this project be set at $10,000; and that the City’s share of the project be funded through Municipal Capital Projects Fund. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Report prepared by: Greg Robinson, Assistant City Manager, and Municipal Planner Mark Vanderploeg. Energy Saving Analysis
Location
Project
City of Holland
Centennial Park LED Lights
Electric Demand Rate ($)
Project Mgr
$0.00
Mark Vanderploeg
$ 0.0900
Electric KWH Rate
EXISTING FIXTURES
DESCRIPTION
Metal Halide Decorative Light
Watts / Fixture
Quantity
Hours / Year
Total KW
210
48
4380
10.1
TOTALS
10.08
Annual Demand Cost
$0
$0
PROPOSED FIXTURES
DESCRIPTION
Dimmable LED Decorative Light
44,150
$3,974
44,150
$3,974
Annual
KWH
Annual
Energy Cost
Watts/Fixture
Quantity
Hours / Year
Total KW
Annual Demand Cost
60
48
4380
2.9
$0
12,614
$1,135
0.0
$0
-
$0
2.9
$0
12,614
TOTALS
SAVINGS
Annual
Annual KWH Energy Cost
KW Savings
7.2
Annual
Demand
Savings
Annual
KWH
Savings
Annual
Energy
Savings
Total Annual Savings
$0
31,536
$2,838
$2,838
$1,135
Savings
Savings
71%
Projected Lighting Energy Cost
$10,000
Existing Lighting
Cumulative Energy Cost
LED Lighting
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E5.6
City Manager Report To: Date: Subject: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council November 7, 2012 Approval of Community Energy Task Force Planning Budgets (4) Summary and Background This report follows up on the three years of work by the Holland Community Sustainability Committee, the Board of
Directors of the Board of Public Works and staff, and the Holland City Council and staff.
Tonight's expectation is the opportunity to formally approved budgets for planning purposes to be undertaken by the four (4) Task Forces. The intent is to make meaningful progress in becoming a more cost‐efficient and energy self‐reliant community and to move the City of Holland forward as an energy model for other communities. The four other Task Forces were self‐organized following the Council’s directive in July to encourage comprehensive “citizen input throughout the process.” A Call to Action Kick‐Off Meeting was subsequently held on September 17th at Park Theater with 100 people in attendance. Planning budgets for the four (4) citizen task forces discussed in the last Study Session are listed below: 1. Home Energy Retrofits ($28,000); 2. District Heating ($0 for the City’s funds; up to $100,000 in BPW funds); 3. Building Energy Labeling ($10,000 with cooperation and data sharing with the Home Energy Retrofit Task Force); and 4. Energy Education and Outreach ($20,000). The total amount of planning will equal $58,000. A small contingency of $8,000 is left over for now from the original $66,000 of unencumbered funds available. The intent is to ramp up to a series of pilot projects for Council’s budget review for fiscal year 2014 in March/April. Once approved, several pilot projects could be kicked off in July of 2013. If successful, scale projects can be recommended in successive fiscal years. Special appreciation goes to the Park Theater and to Garforth International, LLC who donated earlier rent/efforts that enabled these planning funds to be greater than they otherwise would have been. Recommendation It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the above funds totalling $58,000 to be used for Community Energy Strategies Planning purposes. 2. Authorize the Administrative liaisons for each Task Force to procure the planning services outlined in their reports reviewed at the October 24, 2012 Study Session as per the typical purchasing procedures administered by Tim Vagle, Finance Director / Purchasing Director. 3. Require reports back in February 2013 for use by the City’s Budget Team in recommending priorities to the City Council in the fiscal year 2014 budget submittal in March 2013. Respectfully submitted, Greg Holcombe Don Triezenberg Dave Koster Dan Nally Greg Robinson Ryan Cotton Public Member Ad hoc Member BPW General Mgr. BPW Business Mgr. Assistant City Mgr. City Manager Attachments: Potential Financing sources (PowerPoint slide) Report prepared by Ryan Cotton, City Manager Attachment to 14E5.6
Energy Sustainability Project Funds &
Potential Allocations for Task Force Planning
Task Forces
Home Energy Retrofit
Requested
Recommendation
Notes
$28,000
$28,000
See note to left
--
Bldg. Energy Labeling
$30,000
$10,000
This smaller amount should cover
planning and a Contracted Buildling
Energy Labeler for a pilot
project…Match with BPW
Education & Outreach
$52,000
$20,000
Less is recommended via using the
Community Survey to save $7,000
and to stay at a planning level for now
Power Generation
NA
--
BPW is covering as a matter of course
Industrial Bunding
NA
--
BPW is covering as a matter of course
$110,000
$58,000
District Heating
Total
Approximate Total
Available
Contingency subject to
Council (TBD)
$66,000
$8,000
90 pilot energy audits & contracting for
a Team Leader to cement the efforts
BPW will cover as new business
venture
The word approx. is used because
Garforth will not be willing us the full
costs; there may be a little more avail.
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E5.7*
City Manager Report To: Date: Subject: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council November 7, 2012 Formal Approval of a Citizen Community Energy Task Force Member Summary and Background This report follows up on the three years of work by the Holland Community Sustainability Committee, the Board of Directors of the Board of Public Works and staff, and the Holland City Council and staff, especially the July 18, 2012 City Council Steering Committee appointments and the Study Session outcomes on October 24, 2012. Tonight's expectation is the opportunity to formally approve a new member of the Community Energy Strategies Steering Committee. Recommendation 1. Authorize an additional public representative on the Community Energy Strategies Steering Committee ‐‐ Don Triezenberg is recommended. Don attended most of the meetings held to‐date. 2. If Hope College and/or the Hospital and Holland Public staff are interested in the future, such representatives would add value and could be appointed at some later point. Respectfully submitted, Greg Holcombe Don Triezenberg Dave Koster Dan Nally Greg Robinson Ryan Cotton Public Member Ad hoc Member BPW General Mgr. BPW Business Mgr. Assistant City Mgr. City Manager Attachments: NA Report prepared by Ryan Cotton, City Manager OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 14E5.8*
REV City Manager Report To: Mayor Dykstra and Members of Holland City Council Date: November 7, 2012 Subject: Authorization for a New Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiency Task Force Summary and Background This report follows up on the three years of work by the Holland Community Sustainability Committee, the Board of Directors of the Board of Public Works (BPW) and staff, Holland City Council and staff. Additional progress in becoming a more cost‐efficient and energy self‐reliant community is possible by appointing a fifth Task Force to address non‐residential energy use. This idea to move Holland forward even further as an energy model for other communities was discussed at the October 24th Study Session. The fifth Task Force would review ways to make the commercial and institutional sectors more energy efficient. Eighty (80) percent of energy use goes to power the non‐residential arena. The four other Task Forces were self‐organized following the Council’s directive in July to encourage comprehensive “citizen input throughout the process.” A Call to Action Kick‐Off Meeting was subsequently held on September 17th at Park Theater with 100 people in attendance. Recommendation 1. Authorization to the Steering Committee to create a new Task Force on Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiencies. Authorize staff to advertise/recruit community volunteers. This recommendation is consistent with past Council actions and is in line with the values of efficiency and competitiveness; 2. Designate the BPW staff to be the lead on this effort. (John Van Uffelen is the joint recommendation from the Steering Committee at their meeting on November 6th); 3. Authorization to work on planning steps needed to implement Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiencies; and 4. Request a report from this new Task Force by the second study session in January on the key planning steps needed. The expectation is that Council will be asked to make implementation decisions associated with the following fiscal year budget (FY2014) in April once the initial planning efforts are completed. Note: Industrial energy efficiencies are not included in the above recommendation for two reasons: there is already an “industrial energy bundle” effort underway by the General Manager of the Board of Public Works and the nature of manufacturing is generally to be as energy efficient as possible by definition. Respectfully submitted, Greg Holcombe Don Triezenberg Dave Koster Dan Nally Greg Robinson Ryan Cotton Public Member Ad hoc Member BPW General Mgr. BPW Business Mgr. Assistant City Mgr. City Manager Attachments: NA Report prepared by Ryan Cotton, City Manager OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL HOLLAND, MICHIGAN City Manager Report 14E5.9* To: Date: Subject: Mayor Dykstra and Members of the Holland City Council. November 7, 2012 Change in Meeting Schedule – Cancel Nov. 21st & Schedule Meeting on Nov. 28, 2012 The second regular City Council meeting in November falls on Wednesday, November 21, 2012; and for the past several years, City Council does not meet on the night before Thanksgiving. In accordance with the City Charter, Section 4.7 (a), “The council shall provide by resolution for the time and place of its regular meetings and shall hold at least two (2) regular meetings each month. If any time set for the holding of a regular meeting of the council shall be a holiday, then such regular meeting shall be held at the same time and place on the next secular day which is not a holiday.” The meeting schedule for November 2012 has been shifted due to the Thanksgiving Holiday. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council meeting schedule for the month of November 2012 be revised due to the Thanksgiving Holiday as follows: Wednesday, November 7, 2012: Regular meeting, 7 PM, Council Chambers Wednesday, November 14, 2012: Study Session, 5:30 PM, Training Center Wednesday, November 21, 2012: Cancelled – Due to Thanksgiving Holiday. Wednesday, November 28, 2012: Regular meeting, 7 PM, Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Cotton City Manager Report prepared by Sinka Babinec, Executive Assistant