AUBURN HILLS MEETING SCHEDULE

Transcription

1 AUBURN HILLS MEETING SCHEDULE OCTOBER 2012 ( ) 01 City Council, 7:00 p.m., Council Chamber 02 Library Board Special Meeting, 4:30 p.m., Library Large Meeting Room ADDED 08 Tax Incentive Review Committee, 5:30 p.m., Admin Conference Room CANCELED 09 Tax Increment Finance Authority, 4:00 p.m., Admin Conference Room 10 Election Commission, 10:00 a.m., City Clerk s Office 11 Zoning Board of Appeals, 7:00 p.m., Council Chamber CANCELED 15 City Council Workshop, 5:30 p.m., Council Chamber 15 City Council, 7:00 p.m., Council Chamber 23 Library Board, 4:30 p.m., Library Large Meeting Room 24 Beautification Advisory Commission, 6:00 p.m., Admin Conference Room 30 Planning Commission/Recreation Commission, 7:00 p.m., Council Chamber CANCELED City Council Chamber 1827 N. Squirrel Road Administrative Conference Room 1827 N. Squirrel Road Public Safety Building 1899 N. Squirrel Road Community Center 1827 N. Squirrel Road Department of Public Services (DPS) 1500 Brown Road Fieldstone Golf Course Taylor Road Library Seyburn Drive Downtown City Offices 3395 Auburn Road, Suite A

2 AUBURN HILLS MEETING SCHEDULE NOVEMBER 2012 ( ) 08 Zoning Board of Appeals, 7:00 p.m., Council Chamber 12 Retiree Health Care/Pension Board, 1:00 p.m., Admin Conference Room 12 Tax Incentive Review Committee, 5:30 p.m., Admin Conference Room 12 City Council, 7:00 p.m., Council Chamber 13 Tax Increment Finance Authority, 4:00 p.m., Admin Conference Room 19 City Council Workshop, 5:30 p.m., Council Chamber 19 City Council, 7:00 p.m., Council Chamber 27 Library Board, 4:00 p.m., Library Large Meeting Room 27 Planning Commission, 7:00 p.m., Council Chamber City Council Chamber 1827 N. Squirrel Road Administrative Conference Room 1827 N. Squirrel Road Public Safety Building 1899 N. Squirrel Road Community Center 1827 N. Squirrel Road Department of Public Services (DPS) 1500 Brown Road Fieldstone Golf Course Taylor Road Library Seyburn Drive Downtown City Offices 3395 Auburn Road, Suite A

3 The City of Auburn Hills Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 15, 2012 * 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 1, APPOINTMENTS & PRESENTATIONS Council Chamber 1827 N. Squirrel Road Auburn Hills MI a. Presentation - SEMCOGs Sustainable Community Recognition Program 5b. Presentation - Tri-City Sustainability Plan Presentation 6. PUBLIC COMMENT 7. CONSENT AGENDA All items listed are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 7a. Board & Commission Minutes 7a.1. Tax Incentive Review Committee September 10, a.2. Tax Increment Finance Authority October 9, b. Motion Approval of Horticulture/Downtown Snow Removal Bid 7c. Motion Approve Recommendation of TIFA Board for Construction Manager 7d. Motion Approve the Revised-Major Case Assistance Team (MCAT) Inter-local Agreement with the City of Birmingham, Charter Township of Bloomfield, City of Clawson and City of Troy. 7e. Motion Approve Vactor Discharge Station Bid 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 9a. Public Hearing/Motion - CDBG 9b. Public Hearing/Motion Revocation of Commercial Rehabilitation Certificate C Joslyn Road 9c. Public Hearing/Motion - Pacific Holdings Request to establish a Plant Rehabilitation District (PRD) 9d. Public Hearing/Motion Pacific Holdings Request to establish an Industrial Development District (IDD) 9e. Public Hearing/Motion Inalfa Roofing Systems Request for Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate 9f. Public Hearing/Motion Inalfa Roofing Systems Request for New IFEC Personal Property 9g. Public Hearing/Motion Pacific Holdings Request to Transfer Commercial Rehab. Certificate 9h. Public Hearing/Motion Dieomatic Inc dba P&F Systems Request for New IFEC Personal Property 9i. Public Hearing/Motion BAE Industries Request to Extend IFEC real and personal property 9j. Public Hearing/Motion Adopt 2013 Budget and Millage Rates 9k. Motion - Proposed 2012 Budget Amendments 10. COMMENTS AND MOTIONS FROM COUNCIL 11. CITY ATTORNEY S REPORT 12. CITY MANAGER S REPORT 13. ADJOURNMENT City Council meeting minutes are on file in the City Clerk s office. NOTE: Anyone planning to attend the meeting who has need of special assistance under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is asked to contact the City Clerk's Office at or the City Manager's Office at hours prior to the meeting. Staff will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements.

4 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS D ATE: O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 4. The City of Auburn Hills City Council Meeting Minutes October 1, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: by Mayor McDonald at 7:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Council Chamber, 1827 N. Squirrel Road, Auburn Hills, MI Present: Mayor McDonald, Mayor Pro Tem Hammond, Council Members Doyle, Kittle, Knight, McDaniel, Verbeke Also Present: City Manager Auger, Assistant City Manager Tanghe, Deputy Director Hardesty, City Clerk Kowal, City Treasurer Buschmohle, DPW Director Melcher, Community Development Director Cohen, Fieldstone Manager Marmion, Library Director McCoy, City Attorney Beckerleg, City Engineers Katers and Taryn Juidici. 8 Guests 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4a. City Council Meeting August 20, 2012 Moved by Hammond; Seconded by Verbeke. RESOLVED: To approve the minutes of September 10, 2012 as submitted. VOTE: Yes: Doyle, Hammond, Kittle, Knight, McDaniel, McDonald, Verbeke No: None Motion carried (7-0) RESOLUTION NO b. City Council Meeting September 17, 2012 Moved by Doyle, Seconded by Kittle. RESOLVED: To approve the minutes of September 10, 2012 as submitted. VOTE: Yes: Doyle, Hammond, Kittle, Knight, McDaniel, McDonald, Verbeke No: None Motion carried (7-0) RESOLUTION NO APPOINTMENTS & PRESENTATIONS 5a. Motion Appoint Karen Lewis to the Beautification Advisory Committee for a term to expire Mayor McDonald stated Ms. Lewis attended the Citizens Police and Fire Academy in the past and has recently moved to Dexter Road and would like to be involved with keeping the City beautiful. Ms. Lewis explained she has been an Auburn Hills resident for 13 years and is looking forward to making Auburn Hills beautiful. Responding to Ms. Doyle, Ms. Lewis explained she is interested in seeing how others maintain gardens and take some of those ideas for her gardening. Moved by McDaniel; Seconded by Knight. RESOLVED: To appoint Karen Lewis to the Beautification Advisory Committee for a term to expire

5 City Council Minutes October 1, 2012 Page 2 VOTE: Yes: Doyle, Hammond, Kittle, Knight, McDaniel, McDonald, Verbeke No: None Motion carried (7-0) RESOLUTION NO b. Motion Appoint Celeste Yoskovich to the Beautification Advisory Committee for term to expire Ms. Yoskovich stated she has been an Auburn Hills resident for 25 years. She is an avid gardener and has won the Beautification Award three different times. Besides her love of gardening she recycles, reduces and reuses as well as commutes to work on her bicycle. She would like to promote the City and keep it more beautiful. Moved by Kittle; Seconded by McDaniel. RESOLVED: To appoint Celeste Yoskovich to the Beautification Advisory Committee for a term to expire VOTE: Yes: Doyle, Hammond, Kittle, Knight, McDaniel, McDonald, Verbeke No: None Motion carried (7-0) RESOLUTION NO Mr. Knight noted Beautification Board Member Brocklebank relayed the rave reviews and compliments the City received from attendees of the quarterly meeting of Beautification Council of Southeastern Michigan (BCSEM). There were approximately 80 people who attended the meeting. 5c. Presentation Complete Streets Mr. Cohen explained the Planning Commission has been looking at adopting a policy that would have the City look at all modes of transportation when roadway projects are being considered. Ms. Katers explained Ms. Juidici is part of the Traffic Division at OHM and is very knowledgeable about Complete Streets; she has worked with many communities in adopting Complete Street policies. Continuing, Ms. Katers noted she has been working with the City for 13 years and she now spends more time behind the scenes but is up-to-date on Auburn Hills. This presentation will show what Auburn Hills has been doing and what is needed to take it a step further. Auburn Hills has been doing a good job with incorporating the different components of this concept already in City projects. This is a follow-up to the Juidici s meeting with the Planning Commission back in January and how to proceed. Continuing, Ms. Katers began a Power Point presentation noting there are many areas that have problems allowing all users to have freedom of movement. Many times there hasn t been much thought put into the placement of utilities or the lack of pedestrian facilities along the side of a road in Auburn Hills. Ms. Juidici explained the main principle behind Complete Streets is having the roads do more than just move cars. Roads are used by pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as emergency vehicles, delivery trucks and transit. A Complete Street is designed to accommodate all the anticipated users for a particular road. It doesn t, however, mean that every street has a bike lane, but does accommodate bicyclists in some way. The Complete Streets concept is based on the shift of demographics; one segment is the aging baby boomer that would prefer to walk to destinations as opposed to always driving and the other demographic is the generation that is now entering the work force and is looking for more core, urban living. Many people are looking to live more healthy active lifestyles, which urban living supports as well as accessible transportation. Complete Streets is not a new concept or very unique. It falls under the umbrella of Mobility and Safety in traffic engineering. The implementation of traffic calming was the first time road designs were looked at closely. How roads impact other things, not just cars; and characteristics that could be done with a roadway to slow traffic down and make roads safe for pedestrians and other road users are now being considered. Traffic calming evolved into Context Sensitive Solutions and now the newest buzz is Green Roads, which includes sustainable design principles. Principles of Complete Streets Context is key; a roadway should fit with a community s goals. Context should also extend beyond the road right-of-way; adjacent development actually determines who will be using that particular road. Auburn Hills is very good at keeping the stakeholders involved and often participating; a key principle of Complete Streets. Major characteristics of a Complete Streets - First and foremost most complete streets have accommodations for non-motorist transportation. It could be in the form of extra wide sidewalks in downtown areas, or a non-motorized trail, maybe a nonmotorized trail that isn t within the right of way, but allows for reaching point A from point B. Accommodates pedestrians with possibly a shorter cross-walk, a different colored pavement, high intensity pavement markings to improve the safety of a crosswalk, ADA compliant (using the truncated domes at the crossings).

6 City Council Minutes October 1, 2012 Page 3 Bicycle accommodations are often included in complete streets, both on road and off road paths, a designated bike lane, or a Bicycle Sharrow, which indicates to the bicyclist where to ride in the lane and of upcoming conditions. Incorporating transit is often forgotten about for Complete Streets. It isn t only a subway system, regional bus service or light rail, but also school buses. The location of transit stops is going to be important as well as the possibility of an increased sidewalk width where children congregate waiting for that bus. A rode diet is when a road was designed to carry a larger number of vehicles, than the number of vehicles that actually travel on it. An example would be a seven lane road that could easily accommodate traffic for only a five lane road. Those extra two lanes could potentially be used for on-street parking, biking lanes, or increase the width of sidewalks. Responding to Mr. Knight, Ms. Juidici stated lane width should not be reduced, nor should there be extra wide lanes. Ms. Juidici continued stating Complete Streets is using best practices in transportation engineering, which is something that is always looked at when doing street projects. Complete Streets is really Complete Network to accommodate vehicle, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit; however, not all streets need to accommodate everything. A community may have streets that are geared more to vehicular traffic, some streets more towards bicyclists and some accommodating both, which allow for the Complete Networking. Ms. Katers explained Public Act 51 was revised, with MDOT taking 1% for non-motorized facilities and putting away a pot of money for which communities can apply as the Transportation Enhancement Grants; which Auburn Hills has done in the past. A point system is in place in order to receive these funds; points can be achieved by Council establishing a resolution or ordinance for Complete Streets. Roads owned by MDOT or RCOC that are within a community must now sit down with that community and discuss the needs of the community corridors when improvements are being done. An example is the M-24 job being done by MDOT; non-motorized facilities are being looked at for that portion from Harmon Road to Brown/Dutton Roads. MDOT has adopted the policy of Complete Streets at the State level. Auburn Hills currently has many of the building blocks in place; the pathway master plan, the recreation master plan, thoroughfare master plan, and a pavement maintenance program. Separately this doesn t fulfill the Complete Streets requirements, but together and developed into one policy Auburn Hills is much closer than many other communities. Ms. Katers explained the extra 1% is additional to the grant funds that have been available. Mr. Auger explained the 1% is taken from the State gas taxes. Ms. Juidici noted there are many communities in the area that have either a resolution or an ordinance currently in place for being a Complete Streets community. Also, it is her understanding that the state of Michigan is number one in the country for having the most communities adopting a resolution or ordinance as a Complete Streets community. Ms. Doyle questioned if Auburn Hills is behind in adopting a policy or ordinance, since Michigan is number one. Ms. Katers explained MDOT has asked that all communities in the State adopt a policy or ordinance by the end of 2013; and Auburn Hills falls in the middle. Mr. Cohen suggested moving slowly, with first adopting a resolution of intents and then Planning Commission, Community Development, DPS, Staff and OHM move forward with writing a policy, followed by an ordinance if needed. Responding to Ms. Doyle, Mr. Auger explained the article regarding quad-skis that are being built in Auburn Hills are an off-road vehicle generally, but can be licensed like a car. Mr. Auger stated the Planning Commission is looking for direction from Council. The first step would be for Council to make a resolution for the Planning Commission to move forward composing a policy. An ordinance will take much longer and be much more involved. Mr. Kittle asked how the recent Shimmons Road project stakes up to the Complete Streets standards. Ms. Katers noted there were no pedestrian facilities along the entire corridor; though it isn t bicycle centered it is balanced to serve motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. Ms. Juidici noted there is a parallel corridor to Shimmons Road, the Galloway Path runs between Bald Mountain and Squirrel Roads. Ms. Katers noted the Galloway Path has a dual purpose, it runs along the sanitary sewer line which allows access in the event any repairs are needed to the line. Ms. Doyle suggested a sign be erected; most people wouldn t know there is a path. She also noted visiting the west side of the State, there is signage indicating back roads where bicyclists ride.

7 City Council Minutes October 1, 2012 Page 4 Mayor McDonald noted Council is in support of the Complete Street policy and asked Mr. Cohen to proceed with creating a policy, noting. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT none. 7. CONSENT AGENDA All items listed are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 7a. Board and Commission Minutes 7a.1. Retiree Health Care August 15, a.2. Pension August 15, 2012 Mr. Knight asked if Dodge & Cox is the management company as mentioned in the Retiree Health Care minutes. Mayor McDonald stated yes. Mr. Kittle asked if both the Retiree Health Care and the Pension plan were switching to the new managers. Ms. Hammond stated a percentage of funds from each fund are being placed with this new manager. Moved by Knight; Seconded by Doyle. RESOLVED: To approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Yes: Doyle, Hammond, Kittle, Knight, McDaniel, McDonald, Verbeke No: None Motion carried (7-0) RESOLUTION NO OLD BUSINESS - none 9. NEW BUSINESS 9a. Motion Approve 2013 Fee Schedule Mr. Knight has discussed with the City Manager and City attorney the delinquent account fees, that the City must be consistent regardless of the delinquent amount. Mr. Kittle noted he attended a Government Finance Officers Association, cost allocation model regarding fees, and is to make sure the community is capturing the true cost, including all overhead fees. The fees that transfer back into the general fund from the unilateral overhead funds should be revisited from a formula standpoint every other year. He doesn t recall if that has ever been done. Ms. Doyle has a concern with the $35.00 charge regardless of the delinquent amount and believes there should be a tiered system as in other fees. Mr. Auger explained the time and process is the same regardless of the delinquent amount. Ms. Doyle doesn t believe it is fair to charge the same amount and the matter should be looked at further. Moved by Kittle; Seconded by Hammond. RESOLVED: To approve the 2013 Fee Schedule as presented. VOTE: Yes: Hammond, Kittle, Knight, McDaniel, McDonald, Verbeke No: Doyle Motion carried (6-1) RESOLUTION NO b. Motion Replacement of Weapons for Police Staff Deputy Director Hardesty explained the 2012 budget included $5800 to replace the night sights on 50 handguns as they have exceeded their useful lifespan of ten years; however, it was learned new Glock handguns could be purchased for a minimal price difference. The new Glock Generation IV model 22 & 23 handguns have an interchangeable back-strap that allows the individual user to adjust the grip for the size of their hand, increasing accuracy of the shooter. This option is not available on our current handguns. No change would be required in holsters, duty gear, or training to upgrade to these pistols. Forty additional magazines would be required to fit the model 22 guns. An additional cost of approximately $3,400 the 54 police officers could be outfitted with a duty weapon that fits their hand size. Deputy Director Hardesty confirmed for Mayor McDonald the cost includes trading in of the current handguns as stipulated in the quotes received. Mr. McDaniel asked if increasing the caliber size was considered. Deputy Director Hardesty explained the fire arms instructors consider what Auburn Hills uses as very good. Changing the fire arms to an increased caliber is very expensive, into six figures. All new training would be needed as well, and there isn t any real advantage for that type of investment.

8 City Council Minutes October 1, 2012 Page 5 Responding to Mr. Kittle, Deputy Director Hardesty stated it was part of the bid for the fire arms selling company to buy the current fire arms. Mr. Knight asked how many times in the last five years has an officer needed to discharge their fire arm in the line of duty. Deputy Director Hardesty stated once for an individual, but many times for injured animals. Ms. Doyle noted she sits on the Public Safety Advisory Committee and there was a conversation noting officers don t discharge their guns often, but sometimes they need to be drawn to calm down a situation. Moved by McDaniel; Seconded by Knight. RESOLVED: To authorize the Police Department to obtain formal bids for the sale of 68 Glock model 23 handguns and the purchase of 64 Glock model 22/23 handguns with 40 extra magazines. VOTE: Yes: Doyle, Hammond, Kittle, Knight, McDaniel, McDonald, Verbeke No: None Motion carried (7-0) RESOLUTION NO COMMENTS AND MOTIONS FROM COUNCIL Mr. Knight: Questioned if the Open Issues Log included the difficulty of bicycles crossing M-59. Mr. Auger stated he would look into it. Ms. Verbeke: Asked when a replacement would be appointed to the Planning Commission Mayor McDonald stated by the end of the month. Ms. Doyle: The special assessment transfer fee was requested by Council to be included in the Open Issues Log, but was curious if that issue has been resolved. Mr. Auger stated by adopting the Fee Schedule, has been resolved for this year. It can be tracked this year to see if there is any cost reduction on the $35.00 fee and be reviewed next year. Mr. Knight said the cost should be reviewed but also be philosophical about the individual that has a very small delinquent amount. Asked about the Survey Monkey report. Mr. Auger stated it is in his report. Noted a disturbing article on the front page of the Oakland Press regarding the parking issues at Oakland University, including some students parking at businesses across the street. Was curious if any of the businesses contacted the City with concerns or if there is anything the City can do on a temporary basis to help. Mr. Knight noted the article also included there are parking spaces available, but people are slothful and choose not to park in the available spaces in the far lots. Mr. Kittle: Mentioned in the past there has been talk regarding a bridge or a tunnel across Walton to allow students to safely cross the road, especially with many students living off site. Mr. Auger explained there has been discussion with O.U. and landowners on both sides. Also, with the parking garage being built down town it is a goal of Council to start the first leg of a transit system which may be one of the answers. Mr. Auger stated OU has the Bear Bus, a shuttle for the students on campus as well as off campus. Asked when the budget will be brought before Council for approval. He would like any proposed projects to be kept out of the budget and be brought forward as a budget amendment if they materialize. He would like to keep the proposed budget as accurate as possible. Would like to make a motion to ban leaf burning in the City of Auburn Hills. Moved by Kittle; Seconded by McDaniel. RESOLVED: To ban leaf burning in the City of Auburn Hills. Ms. Verbeke asked if this wasn t an item in the Open Issues Log. Mayor McDonald confirmed it is.

9 City Council Minutes October 1, 2012 Page 6 Mr. Knight agreed it is on the Open Issues Log and a motion should not come out of the blue, but could be a request for the issue to be put on the next agenda for discussion and action. Mr. Kittle noted he mentioned this a year ago and was told that going to a single trash hauler who would be picking up leaves may decrease the number of persons burning leaves and that leaf burning would be discussed again. He has had many complaints from residents who wish to see a burning ban as well as noting that Auburn Hills is one of three communities in Oakland County that allows opening burning. Mr. McDaniel believed the idea of a single trash hauler was to allow an alternate opportunity for disposal of leaves and yard waste. Ms. Doyle didn t believe that was the driving force of the single waste hauler; it was the number of trucks, but composting and leaf pickup was part of the negotiations. Mr. McDaniel hasn t any many resident complaints; however, in principle he believes there is the opportunity of getting yard waste picked up at no additional cost to the resident and no limit to the number of bags. Mayor McDonald stated he would not support the motion; it is on the List for discussion. Mr. Auger explained the City should examine the number of residents burning leaves since the opportunity of having the trash hauler picking up yard waste is available. The current Open Issues Logs issues should be completed by January, Mr. Knight stated there are some very large lots that can produce a great number of bags full of leaves, and there should be something the City can do for them. An amendment to the ordinance allowing only specific lot sizes the ability to burn, may be a possibility. He would like to see a compromise. Ms. Hammond noted open burning starts in a few weeks; Council cannot change the policy at such short notice. She agrees we should see how the pickup goes before making any changes. Mr. Kittle stated he will withdraw the motion, but this is an important topic and he won t lose sight of it. Mr. Knight agreed it should be discussed prior to the end of the year and before another burning season starts. Ms. Verbeke agreed this issue should be reviewed sooner rather than later and suggested looking for an alternative for those with larger lots. Possibly allowing them to set the leaves curbside and having them being picked up. Motion withdrawn. Ms. Hammond: Noted mums were being planted in the downtown planters and asked Mr. Melchert if the systems were repaired. Mr. Melchert stated he would investigate and let her know. 11. CITY ATTORNEY S REPORT none. 12. CITY MANAGER S REPORT Distributed a memo from Mr. Guess regarding benefit benchmarks. The City s EFIP, which was due today, was sent to the State. The new AV equipment is installed and working. There will be some experimenting and working out the bugs. The new Council computers have been ordered. The Survey Monkey survey, on which 21 issues were prioritized, had some instances where there was the ability to combine a few together. Because the appropriate staff member must be present at the workshop when a particular issue is discussed, Council will receive the schedule when dates and times are confirmed with staff. The workshops will begin in November. Ms. Doyle stated she would like to see a copy of the list. Stated if the old AV equipment isn t part of new package, it will most likely be auctioned or sent out for bid. Mr. Kittle asked if it could be bequeathed to a school with the provision it can t be sold. Mr. Auger stated he would look into it. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION Property Acquisition Moved by Hammond; Seconded by Verbeke. RESOLVED: To adjourn to Executive Session. VOTE: Yes: Doyle, Hammond, Knight, McDaniel, McDonald, Verbeke No: Kittle Motion carried (6-1)

10 City Council Minutes October 1, 2012 Page 7 RESOLUTION NO Adjourned to Executive Session at 8:22 p.m. Reconvened Regular Session at 9:15 p.m. Moved by Knight; Seconded by Doyle. RESOLVED: To Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an offer to purchase the property located at 38 Churchill in the amount of $45,000. Furthermore, authorize Assistant City Manager Thomas Tanghe to sign all necessary documents to facilitate the sale up to and including those required at closing. Funds for the purchase are available from the general fund, capital improvements, VOTE: Yes: Doyle, Hammond, Knight, McDaniel, McDonald, Verbeke No: Kittle Motion carried (6-1) RESOLUTION NO Moved by Knight; Seconded by Verbeke. RESOLVED: To Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an offer to purchase the property with parcel identification numbers and in the amount of $140,000. Furthermore, authorize Assistant City Manager Thomas Tanghe to sign all necessary documents to facilitate the sale up to and including those required at closing. Funds for the purchase are available from the general fund, capital improvements, VOTE: Yes: Doyle, Hammond, Kittle, Knight, McDaniel, McDonald, Verbeke No: None Motion carried (7-0) RESOLUTION NO ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. James D. McDonald, Mayor Terri Kowal, City Clerk City Council meeting minutes are on file in the City Clerk s office. NOTE: Anyone planning to attend the meeting who has need of special assistance under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is asked to contact the City Clerk's Office at or the City Manager's Office at hours prior to the meeting. Staff will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements.

11 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA 1983 O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 5 A. C OMMUNITY D EVELOPMENT D EPARTMENT To: From: Mayor and City Council Peter E. Auger, City Manager; Steven J. Cohen, Director of Community Development; and Shawn Keenan, Water Resources Coordinator Submitted: October 11, 2012 Subject: Presentation by SEMCOG Officials Acknowledging the City s Participation in SEMCOGs Sustainable Community Recognition Program INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY For local governments, sustainability is about achieving economic prosperity while protecting the environment and providing a high quality of life for its residents. SEMCOG recently reviewed its various support initiatives related to transportation, environment, government efficiency, and community and economic development, and developed the SEMCOG Sustainable Community Recognition Program. The ultimate goal of the program is to review existing community activities and offer assistance and/or a pathway for communities to achieve and maintain sustainability. Participating communities will then be recognized at one of three different levels, bronze, silver, or gold. Program Benefits Get information to back-up and validate your decisions as local officials. Be a leader in the region by making forward-thinking changes in your community. Integrate SEMCOG-supported practices into your operations, and receive recognition for doing so. Inform constituents about the initiatives being implemented in your community. Maximize your SEMCOG membership dues. Improve the long-term sustainability of your community. Program Requirements The City met the first program requirement on May 7, 2012 when City Council adopted a resolution stating its intent to participate in the program. City staff met with SEMCOG staff to discuss which of the 16 eligible activities the city wishes to pursue or is already implementing. Communities completing of 5-7 will be recognized at the bronze level, 8-10 silver level, and 11 or more gold level. No financial commitment is required from the City to participate in the program. RESULT The City of Auburn Hills is currently implementing activities which meet all 16 eligible activities and is being recognized at the gold level.

12 Background SEMCOG provides information and assistance to member local governments in Southeast Michigan in the areas of transportation, environment, governmental efficiency, and community and economic development. For local governments, sustainability is about achieving economic prosperity while protecting the environment and providing a high quality of life for residents. Implementing SEMCOG-supported initiatives helps local governments achieve and maintain sustainability. Why should my community participate? Get information to back-up and validate your decisions as local officials. Be a leader in the region by making forward-thinking changes in your community. Integrate SEMCOG-supported practices into your operations, and receive recognition for doing so. Inform constituents about the initiatives being implemented in your community. Maximize your SEMCOG membership dues. Improve the long-term sustainability of your community. What communities are eligible to participate? Any SEMCOG member community is eligible to participate. This includes counties, cities, villages and townships. There is no fee to participate in the program. How does the program work? Once your community has signed up to participate, SEMCOG staff will meet with officials from your community to discuss which of the eligible activities (listed below) to pursue. SEMCOG will work with you and your staff to complete the eligible activities that you have selected. Completion of 5-7 of the eligible activities will get your community recognized at the bronze level, completion of 8-10 activities at the silver level, and completion of 11+ eligible activities will get your community recognized at the gold level. Following completion of the eligible activities by your community, SEMCOG will present a certificate of recognition at a meeting of your board, council or commission. Additionally, a press release will be sent to local media outlets, and your community will be recognized on the SEMCOG Web site. Communities that achieve the gold level of recognition will have opportunities to share their experience and expertise with other SEM- COG member communities. How does my community sign up to participate? Step 1. Have your council, board or commission pass a resolution (see a sample at stating your community s intent to participate. SEMCOG is available to discuss the program at that meeting. Step 2. Contact Karen Wieber (313) or Amy Malmer at (313)

13 Sustainable Community Recognition Program What are the eligible activities? 1. Develop a neighborhood stabilization plan: Neighborhood stabilization plans are developed to guide the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes. 2. Implement green infrastructure on public property: Plan and manage a network of wilderness, parks, greenways, and conservation easements in your community in order to support native species, maintain ecological balance, sustain air and water resources, and contribute to a high quality of life. 3. Conduct a transportation safety audit of a road intersection or area in your community, and implement recommendations: Road safety audits allow communities to identify and address safety problems so residents and visitors can drive, walk, and bike safely. 4. Conduct a walkable/bikeable audit of an area in your community, and implement recommendations: Livable communities generally have facilities promoting safe pedestrian and bicycle travel and connecting people to jobs, entertainment, stores, schools, and recreation. 5. Develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative (SWPPI) Plan: A plan to implement and evaluate pollution prevention and other water quality practices. 6. Develop a community transit coordination plan: Improve the mobility of all people in your community, particularly older adults, young people, people with disabilities, low-income workers, and those without regular access to a car. 7. Use SEMCOG data to develop your community Master Plan, Strategic Plan, or Capital Improvement Plan: Long-term planning allows your community to develop short-term solutions in anticipation of future needs. 8. Distribute public outreach information (Ours to Protect, Ozone Action, or MiRideshare) to residents: Actions your residents can take to improve the region s air and water quality. 9. Incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) components into your planning and zoning processes: The goal of LID is to in manage rainfall at its source, using a variety of design techniques. 10. Develop an access management plan for a transportation route in your community: Access management reduces potential for crashes and maximizes existing road capacity by limiting the number of access points (commercial driveways and median crossovers), carefully placing and spacing access points, and designing the road and access points to serve all users (drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders). 11. To improve air quality in the region, adopt a policy that requires certain actions by your local government departments on Ozone Action days: On Ozone Action Days, local governments can take certain actions that can help reduce the creation of ozone that day and keep it at levels that meet the national air quality standard. 12. Develop an asset management plan for the road infrastructure in your community: Asset management improves the performance and effectiveness of our roads through continual monitoring of physical inventory and condition assessment. 13. Use benchmark data to compare your costs to others, and implement changes to meet those benchmarks: Compare your local government to others within the SEMCOG region and around the country. 14. Incorporate measures of citizen satisfaction into your budget and service provision decisions: Measure resident priorities and satisfaction levels in order to assess services, improve performance, and build public trust. 15. Develop a multi-year budget or budget forecast: Budgeting or forecasting on a multi-year basis provides insight into the future scenarios facing your local government in order to develop long-range solutions. 16. Achieve a Community Self-Assessment score of 50 or greater: This survey tool gives local governments a better understanding of their effectiveness in providing services at a cost-effective level.

14 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 5 B. C OMMUNITY D EVELOPMENT To: From: Mayor and City Council Peter E. Auger, City Manager, Steve Cohen, Director of Community Development, and Shawn Keenan, Water Resources Coordinator Submitted: October 10, 2012 Subject: Tri-City Sustainability Plan Presentation INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY The Tri-City Sustainability Plan is a joint effort between the Cities of Auburn Hills, Rochester Hills and Rochester and mentored by Oakland County to create a common vision and framework for building and maintaining sustainable communities. Sustainability is the ability for people and communities to thrive while preparing for the prosperity of future generations, by addressing and balancing the Triple Bottom Line of environmental, economic, and community issues. Oakland County Planning & Economic Development services issued a Request for Proposals to its 61 local units of government in 2010, seeking to form a joint Local Model Showcase Sustainability Partnership. The cities of Auburn Hills, Rochester Hills and Rochester submitted a joint proposal and were selected to receive in excess of $50,000 in professional services and $50,000 in County staff time to develop a joint sustainability framework. The cities assisted in selecting a consulting team consisting of Fishbeck Thompson Carr & Huber, Inc. (FTC&H) and WARM Training Center. The City Councils and Planning Commissions of all three Cities passed resolutions supporting the effort. An advisory board consisting of a cross-section of community leaders from the three Cities was convened to develop a mission statement, a vision statement, a set of goals, and outcomes as follows: VISION: The communities of Rochester, Rochester Hills and Auburn Hills embrace and advance local sustainability, characterized by a vibrant economy, healthy natural environment and cohesive local community. MISSION: The Tri-City Sustainability Plan, composed of the Cities of Rochester, Rochester Hills, Auburn Hills and Oakland County, seeks to advance sustainability through the individual and combined efforts of governments, businesses, institutions and residents. GOALS OUTCOMES Sustainable Infrastructure & Public Services 1. Surface and underground infrastructure is safe, reliable, and meets demand. 2. Tri-cities share resources, assets and knowledge and collaborate in efficient, costeffective service delivery. 3. Tri-cities feature a safe, connected, reliable, costeffective and efficient motorized transportation system that meets needs of all users. 4. Tri-cities feature safe, connected and efficient transportation for all non-motorized users including pedestrians and bicyclists. Sustainable Community Character 1. Tri-cities feature a strong sense of place honoring history and culture. 2. Tri-cities have a strong green infrastructure network. 3. Tri-city community members are engaging with the community. 4. Tri-cities feature walkable, mixeduse centers and neighborhoods.

15 Page 2 GOALS OUTCOMES Sustainable Green Buildings, Energy & Waste 1. Tri-city public facilities lead the way in sustainable energy practices. 2. Numerous green and healthy buildings exist within the Tri-cities. 3. Tri-cities encourage water and energy efficiency and renewable power generation. 4. Tri-cities generate minimum waste. Sustainable Economy & Education 1. The local business climate is strong and diverse. 2. Tri-city community members are economically secure. 3. Tri-city community members are welleducated. 4. The Tri-cities attract and retain young, diverse, educated workers and residents. Sustainable Health and Wellness 1. The Tri-City community offers an adequate environment and resources to enable members to maintain wellness. 2. Community members of all ages are healthy. A set of quantitative Indicators (52 in total) was selected to use in establishing baselines and measuring progress of each community toward Goals. Finally, a list of existing and future municipal Actions was identified, as well as community resources and recommendations for community-led Actions.

16 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA D ATE: O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 7 A.1. Unapproved The City of Auburn Hills Tax Incentive Review Committee Meeting September 10, 2012 LOCATION: Administrative Conference Room, 1827 N. Squirrel Road, Auburn Hills MI CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson DeClerck called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: DeClerck, Iacobelli, Landsberg and Nelson Also Present: City Assessor Lohmeier, Deputy Assessor Blinkilde and Economic Development Coordinator Renaud Absent: Kittle 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 13, 2012 Motion by Mr. Iacobelli that the TIRC minutes of August 13, 2012 be accepted, as corrected. Supported by Mr. Landsberg VOTE: Yes: All No: None Motion carried (4-0) 4. OLD BUSINESS Green Building discussion by Mr. DeClerck occurred after the new business items. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Request for Industrial Development District (IDD) Pacific Holdings, LLC. Pacific Holdings was represented by Jared Roth, owner/developer. He just purchased the old Food Town property from Tom LaSorda. He wants to convert it to a light industrial use for a prospective tenant (Inalfa Roof Systems). The former owner had applied for, and was granted by city council, a Commercial Rehabilitation District designation and a Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate which was supposed to begin at the end of 2012; however, he has since abandoned his plans for this property. Mr. Roth intends to invest just under 1 million in exterior renovations, including replacing the front [west] and north façades. The interior will be fully renovated to repurpose the building for office and laboratory use. [The IDD is required before the tenant can apply for an IFEC for new personal property to be installed in the building.] Motion by Mr. Iacobelli, to recommend to City Council, the establishment of an IDD for Pacific Holdings at 3900 Joslyn Rd (former site of Food Town), Parcel ID: ]: [Legal Description: T3N, R10E, SEC 4 PONTIAC ACRES SUB PART OF LOTS 1 TO 7 INCL, ALSO PART OF LOT 15, ALSO ALL OF LOT 16, ALSO PART OF LOT 17, ALSO PART OF SE 1/4 ALL

17 Tax Incentive Review Committee Minutes August 13, 2012 Page 2 DESC AS BEG AT PT DIST N W 60 FT & S W FT FROM SE SEC COR, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH N E 7.56 FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH S E FT TO BEG FR 011, 012 & ] Supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried (4-0) b. Request for Plant Rehabilitation District (PRD) Pacific Holdings, LLC Mr. Roth passed out a copy of PowerPoint slides and some photographs depicting existing and proposed façade and building entry design and renovation of the interior finish. The PRD is required before the owner can apply for a Rehab Facility IFEC. In addition to replacement of the façade, renovations will include the replacement of windows, mechanical systems, fire suppression systems, parking lot resurfacing and sidewalks. The interior renovations include the replacement of lighting, floor cover, partitioning and bathroom fixtures for the office and lab build out. Motion by Mr. Iacobelli to recommend to city council, the establishment of a PRD at 3900 Joslyn Rd. (former site of Food Town), parcel ID [Legal Description: Same as in 5a] Supported by Mr. Landsberg Motion carried (4-0) c. Request for New Facility IFEC (Personal Property) Dieomatic, Inc. (dba P&F Systems) Dieomatic, Inc. (dba P&F Systems), was represented by Janice Thomas (Government Projects Program Administrator at Magna International Government Affairs). The company was recently awarded a contract to supply sunroof components and systems to a major OEM automotive manufacturer in the Detroit area. Dieomatic, Inc. is a subsidiary of the Cosma division of Magna International, Inc. Mr. Lohmeier distributed a revised application to the committee members. The company is seeking a 7 year IFEC for $18.8 million of personal property to be installed at this location which will include equipment and machinery for manufacturing, assembly and sequencing processes. 161 jobs will be created by the end of 2013, plus an addition 74 by the end of Mr. Nelson asked why they are only asking for a 7 year abatement. Mr. Lohmeier explained that the draft of the lease indicates that it will expire mid-2022, so the requested abatement would have to expire in 2019 to allow for the 2 year clawback period. He suggested that the committee s motion be contingent upon an executed lease. Mr. Ervin should have this ready by the city council meeting. Mr. DeClerck asked if there were any pending MTT appeals. Mr. Lohmeier noted that Dieomatic will be moving into a building formerly leased by United Solar Ovonic (USO). USO had a pending appeal and, because of their bankruptcy, it took longer for a stipulation to be approved because it required the approval of the creditors committee. The stipulation has been submitted to the MTT for approval. Mr. Iacobelli inquired about why there are two Industrial Development Districts involved. Mr. Lohmeier indicated that this parcel is split between two districts. [Due to land divisions that took place subsequent to the establishment of these districts.]

18 Tax Incentive Review Committee Minutes August 13, 2012 Page 3 Mr. Iacobelli encouraged the participation of Dieomatic with local organizations. Motion by Mr. Iacobelli to forward to city council, contingent upon an executed lease agreement with a 9 year term (minimum), a recommendation for approval of an IFEC [personal property] for Dieomatic, Inc. at 3800 Lapeer Rd. for 7 years, with the term of 12/31/2012 through 12/30/2019 and the requirement to stay in this facility an additional 2 years after the certificate expires. [Legal Description: T3N, R10E, SEC 2 PART OF SE 1/4 BEG AT PT DIST N W FT & N E FT FROM S 1/4 COR, TH N W 350 FT, TH N E FT, TH S E FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT TO BEG A FR 008, 009, 026, 027 & 028] Supported by Mr. Landsberg Motion carried (4-0) d. Request for New Facility IFEC (Personal Property) Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc (Inalfa) was represented by Glen Holtz (Vice President of Technology), Sergio Cabada (CFO) and Jared Roth (Developer). The company is negotiating a lease with Mr. Roth to occupy 3900 Joslyn Rd. (Former site of Food Town). [refer to item 5a] Inalfa manufactures sunroofs for every major OEM and intends on investing $1.47 million in personal property at this location. They have outgrown their current location at 1701 Harmon Road and will be relocating those operations to the Joslyn site. This facility will be the North American technical center for the company where they will design, make prototypes and perform testing of sunroofs. Inalfa has also operated a facility at 1370 Pacific since Mr. Lohmeier distributed a revised application. He noted that the company is requesting a 5 year abatement, but they failed to correct this on the revised version of the application which still indicates 3 years. [A corrected application will be received by the time they appear before city council.] Motion by Mr. Iacobelli to forward to city council, contingent upon an executed lease agreement with a 7 year term (minimum), a recommendation for approval of an IFEC for personal property to be installed at Inalfa Roof Systems at 3900 Joslyn Rd. The term of the recommended abatement is 12/31/2012 through 12/30/2017 with the requirement to stay in this facility an additional 2 years after the certificate expires. [Legal Description: Same as in item 5a] Supported by Mr. Landsberg Motion carried (4-0) e. Request for Rehab Facility IFEC (Real Property) Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. As discussed in item 5b, the facility at 3900 Joslyn Rd. requires both interior and exterior renovations to repurpose the property for this light industrial use. The tentative lease between Inalfa Roof Systems and Pacific Holdings is for a term of 7 years which would allow a 5 year abatement plus a 2 year clawback period. Motion by Mr. Nelson to forward to city council, contingent upon the execution of a 7 year lease, a recommendation for approval of a Rehab IFEC for renovations to be made at 3900 Joslyn Rd, Parcel ID: The term of the recommended abatement is

19 Tax Incentive Review Committee Minutes August 13, 2012 Page 4 12/31/2012 through 12/30/2017, with the requirement to stay in this facility an additional 2 years after the certificate expires. [Legal Description: Same as in item 5a] Supported by Mr. Landsberg Motion carried (4-0) 6. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE Mr. Lohmeier reported the following: a. Approval of LXR Biotech PA 198 for 7 years b. Approval of US Farathane Amendment to $30 million c. Approval of Weber Automotive PA 198 PP with 6 month look back for 8 yrs d. Approval of Weber Automotive PA 328 for 6 years e. Approval of Magna E Car IFEC 1 year extension of their construction period and certificate ending date. 7. OTHER Mr. DeClerck attended a green building course after discussion at a prior TIRC meeting regarding tax incentive policy revisions and the possibility of giving incentives for companies that improve their property using green technology. The course discussion focused mostly on residential properties and it became apparent to Mr. DeClerck how hard it would be to quantify how green a company is for purposes of a tax abatement. He thought it would be hard to find a practical application for using this technology and does not think we are ready to add this to our tax incentive policy at this time. Mr. Landsberg thanked him for taking the time to look into this topic. 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Next meeting: October 8, 2012 Karen Blinkilde, Deputy Assessor O:\assessor\PA 198_IFEC\TARC -TIRC\2012\09_10_12\Minutes TiRC docx

20 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA D ATE: O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 7 A.1. Not Yet Approved" CITY OF AUBURN HILLS TAX INCREMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY MEETING October 9, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Hassett called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Ardelean, Dilland, Douglas, Goodhall, Hassett, Molnar, Stonehouse, Thornton Absent: Price Also Present: Assistant City Manager/TIFA Executive Director Tom Tanghe, Finance Director Gary Barnes, Deputy DPS Director Don Grice, Executive Assistant Karrie Marsh Guests: Glenda Meads of Glenda Meads Architects, Jason Rewold, Project Estimator of Frank Rewold & Son Inc., Paul Weisenbach, Vice President of Frank Rewold and Son Inc. LOCATION: Auburn Hills City Hall, Administrative Conference Room, 1827 North Squirrel Road, Auburn Hills, Michigan PERSONS WISHING TO BE HEARD None CORRESPONDENCE & PRESENTATIONS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Molnar to approve the September 11, 2012 minutes. Supported by Goodhall. Yes: No: Ardelean, Dilland, Douglas, Goodhall, Hassett, Molnar, Stonehouse, Thornton none Motion carried FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Gary Barnes presented the financial report for September 30, 2012, reviewing the activities for this period, including the most recent revenues and expenses. That report included the following Total Liabilities and Fund Balances and Available Cash: TIFA 85-A $ 28,687,590 Available Cash (TIF-A) $6,081,936 TIFA 85-B $ 14,006,453 Available Cash (TIF-B) $9,752,510 TIFA 86-D $ 28,641,692 Available Cash (TIF-D) $3,283,656 $ 71,336,005 Moved by Ardelean to approve the Financial Report of September 30, 2012 as submitted. Supported by Douglas.

21 Page 2 of 3 October 9, 2012 minutes Yes: No: Ardelean, Dilland, Douglas, Goodhall, Hassett, Molnar, Stonehouse, Thornton none OLD BUSINESS None Motion carried NEW BUSINESS Mr. Tanghe introduced a memo dated October 1, 2012 regarding approval recommendation for Downtown Horticulture/Snow Removal Contract. The DPS is combining the Downtown Horticulture, Opdyke Streetscape Horticulture, and Downtown Snow Removal Contracts into one contract. The purpose is to attract professional organizations, increase accountability and decrease the amount of inhouse staff time required to manage unqualified contractors. Of the four bids received, three met specifications. The bid was awarded to the second lowest bidder, Curbco, Inc. The reason being that the lowest bidder was lacking experience in parking structure snow removal and does not have adequate equipment to perform the job. DPS staff is confident recommending the contract be awarded to Curbco, Inc. Mr. Grice was introduced to answer any questions that the Board had. Mr. Molnar asked if payment was made as services were performed. Mr. Grice stated that a lump sum was to be paid out as of November 13 th to cover the season. For horticulture services, eight payments would be paid out between April and November. Mr. Dilland asked if the DPS was confident in Curbco, Inc. s service. Mr. Grice stated that they were. Moved by Thornton to recommend to City Council the approval of the three year Downtown Horticulture and Snow Removal Contract to Curbco, Inc., in the amount of $364, and for the TIFA Executive Director to approve any necessary change orders to successfully fulfill the requirements of the Contract. Funding is to be provided by TIFA A, Account No and TIFA B, Account No Supported by Stonehouse. Yes: No: Ardelean, Dilland, Douglas, Goodhall, Hassett, Molnar, Stonehouse, Thornton none Motion carried Mr. Tanghe stated that there had been a few changes to the TIFA budget that was previously adopted. There were a couple of dual entries under revenues and expenditures. These items were corrected and Mr. Tanghe reviewed them with the Board. No action was required. Mr. Tanghe introduced a memo dated October 3, 2012 requesting approval of a Construction Management Agreement for the University Center. After determining that utilizing a construction manager form of renovation process would be best to complete renovations to 3350 Auburn Rd., a RFP was issued and eventually six proposals were submitted. All six companies were interviewed; very specific areas of focus were concentrated on during discussions with each Construction Manager. The decision-making process considered not only price but which company was most qualified and had the most experience. Frank Rewold and Son, Inc. was recommended in the amount of $113, Mr. Tanghe gave a brief history about Frank Rewold and Son, Inc. and introduced Mr. Weisenbach and Mr. Rewold. Mr. Goodhall asked if the company performed work for the City before. The answer was yes, specifically the library. Mr. Tanghe included that Frank Rewold & Son, Inc. built the OPC in Rochester and the Royal Park Hotel among others. Glenda Meads stated that the fees included in the construction

22 Page 3 of 3 October 9, 2012 minutes management agreement are for construction management fees and general condition fees. She is confident that the company is experienced with moving projects along quickly. The schedule is based on six months. Mr. Tanghe stated that once the plans and drawings are complete, the project should begin in late January or early February. Mr. Molnar asked if the company intended to meet deadlines in general. Mr. Weisenbach answered yes and included that one of the reasons that they get referrals is because they do meet deadlines. They spend less time than anticipated on a project which benefits all parties involved. The reasons projects have run over in the past has been due to weather and scope changes. Mr. Rewold stated that because this project includes mainly interior work and not earthwork, weather will not be an issue. Mr. Tanghe stated that the project should be complete by June of 2013, furnished including technology by July and ready to be open in August. There was some discussion about the use of AIA documents. Ms. Douglas asked if the architecture of the building would be considered in the renovations. Ms. Meads stated that the goal was to see what could be maintained and preserve what was possible such as some of the brick wall and portions of the hardwood floor. Moved by Stonehouse to recommend to City Council the award of a Construction Management Agreement with Frank Rewold and Son, Inc. in the amount of $113,010 said fee being the combination of a $26,850 construction management fee and $86,160 for general conditions; and authorize the Executive Director to execute the agreement on behalf of the TIFA. Funds for the project are available from account Supported by Goodhall. Yes: Ardelean, Dilland, Douglas, Goodhall, Hassett, Molnar, Stonehouse, Thornton No: none Motion carried BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Dilland spoke about the plans for the Community Garden. He presented the Board with a list of AH City-owned properties regarding site suitability for potential use as a garden. After taking many items into consideration and after much discussion, two specific areas are being looked into. They include the property on Churchill and an area by Riverwoods Park, on the west side of the river. Ms. Douglas asked how this would affect City staff. Mr. Tanghe responded that it may involve participation from the Planning Commission, Community Development and funding from the TIFA. Mr. Hassett asked for direction on how to proceed at this point. It was agreed that a list of the pros and cons of each property should be made. Mr. Tanghe stated that DPS and Community Development would be asked to consider the projects and report back their findings to him. He will then contact Mr. Dilland. ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEXT MEETING The next regularly scheduled TIFA Board meeting is Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. in the Admin. Conference Room at City Hall. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Ardelean to adjourn the meeting at 5:08 p.m. Supported by Goodhall. Yes: No: Ardelean, Dilland, Douglas, Goodhall, Hassett, Molnar, Stonehouse, Thornton none Motion carried Respectfully submitted, Reanna Douglas Secretary of the Board Karrie L. Marsh Recording Secretary

23 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA D ATE: A GENDA I TEM N O. 7 B. To: Mayor and City Council From: Peter E. Auger, City Manager; Don Grice, Deputy Director, DPS Submitted: October 11, 2012 Subject: Approval of Horticulture/Downtown Snow Removal Bid INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY On Friday, September 28, 2012 bids were opened for the Horticulture/ Downtown Snow Removal Contract. Notice was placed on the MITN System and three hundred twenty seven (327) Invitations to Bid were sent to venders. Four (4) bids were received, three (3) of which met specifications. This year in an effort to benefit from the economies of scale, the Department of Public Service (DPS) decided to combine the Downtown Horticulture, Opdyke Streetscape Horticulture, and Downtown Snow Removal Contracts into one contract. We expected this approach would attract professional organizations, increase accountability, advance the overall appearance of Downtown and decrease the amount of inhouse staff time required to manage unqualified contractors. The bids for the three year contract are as follows: Contractor Amount *Green Meadows Lawnscape, Inc. $289, Curbco, Inc. $364, Brickman $491, United Lawnscape, Inc. $494, *Bidder does not meet specifications. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The low bidder, Green Meadows, Inc., was unable to demonstrate the necessary parking structure snow removal experience; a critical and required element of the Downtown Bid. In addition, DPS staff has concerns that Green Meadows Lawnscape, Inc., does not have adequate snow removal equipment to maintain the Downtown at an acceptable level. After applying the same requirements to the second low bidder, Curbco, Inc., the DPS is confident recommending the contract be awarded to the second low bidder, Curbco, Inc. MOTION Move to approve the three year Horticulture/Downtown Snow Removal Contract to Curbco, Inc., as recommended by the TIFA Board of Directors in the amount of $364, and authorize the TIFA Executive Director to approve any necessary change orders to successfully fulfill the requirements of the Contract. Funding is to be provided by TIFA A, Account No and TIFA B, Account No I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER O:\CITY COUNCIL PACKET\OCTOBER 15\7b Horticulture & Downtown Snow Removal Bid.Doc

24 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA D ATE: O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 7 C. To: Mayor and City Council From: Peter E. Auger, City Manager; Thomas A. Tanghe, ACM & TIFA Executive Director Submitted: October 11, 2012 Subject: Approve Recommendation of TIFA Board for Construction Manager INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY Last year, the TIFA Board of Directors hired Architect Glenda Meads to work on a couple of projects for the TIFA. Recently, as we began work on the University Center building at 3350 Auburn Road, we recognized the need to engage the services of a construction manager to help us to discover the many unknowns early on in the renovation process. Together with the Architect, the Construction Manager will assist in formulating the design of the building with early recommendations from their discoveries as they analyze the structure. A RFP process was conducted with staff and the Architect, and produced nine companies who attended a mandatory pre-bid walkthrough. Of those nine, six submitted proposals. As you will see in the attached supporting data, a recommendation has been made based on such important criteria as the experience of the construction manager with older structures, educational facilities, and the capabilities/expertise of the team supplied by the construction manager to assist in the design and renovation of the building. Based on these criteria, along with consideration of proposed fees, the lowest qualified bidder was deemed to be Frank Rewold and Son. STAFF & TIFA BOARD RECOMMENDATION At their meeting on Tuesday, October 9, 2012, the TIFA Board reviewed and approved the construction management proposal of Frank Rewold and Son. Together with the TIFA Board of Directors, staff recommends acceptance of that recommendation by the City Council. MOTION Move to accept the recommendation of the TIFA Board of Directors and approve the construction management proposal for the renovations to the building located at 3350 Auburn Road in the amount of $113,010, said fee being the combination of a $26,850 construction management fee and $86,160 for general conditions; and authorize the TIFA Executive Director to execute the agreement on behalf of the TIFA. Funds for this project are available from account I CONCUR: Thomas A. Tanghe, Assistant City Manager & TIFA Executive Director O:\CITY COUNCIL PACKET\OCTOBER 15\7c. Cover Memo.CM For University Center.Doc

25 TO: Chairman Hassett and Members of the TIFA Board of Directors FROM: Thomas A. Tanghe, Executive Director Glenda Meads, Consulting Architect DATE: September 30, 2012 SUBJECT: Approval of Construction Management Agreement for University Center Several weeks ago, after discovering the many challenges we would face with the renovations to the building we purchased at 3350 Auburn Road, we determined that utilizing a construction manager form of renovation process would be best. A construction manager could be selected to help identify potential issues that require creative and affordable solutions along the way, instead of having a full set of architectural plans drafted only to later find out they cannot be implemented due to conditions that would be uncovered through the renovation process. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued and nine companies attended a mandatory pre-bid walkthrough at the building. Of those nine, six submitted proposals. Because all six appeared to have the potential ability to complete the project, the greater task was to find the one who was best qualified. To that end, each of the six was invited to an interview conducted by staff. On the first day of interviews, Management Assistant Brandon Guest joined Glenda Meads and me. On the second day, interviews were conducted by Glenda and me. There were some very specific areas of focus that we concentrated on when discussing the proposals with each of the Construction Managers. Most specifically they were: Experience renovating older buildings Experience with educational buildings. These buildings tend to include additional input from the Department of Education and State Fire Marshal A discussion about the caliber and expertise of the team that will be brought together by the Construction Manager On site supervision, quality and quantity Specific knowledge of creating performance specifications for mechanical systems. This is an area for which our Architect will rely heavily upon the selected Construction Manager Sensitivity to the price submitted by each Construction Manager for the fixed Construction Management Fee and the cost of General Conditions The decision was not easy. In addition to responses given to us that were very tangible, there are also some intangibles that had to be considered. For example, not all of our interviews concluded with staff being completely satisfied with or confident with the answers that were given. So our job was to consider all of the information provided, determine those who we believed were most qualified based on the proposal they submitted and the interview they completed, and then establish who was most qualified at the least amount of dollars.

26 The results of the proposals are as follows and represent the combined total of Construction Management Fee and General Conditions Fees: Commercial Contracting Corporation $ 79, Reb Construction Services $ 98, Frank Rewold and Son, Inc. $113, MICCO $136, TH Marsh $139, L.S. Brinker $163, In a process like this one, it is important not to get caught up in just the fees. For example, in nearly all of the above proposals, the General Conditions fee is an hourly not-to-exceed fee, except for the proposal submitted by Reb Construction which is a fixed fee. So, a Construction Manager who has fees scheduled out over a six month construction period but finishes the project in four months could end up billing far less than another who may have had a lesser proposed general conditions fee but takes six months to complete the project and utilizes their entire proposed fee. This is why we had to make a qualification-based selection and not one simply based on fees that may or may not end up the same as initially submitted. So, after a review of the contents of all of the proposals submitted and an interview conducted with each Construction Manager, Ms. Meads and I needed to establish who was the lowest qualified bidder based on these results. And therefore, we recommended Frank Rewold and Son, Inc. as the Construction Manager for the University Center renovation project. Prior to its final execution, the construction management agreement will be reviewed by our legal counsel, Mr. Beckerleg. An appropriate motion is: Move to recommend to City Council the award of a Construction Management Agreement with Frank Rewold and Son, Inc. in the amount of $113,010, said fee being the combination of a $26,850 construction management fee and $86,160 for general conditions; and authorize the Executive Director to execute the agreement on behalf of the TIFA. Funds for the project are available from account

27 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA D ATE: O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 7 D. To: From: Mayor and City Council Peter E. Auger, City Manager; Doreen E. Olko, Director of Emergency Services Submitted: October 11, 2012 Subject: Motion to approve the Revised-Major Case Assistance Team (MCAT) Inter-local Agreement with the City of Birmingham, Charter Township of Bloomfield, City of Clawson and City of Troy. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY In September of 2009 City Council approved an inter-local agreement that formulated a Major Case Assistance Team (MCAT) that partnered police departments from Auburn Hills, Birmingham, Bloomfield Township, Clawson, and Troy. This team is used to assist a member agency in the initial investigation of a major case that can have a significant draw on any one agency s resources. This team has aided in solving cases such as the Sam s Club break-in and theft of more than $35,000 in 2009, the Tavia Bentley parental kidnapping in 2011 (both in Auburn Hills) and the Patrick Mikes homicide in Troy this year. This team concept has provided a significant number of experienced investigators at the most critical times while minimizing the overtime expense to the agencies involved. The success of MCAT has led other local agencies to express interest in joining the team. To add an agency under the current Inter-Local Agreement the MCAT Board of Directors would first vote to add an agency, then the agreement would have to be amended by each agency s governing elected body. This process would be required each time an agency is under consideration to be added. The proposed language change would allow the MCAT Board of Directors to add a member agency with a two-third (2/3) vote as long as the petitioning agency s governing body has adopted the MCAT Agreement. The attached inter-local agreement has been reviewed by City Attorney Beckerleg and found to be satisfactory from a legal standpoint. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the revised MCAT inter-local agreement allowing the Board of Directors of the MCAT to add members. MOTION Move to approve the revised Major Case Assistance Team (MCAT) Inter-local Agreement and authorize the Director of Emergency Services to sign the agreement. I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER O:\CITY COUNCIL PACKET\OCTOBER 15\Major Case Team Interlocal Agreement Revision\COVER MEMO - MCAT Interlocal Agreement Revised Docx

28 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE MAJOR CASE ASSISTANCE TEAM THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT entered into by and between the City of Clawson, the City of Troy, the City of Birmingham, the City of Auburn Hills, City of Rochester, and the Charter Township of Bloomfield, all located in the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, which collectively shall be referred to as the Major Case Assistance Team ( Team ). RECITALS Article VII, Section 28 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 provides, in part, that two or more counties, townships, cities, villages, or districts, or any combination thereof, may, among other things, enter into contractual undertakings or agreements with one another for the joint administration of any of the functions or powers which each would have the power to perform separately; and, The Urban Cooperation Act of 1967, MCLA et seq.; MSA et seq. provides that a public agency (defined to mean a political subdivision of this state including, but not limited to, a county, city, village, township, or charter township) may exercise jointly with any other public agency of the state any power, privilege or authority which such agencies share in common and which each might exercise separately; and, Each local governmental unit has decided that it is in the best interests of such local governmental unit to become a Member of the Team to exercise such additional powers, functions, duties, and responsibilities granted to the Team and imposed upon it by this Agreement; and, The Members endeavor to realize and benefit from each Member s accumulated expertise and recognize substantial savings in time, effort, and expenses to each individual Member by being a Member of the Team; and, In consideration of the foregoing, the parties agree to the Interlocal Agreement as set forth below. SECTION 1: Purpose of Agreement A. This Agreement is made in recognition of the fact that local law enforcement capabilities are enhanced by having access to regionalized facilities, programs and the assistance of other departments. It is the purpose of this Agreement to provide the means whereby enhanced access to facilities, programs, training and assistance is provided through the Intergovernmental cooperation of the Participating Agencies. B. It is the intent of this organization that each member shall bear its own costs and risk of liability associated with personnel, training, and equipment when providing assistance to another member. When entering into membership, it is impossible to predict the frequency or intensity of a particular member s mutual aid requirements. Therefore, 1

29 some members may ultimately receive a greater measure of actual benefit than other members. The purpose of entering into such an Intergovernmental Agreement is to gain access to mutual aid when required. A consideration for the access is the known risk that the ultimate cost and benefit may not be evenly distributed among members. SECTION 2: Definitions For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall be defined as set forth in this section, as follows: A. Participating Agency. Any one or more agencies that have duly adopted a resolution authorizing the execution of this Agreement. B. Agreement. This Intergovernmental Major Case Assistance Team Agreement. C. Police Assistance. Assistance provided by any Participating Agency to any other Participating Agency, which shall include, but not be limited to, the assignment of sworn and/or civilian personnel and the use of equipment for such assistance as back-up on traffic stops, investigations, establishment of regionalized operations or administrative programs, and major crime task forces, all as more fully defined in the Operations Manual developed pursuant to this Agreement and incorporated herein by reference. D. Requesting Agency. A participating agency that requests police assistance pursuant to this Agreement. E. Aiding Agency. A participating agency that provides police assistance pursuant to this Agreement. F. Chief of Police. The highest ranking law enforcement officer of a participating agency or his or her designee. G. City Manager, Township Supervisor. The chief administrative officer or designee of that officer for each member municipality. H. Petitioning Agency. An Oakland County governmental unit that has petitioned for membership in MCAT pursuant to Section 4. SECTION 3: Rights of Participating Agency The rights of each Participating Agency shall be as set forth in this Section and shall be exercised by and through the actions of the Chief of Police, or his or her designee, of each respective participating agency. 2

30 A. Any Participating Agency may request police assistance from any one or more Participating Agency when, in the judgment of the Chief of Police of the requesting agency, such assistance is necessary. The request shall be made to the MCAT Coordinator. B. Any Participating Agency may render aid to any one or more Participating Agencies to the extent available personnel and equipment are not required for the adequate protection of the Aiding Agency. In making that determination, the Chief of Police of the Aiding Agency may consider the reasonableness or urgency of the request and the amount of personnel, equipment and time commitment available to the requesting agency, and that determination shall be final. C. The Chief of Police of the Requesting Agency shall, through the MCAT Coordinator, direct the actions of any sworn or civilian personnel of any Aiding Agency providing police assistance pursuant to this Agreement. D. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent any Participating Agency from cooperating with any other agency, regardless of whether it is a Participating Agency. Nor shall anything in this Agreement prevent any Participating Agency from acting jointly or in cooperation with any other local, state or federal unit of government or agency thereof, to the fullest extent permitted by law. SECTION 4: New Members A. The MCAT Board of Directors shall have the power to determine if a non-participating Agency police department should be allowed to join MCAT as a Participating Agency but only if that police department is a governmental unit of Oakland County, Michigan and has petitioned the MCAT Board of Directors for membership. The MCAT Board of Directors may approve membership for the Petitioning Agency conditioned upon the governmental unit obtaining a certified resolution of its legislative body which approves this Agreement and authorizes the appropriate signatory to execute the Binder Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Execution of that Binder Agreement results in the acceptance of all terms and conditions set out in this Agreement. The certified resolution and an executed copy of the Binder Agreement shall be presented to the MCAT Board of Directors for vote to determine if the Board of Directors authorizes the Coordinator and/or Assistant Coordinator to execute the Binder Agreement on behalf of MCAT. If the Petitioning Agency has been conditionally approved for membership but the MCAT Board of Directors is not given a certified resolution and an executed copy of the Binder Agreement within six (6) months after the date of conditional approval, the conditional approval becomes null and void and a Petitioning Agency must file a new request for membership. A two-third (2/3) vote of the total number of Participating Agencies is required to authorize the execution of the 3

31 Binder Agreement and accept the Petitioning Agency as a member of MCAT. Membership will become effective after execution of the Binder Agreement by the authorized representatives of the Petitioning Agency and MCAT. SECTION 5: Authority of Sworn Police Personnel Any sworn police officers providing police assistance to a requesting agency under this Agreement shall have all of the powers of police officers of the requesting agency, including the power of arrest, and are subject to the direction of the MCAT Coordinator working in concert with the Chief of Police of a requesting agency. SECTION 6: Compensation Between Participating Agencies; Length of Engagement for Investigation A. Except as hereinafter provided, the assistance provided by any Aiding Agency under this Agreement shall be rendered without charge to the Requesting Agency or any other Participating Agency. B. The length of any particular activation of MCAT shall be as set forth in the Operations Manual. If any agency desires to retain the services of another agency s employee beyond the time limits set forth in the Operations Manual, they may do so only with the consent of the Aiding Agency. Under such circumstances, the agencies shall determine between themselves the amounts of compensation to be paid to the Aiding Agency. SECTION 7: Responsibilities and Liability of Participating Agencies A. Each Participating Agency shall assume the responsibility for the actions of its sworn or civilian personnel acting pursuant to this Agreement both as to liability and as to the payment of benefits to such sworn or civilian personnel all to the same extent as such personnel are insured, indemnified and otherwise protected when acting within the Participating Agencies respective corporate limits. B. Each Participating Agency shall be responsible for the payment of all benefits to all of its sworn and civilian personnel acting pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to the payment of wages, salaries, disability payments, pension benefits, workers compensation claims, and claims for damage to or destruction of equipment and clothing, and claims for medical expenses. 4

32 C. Each Participating Agency agrees to be responsible for the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of their respective employees. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating an obligation to indemnify or defend any other party or parties for any claim, damage or liability arising out of or stemming from an act or action of a party. SECTION 8: Participating Agency s Insurance A. Insurance. Within ten (10) days from the execution of this Agreement, each Participating Agency shall provide a Certificates of Insurance, acceptable to the other Participating Agencies demonstrating that general liability coverage is available for any and all claims for personal injury or property damage which are or might be caused by an employee of a Participating Agency under this Agreement. Each Participating Agency agrees to keep said insurance coverage in full force and effect for the term of this Agreement or any renewals thereof. Each Participating Agency shall submit to the other Participating Agencies, prior to the expiration of any insurance coverage, the new Certificate(s) of Insurance acceptable to the other Participating Agencies. Any Participating Agency may request a copy of said insurance certificate at any time during this Agreement. Failure to produce a certificate of insurance within twenty (20) days of a request by a Participating Agency shall allow the requesting Participating Agency to petition the MCAT Board of Directors to terminate the Agreement as to that specific Participating Agency. A lapse in the insurance coverage required under the Agreement shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement and the Agreement shall become null and void automatically as to that Participating Agency only at any time such a lapse in coverage exists. The Participating Agencies agree that they shall promptly deliver to the other Participating Agencies written notice and copies of any claims, complaints, charges, or any other accusations or allegations of negligence or other wrongdoing, whether civil or criminal in nature that the other Participating Agencies becomes aware of and which involves any program or activity under this Agreement. Unless otherwise provided by law and/or the Michigan Court Rules, the Participating Agencies agree to cooperate with one another in any investigation conducted by any other Participating Agency regarding any acts or performances of any services under this Agreement. SECTION 9: Membership Fees, Compensation and Funding A. Membership Fee. There shall be no fee to any Participating Agency to participate in this Agreement unless fees are adopted by the MCAT Board of Directors under the terms set out in the MCAT Operation s Manual. 5

33 B. Compensation. No member of the MCAT Board of Directors, including its elected or appointed officers, shall receive compensation from MCAT for the performance of their duties. A Participating Agency may be reimbursed for costs that another Participating Agency has incurred for MCAT business meetings or other expenses, if such costs and/or expenses are approved by the MCAT Board of Directors. C. Funding. MCAT is authorized under this Agreement to pursue grant funding for MCAT for programs, equipment, gear and non-member training personnel. No Participating Agency match shall be authorized, except upon approval of the MCAT Board of Directors. The Treasurer of MCAT shall be custodian and sole depositor of the funds of MCAT and shall only disburse funds as authorized by the MCAT Board of Directors. If MCAT is successful in obtaining grant funding and if the grant so allows, the Board of Directors may approve, by a majority vote, reimbursement of costs incurred by any specific Participating Agency for training and equipment utilized exclusively by or for MCAT. Any equipment, gear or other property purchased by grant or otherwise by MCAT shall remain the property of MCAT. D. Assets Upon Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, any expenses or outstanding liability shall be paid first through any remaining assets of the consortium known as MCAT and thereafter, any remaining assets shall be distributed to the Participating Agencies on an equitable basis as determined by the MCAT Board of Directors. SECTION 10: Board of Directors; Operations Manual A. The Chief of Police of each participating agency, or his or her designee, shall constitute the Board of Directors of the Major Case Assistance Team. B. The MCAT Board of Directors shall establish an Operations Manual for implementing this Agreement. The Operations Manual shall include, but not be limited to, procedures for requesting, rendering and receiving aid. The Operations Manual shall be reviewed, updated and evaluated by the Board of Directors at regular intervals. C. The Operations Manual shall provide for the duties and responsibilities of the MCAT Board of Directors and establish procedures for selecting Coordinators, Assistant Coordinators, and other personnel and establish the duties and responsibilities of established personnel. If MCAT receives membership fees, funding or grant monies, the Board of Directors will establish a procedure in the Operations Manual for selecting a Treasurer and set out the duties and responsibilities of the Treasurer. 6

34 SECTION 11: Removal of Participating Agency; Termination of Agreement A. A Participating Agency may be removed for just cause upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the total number of Participating Agencies. B. This Agreement shall continue until terminated as follows: 1. There is only one remaining Participating Agency; or 2. A unanimous vote of termination by all of the Participating Agencies. SECTION 12: General Provisions A. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall bind the Participating Agency executing the Agreement and said governing body of the Participating Agency adopting a resolution giving its approval to this Agreement. Certified copies of such resolution shall be filed with the other appropriate office of all other participating agencies within thirty (30) days of its passage. B. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time in writing and approved by resolution of the appropriate governing body of three quarters of the participating agencies. The effective date of any amendment shall be the date as of which the last of the necessary agencies has approved the amendment. C. No Employer-Employee Relationship. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating an employer-employee relationship between any party (including any of its agents) and any other party (including any of its agents). D. No Discrimination. The parties shall not discriminate against their employees, agents, applicants for employment or other person or entities with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions and privileges of employment or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment in violation of any federal, state or local law. E. Continuing Obligation. The Participating Agencies agree that all promises, waivers of liability, representations, insurance coverage obligations, liabilities, payment obligations and/or any other related obligations provided for in this Agreement with regard to any acts, occurrences, events, transactions, or claims, either occurring or having their basis in any events or transaction that occurred before termination of this Agreement, shall survive the termination. 7

35 F. No Waiver of Governmental Immunity. All of the privileges and immunities from liability, and exemptions from laws, ordinances and rules which apply to the activities of parties, officers, agencies, and employees of any governmental agency when performing its functions, shall apply to the same degree and extent to the performance of such functions and duties under the provisions of this Agreement. No provision of this Agreement is intended, nor shall any provision of this Agreement be construed, as a waiver by any Participating Agency of governmental immunity as provided under law. G. Governing Law. This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of Michigan and shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced and governed under the laws of the State of Michigan. Except as otherwise required by law or court rule, any action brought to enforce, interpret or decide any claim arising under this Agreement shall be brought in the 6th Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Michigan (Oakland County Circuit Court) or the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division as dictated by the applicable jurisdiction of the court. Except as otherwise required by law or court rule, venue is proper in the courts set forth above. H. Counterpart Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been duly executed this day of CITY OF AUBURN HILLS CITY OF CLAWSON By: Its: By: Its: Auburn Hills Police Clawson Police 8

36 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM CITY OF TROY By: Its: By: Its: Birmingham Police Troy Police TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD CITY OF ROCHESTER By: Its: By: Its: Bloomfield Township Police Rochester Police Major Case Assistance Team Coordinator Major Case Assistance Team Assistant Coordinator 9

37 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 7 E. D EPARTMENT OF P UBLIC S ERVICES To: Mayor and City Council From: Peter E. Auger, City Manager; Ronald J. Melchert, Director of Public Service Submitted: October 11, 2012 Subject: Motion to Approve: Vactor Discharge Station Bid and OHM Scope of Construction Services INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY The existing Vactor Discharge Station is located at the DPS facility. It is used as a dumping pad where solid debris from storm catch basins and sewer cleaning, are left on a concrete pad to dry out and liquid residuals drain to the sanitary sewer system. The dry solids are later loaded and taken to a landfill for proper disposal. The current system is inadequate to handle the load that our sewer cleaning staff delivers. Often times the solids and liquid that drain off makes its way to the adjacent storm system, and allows undesirable liquids and sediment loading into our detention pond. The sediment loading becomes a maintenance issue over time. Therefore, the construction of a new Vactor Discharge Station is proposed. The new station will be located at the DPS as well, in an area away from storm system drains and will be constructed large enough to handle our sewer cleaning operations. A total of 4 bids were received from area contractors and are submitted below for your review. Contractor Amount Superior Excavating, Inc. $81, L.R. Mullins Contracting, Inc. $107, Fiore Enterprises, LLC $123, Oak Construction Corporation $149, The Apparent low bidder is Superior Excavating, Inc., an Auburn Hills business. They have performed the construction on multiple projects for the City of Auburn Hills with excellent results. The City Currently has Superior Excavating, Inc. under contract, and adding this project to their current contract will save the City approximately $3,500 in contract preparation and insurance acquisition. Attached is a recommendation letter from OHM as well as a Scope of Construction Services for your review and consideration. The OHM Scope of Construction Services includes construction engineering, inspection and contract administration for a not-to-exceed cost of $3,500. The Scope document also includes a cost for materials testing estimated at $1,000. There is adequate funding in the Approved 2012 Budget to perform this work. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The DPS recommends the contract award to Superior Excavating, Inc., approval of OHM s Scope of Construction Services, and the material testing estimate to bring the project to successful completion. MOTION Move to approve the Vactor Discharge Station contract to the low bidder, Superior Excavating, Inc., of Auburn Hills, MI, in the amount of $81, per the unit prices bid for the project, approval of OHM s Scope of Construction Services in an amount not to exceed $3,500.00, and materials testing estimated at $1, I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER O:\CITY COUNCIL PACKET\OCTOBER 15\Cover Memo. Vactor Discharge Station Bid.Doc

38 October 10, 2012 City of Auburn Hills 1500 Brown Road Auburn Hills, Michigan Attention: Regarding: Mr. Ronald Melchert Director of Public Services Vactor Discharge Station Scope of Construction Services Dear Mr. Melchert: Outlined below is a Scope of Work for construction services to be provided by Orchard Hiltz & McCliment (OHM) for the above referenced project. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING It is our understanding that the City of Auburn Hills plans to move forward with the construction phase for the Vactor Discharge Station for which bids were received on Tuesday, October 10, The proposed project consists of construction of a new concrete vactor discharge station, sediment collection chamber, and sanitary sewer connection at the City DPS Facility. The work will be completed via a contract modification to the existing 2012 Sewer Rehabilitation contract with Superior Excavating, Inc. SCOPE OF SERVICE Construction Engineering / Observation Provide daily observation of work. Observation will be provided for all vactor station concrete construction, utility work, and pavement construction. Produce daily field reports documenting construction activities and pay item quantities. Prepare and provide the Contractor with a list of required submittals and review shop drawings, construction schedules, materials certifications, and other submittals. Address Contractor s construction concerns and resolve conflicts with the executed contract specifications. Review contractor s progress on the project to ensure that the work is in compliance with the proposed schedule. Contract Administration Arrange and attend one (1) pre-construction meeting prior to the start of the project. Coordinate with the materials testing subconsultant for required testing. Review Contractor s submittals for materials to be utilized on the project. Construction pay estimates and project paperwork will be prepared as part of the contract administration services for the 2012 Sewer Rehabilitation contract and are not included in this scope of services Plymouth Road Livonia, MI p. (734) f. (734)

39 SCHEDULE Based on the Council meeting schedule, we anticipate that the project award would be approved at the October 15 th Council meeting and construction on the project would begin in later this month. The project is expected to be completed by December of this year. COMPENSATION The services outlined above will be performed on a time-and-materials basis for the not-toexceed amount of three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500.00). This amount is based on the assumptions listed below. The City will be invoiced for services on a monthly basis. FURTHER CLARIFICATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS The above-listed scope of services was prepared with the following assumptions: Materials testing services will be provided by Testing Engineers and Consultants (TEC) under a separate contract and are not included in this scope of services. The estimated amount for this service is one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Some construction observation assistance for the project will be provided by City DPS staff. The City will be responsible for all permit fees. OHM will be pleased to provide any additional services for this project on an hourly basis. Should you find this agreement acceptable, please execute both copies and return one copy to us for our files. We look forward to providing professional services on this project. If you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, ORCHARD, HILTZ & McCLIMENT, INC. Timothy J. Juidici, P.E. cc: Don Grice, City of Auburn Hills City of Auburn Hills Vactor Discharge Station Construction Services Accepted By: Printed Name: Title: Date:

40 October 10, 2012 Peter Auger, City Manager CITY OF AUBURN HILLS 1827 N. Squirrel Road Auburn Hills, MI Regarding: Vactor Discharge Station Letter of Recommendation Dear Mr. Auger: On October 9, 2012 at 10:00 am, a total of four bids were received for the above referenced project. The three lowest bidders are as follows: Contractor Amount Superior Excavating, Inc. $81, L.R. Mullins Contracting, Inc. $107, Fiore Enterprises, LLC. $123, The project scope consists of construction of a new concrete vactor discharge station, sediment collection chamber, and sanitary sewer connection, as well as all necessary earthwork and restoration in accordance with the plans and specifications. Superior Excavating, Inc., out of Auburn Hills, Michigan, is the low bidder for this project. They have over forty years of experience in underground utility installation and have completed numerous projects within the City limits both for the City and for developers. Based on our findings, we recommend award of this contract to them in the amount of $81,165.00, per the unit prices bid for the project. Digital files of this letter and a bid tabulation have been ed to your office. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, ORCHARD, HILTZ, & McCLIMENT, INC. Timothy J. Juidici, P.E. cc: Ron Melchert, Director of Public Services Terri Kowal, City Clerk Don Grice, Deputy Director of Public Services Plymouth Road Livonia, MI p. (734) f. (734)

41 To: From: C iity of Auburn H ii ll lls City Council Agenda October 15, 2012 Meeting Agenda Item No. 9a. Mayor and City Council Peter E. Auger, City Manager and Karen Adcock, Senior Services Director Submitted: October 10, 2012 Subject: Public Hearing and Approval of Community Development Block Grant Funding Allocation for Program Year 2013 INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY The Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) is a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program that provides funds annually to counties and communities. CDBG funds housing, public facility, public service, and community development activities that benefit low income households and persons with special needs. Oakland County receives CDBG funds as the agent and distributes the funds based on the total population and the number of low/moderate income residents in the community. There are 52 participating communities. All eligible projects must meet at least one of the following CDBG national objectives: Primarily benefit low or moderate income persons or households, OR Aid in the elimination of slum or blight conditions(rigid guidelines) OR Meet an urgent community need (for example: natural disasters). Historically the City has followed the first objective: benefit low or moderate income persons or households by funding Minor Home Repair, Yard Services for Seniors and Disabled Residents, Haven and both Avondale & Pontiac Youth Assistance. (See below for brief descriptions of these programs.) In addition we are only allowed to fund four (4) projects and each project can be no less than $2, The Minor Home Repair program is a grant program for eligible residents who own their own home or mobile home. Repairs and improvements include water heater replacements, furnace repairs and/or replacements, roof repairs, interior flooring replacements, plumbing upgrades, weatherization improvements, electrical repairs and upgrades, handicap accessibility in homes, ramps and more. This particular program has allowed so many of our residents to maintain their homes and make improvements that they might otherwise not have been able to do themselves. The Yard Service Program is for the senior lawn mowing and senior snow removal services. These programs assist our frail and elderly residents to safely remain in their homes and to maintain their yards. The Youth Assistance Programs provide funding for income qualified students to participate in a variety of skill building and recreational activities. Both Avondale Youth Assistance and Pontiac Youth Assistance receive funding. Many of these students are able to participate in group activities that they otherwise would not be able to afford, and several students receive additional tutoring needed to succeed in school. Haven provides assistance to victims of domestic violence. Haven is the only comprehensive domestic violence and sexual assault center in Oakland County. Our assistance has allowed Haven to continue to support and protect those who are most vulnerable. There are several steps in the CDBG application process. The first step is attending the annual application workshop this past September. Next, the community must determine local need(s), and host a Public Hearing to receive input from interested residents and parties regarding the proposed budget. Once the Public Hearing has closed it is the responsibility of the governing body to do three things: Sign the HUD Conflict of Interest Certification, Sign the Sub-recipient Agreement, and adopt the CDBG budget. From there city staff will complete the application and submit it to the county by the deadline.

42 Page 2 The three agencies that have received CDBG funding in the past will be present as well as Neighborhood House and they all wish to provide brief presentations about their particular agency. These presentations will occur before the public comment portion of the Public Hearing. In addition and at this time, it would be appropriate for any other agency to present to the Council their requests for funding. If other agencies do request money through the CDBG program, it is important to remember that that particular agency would have to be a sole source provider of such service or the city would be required to seek bids for the particular service. During these presentations it would be appropriate for City Council members to discuss the proposed allocations with the agency representatives and/or staff. At the conclusion of the presentations, it would then be appropriate for the Mayor to open a Public Hearing to hear comments, written or verbal from the public. CDBG guidelines are very specific that during this Public Hearing that only the public may make comment at this time. When all comments have been received it would be appropriate for the Mayor to close the Public Hearing. At the close of the Public Hearing further discussions may ensue, City Council may vote on the proposed budget as presented, or revise the proposed budget as the City Council deems appropriate. HUD, along with the county, directs that each line item is to be voted upon as a separate motion, and if any member of the voting body has a direct relationship to an agency that will be funded, that member is to abstain from the individual line item vote. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff recommends Council to consider the following motions to accept the CDBG budget. MOTION #1: Move to accept the Conflict of Interest Resolution as part of the CDBG application and to authorize the City Mayor to sign the application and submit documents to Oakland County. MOTION #2: Move to accept the Program Year 2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subrecipient Agreement Between the County of Oakland and the City of Auburn Hills as part of the CDBG application and to authorize the City Mayor to sign the application and submit documents to Oakland County. MOTION #3: Move to accept the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application budget line item Minor Home Repair in the amount of $ 38,128 as part of the approximate amount of $ 54,468 and authorize the City Mayor to sign the application and submit the documents to Oakland County. MOTION #4: Move to accept the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application budget line item Yard in the amount of $ 8, 8840 as part of the approximate amount of $ 54,468 and authorize the City Mayor to sign the application and submit the documents to Oakland County. MOTION #5: Move to accept the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application budget line item Youth Assistance (Avondale and Pontiac) in the amount of $5,000 as part of the approximate amount of $ 54,468 and authorize the City Mayor to sign the application and submit the documents to Oakland County. MOTION #6: Move to accept the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application budget line item Haven in the amount of $2,500 as part of the approximate amount of $ 54,468 and authorize the City Mayor to sign the application and submit the documents to Oakland County. I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER

43 CDBG Community Development Block Grant Auburn Hills Story

44 What is CDBG CDBG- Community Development Block Grant Federal funds administered through US Department of Housing & Urban Development, locally administered through Oakland County Community & Home Improvement Fiscal Year May 1 st April 30 th Funds housing/public facilities/public services and benefits low-income persons or households and communities Affords communities to provide services to their residents that might not otherwise be able to do Public Hearing is for 2013 Fiscal Year-money received around June 2013

45 FUNDING RECEIVED Year Amount Received 2001 $ 86, $ 88, $ 88, $ 73, $ 69, $ 62, $ 61, $ 59, $ 62, $ 64, $ 53, $ 54, $32, less 37% less than in 2001

46 Public Service can be no more than 30% of total allocation for PAST CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDED PROJECTS Youth Assistance Avondale and Pontiac Haven Yard Services Lawn Mowing Snow Plowing BUT There is the option to fund other public service agencies as long as we bid out the service or the agency is the sole source provider ( such as HAVEN who is the only domestic violence shelter in Oakland County).

47 Yard Services Public Service plows plows 144 inches of snow plows plows plows plows

48 Yard Services Public Service seasonal mows seasonal mows seasonal mows seasonal mows 225 Seniors Assisted seasonal mows (Reduction due to available funding, and Public Services were capped at 15% this year) WHO USES THE SERVICE????? Average homeowner is female, lives alone, is over age 80 and has lived in community for many years. Yards maintained doesn t identify a homeowner as vulnerable, older or frail. Can serve as a crime deterrent Yards maintained reduce blight Yards maintained increase property values

49 MINOR HOME AND MOBILE HOME REPAIR PROGRAMS Non-Public Service Category Ramp for homeowner to come home from long term nursing home stay Leaks in ceiling Current job Shower Replacement Over $254,489 in home repairs since 2004 New secure door Damaged walls from leaks to new walls

50 Past CDBG projects that were in the Public Service Categories Pontiac Youth Assistance Avondale Youth Assistance HAVEN Senior Bus Transportation Drivers Katrina Emergency Relief Senior Center Equipment Popcorn Machine

51 Before Public Hearing Staff s presentation to City Council City Council to ask questions of staff prior to public hearing. Tonight Public Hearing Mayor opens Public Hearing Public is invited to comment on proposed budget Council is asked to refrain from discussing budget allocations with staff until public hearing is officially closed-cdbg Requirements After Close of Public Hearing City Council to discuss proposed budgets and any other requests City Council votes on proposed budget with resolution. What happens after Karen leaves tonight? Application completed and submitted to County by November deadline Funds generally appropriated the following June once Congress releases funds

52 Any questions or comments before we begin the public hearing?

53 Page 3

54

55

56

57

58

59

60 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 9B. ASSESSING To: Mayor and City Council From: Peter E. Auger, City Manager and Micheal R. Lohmeier, City Assessor Submitted: October 1, 2012 Subject: Public Hearing and Request to Revoke Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate C Joslyn Road INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY On April 17, 2012 a Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate was issued for the property located at 3900 Joslyn Road, also identified as assessment parcel Site and Building The site is acres in size and is zoned T&R, Technology and Research. The building was constructed in 1994 and has 45,875 square feet, with 23-foot wall height. It was originally constructed for single-occupant grocery store use. The building has been vacant for over ten years. Subject Prior Owner This is the site of the former Food Town grocery store. This site had been purchased in 2011 by TD Joslyn Rd (aka LaSorda Group). It was purchased along with the adjacent parcel, a former Kmart, which has been since sold (circa 05/2012 and is occupied by Prefix Coatings). At LaSorda s request, City Council approved its establishment into a Commercial Rehabilitation District with accompanying certificate (i.e., C ) for the property to be used as a business incubator.

61 Page 2 No work had been done by LaSorda Group, therefore no value has been developed for the existing C certificate). Certificate C , unless revoked, is scheduled to remain in force for a period of 10 years; which begins December 31, The real property investment amount for this obsolete facility is $770,000. The frozen taxable value of the real property related to this certificate is $188,980. The certificate was issued on April 17, Pacific Holdings, LLC (Pacific Holdings) Pacific Holdings purchased the property with the intention of soliciting a tenant for the property. Pacific Holdings is scheduled to appear before City Council on October 15, 2012 with the intention of requesting the property be established as an Industrial Development District and Plant Rehabilitation District for a single-occupant tenant that it is currently negotiating a final lease. The State Tax Commission does not allow a property to have both a Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate and Plant Rehabilitation Certificate simultaneously, and per recent communications with the Department of Treasury the Commercial Rehab needs to be revoked at least one day prior to the IFT being approved. 1 Therefore, Pacific Holdings is requesting the City Council revoke the existing commercial rehabilitation exemption certificate so it may request an industrial rehabilitation exemption certificate at its October 15, 2012 meeting. Property Tax Appeals There are no pending appeals involving this property. To the best of staff s knowledge there are no pending appeals involving the applicant. Work in Progress The application filed by TD LaSorda stated the work relating to its commercial rehabilitation would begin on November 30, 2011 and would be completed by June As of the date of this memorandum the work has not occurred. Revocation of Certificate Section 12, of Public Act 210 of 2005, states The legislative body of the qualified local governmental unit may, by resolution, revoke the commercial rehabilitation exemption certificate of a facility if it finds that the completion of rehabilitation of the qualified facility has not occurred within the time authorized by the legislative body in the exemption certificate or a duly authorized extension of that time, or that the holder of the commercial rehabilitation exemption certificate has not proceeded in good faith with the operation of the qualified facility in a manner consistent with the purposes of this act and in the absence of circumstances that are beyond the control of the holder of the exemption certificate. (Emphases added in bold). TD Joslyn Road, LLC did not complete the work as of the June 2012 date of completion as stated in its application. Furthermore TD Joslyn Road, LLC no longer owns the property and as such has not proceeded in good faith. The City Council can pass a resolution requesting the State Tax Commission to revoke the certificate. TD Joslyn Road, LLC has not realized any tax savings since the certificate was issued. 1 Communication to Micheal Lohmeier, City Assessor, and Laurie Renaud, City Economic Development Coordinator, by Department of Treasury.

62 Page 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend revocation of the certificate. MOTION Move to revoke Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate, Certificate No. C by adopting the attached resolution. I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER

63 CITY OF AUBURN HILLS RESOLUTION REVOKING A COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE FOR TD JOSLYN ROAD, LLC At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan, held in the Council Chambers at 1827 N. Squirrel Road, Auburn Hills MI on the 15th day of October, The following resolution was offered by Councilperson and supported by Councilperson WHEREAS, TD Joslyn Road, LLC was issued Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate for the property identified as: Address: 3900 Joslyn Road, Auburn Hills, MI Assessment parcel Legal Description: T3N, R10E, SEC 4 PONTIAC ACRES SUB PART OF LOTS 1 TO 7 INCL, ALSO PART OF LOT 15, ALSO ALL OF LOT 16, ALSO PART OF LOT 17, ALSO PART OF SE 1/4 ALL DESC AS BEG AT PT DIST N W 60 FT & S W FT FROM SE SEC COR, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH N E 7.56 FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH S E FT TO BEG FR 011, 012 & WHEREAS, TD Joslyn Road, LLC has failed to begin and end the work in which the exemption certificate was provided, and WHEREAS, TD Joslyn Road, LLC has sold the property, and WHEREAS, TD Joslyn Road, LLC has failed to proceed in good faith with the operation of the qualified facility in a manner consistent with Public Act 210 of 2005, as amended, and WHEREAS, before acting on said application, the City Council of Auburn Hills held a hearing on the 15th day of October, 2012 at a regularly scheduled meeting, at which time the owner, the assessor, and a representative of the affected taxing units were given written notice and were afforded an opportunity to be heard on said application; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Auburn Hills hereby determines that Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate including real property be revoked according to the provisions of Section 12, Public Act 210, of 2005, as amended, and That the City Assessor submits a copy of this resolution to the State Tax Commission with a request to revoke the certificate.

64 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: RESOLUTION STATE OF MICHIGAN) )SS COUNTY OF OAKLAND) I, the undersigned, the duly appointed City Clerk for the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Auburn Hills City Council held on the 15th day of October, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official signature on this October, day of Terri Kowal, City Clerk

65

66

67

68

69

70 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 9C. ASSESSING To: Mayor and City Council From: Peter E. Auger, City Manager and Micheal R. Lohmeier, City Assessor Submitted: October 1, 2012 Subject: Public Hearing and Request to Establish a Plant Rehabilitation District (PRD) for Pacific Holdings, LLC INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY A request to establish a Plant Rehabilitation District (PRD) has been submitted by Pacific Holdings, LLC, for the property located at 3900 Joslyn Rd, also identified as assessment parcel Plant Rehabilitation Districts are established for replacement or restoration projects as provided for by Public Act 198, 1974 as amended. Site and Building The site is acres in size and is zoned T&R, Technology and Research. The building was constructed in 1994 and has 45,875 square feet, with 23-foot wall height. It was originally constructed for single-occupant grocery store use. The building has been vacant for over ten years. Subject

71 Page 2 Prior Owner This is the site of the former Food Town grocery store. This site had been purchased in 2011 by TD Joslyn Rd (aka LaSorda Group). It was purchased along with the adjacent parcel, a former Kmart, which has been since sold (circa 05/2012 and is occupied by Prefix Coatings). At LaSorda s request, City Council approved its establishment into a Commercial Rehabilitation District with accompanying certificate (i.e., C ) for the property to be used as a business incubator. No work had been done by LaSorda Group, therefore no value has been developed for the existing C certificate). Certificate C , unless revoked, is scheduled to remain in force for a period of 10 years; which begins December 31, The real property investment amount for this obsolete facility is $770,000. The frozen taxable value of the real property related to this certificate is $188,980. The certificate was issued on April 17, Pacific Holdings The property requested for the PRD was purchased in August 2012 by Pacific Holdings, LLC (Pacific Holdings) from TD Joslyn Road, LLC. Pacific Holdings purchased the property with the intention of soliciting a tenant for the property. Pacific Holdings intends to rehabilitate this property regardless of the user, but believes there is strong probability that the user would be of an industrial nature. The rehabilitation would include rehabilitating certain parts of the property, such as exterior walls, floors, electric, lighting, site improvements, and the like to make it user ready. Pacific Holdings has a tenant in mind already for the property. Property Tax Appeals There are no pending appeals involving this property. To the best of staff s knowledge there are no pending appeals involving the applicant. Plant Rehabilitation Districts (PRD) PRDs are established for replacement or restoration projects as provided for by Public Act 198, 1974 as amended. The legislative body of a local governmental unit may establish a plant rehabilitation district or an industrial development district on its own initiative or upon a written request filed by the owner or owners of 75% of the state equalized value of the industrial property. (PA 198 (4)(2), 1974, as amended). Replacement is defined as the complete or partial demolition of obsolete industrial property and the complete or partial reconstruction or installation of new property of similar utility. (PA 198(3)(5), 1974, as amended). Restoration is defined, in part, as changes to obsolete industrial property other than replacement as may be required to restore the property, together with all appurtenances to the property, to an economically efficient functional condition. (PA 198(3)(6), 1974, as amended).

72 Page 3 Before establishing a Plant Rehabilitation District, the local legislative body must determine that property compromising not less than 50% of the state equalized valuation of industrial property within the proposed district is obsolete. City Council may create a Plant Rehabilitation District on its own initiative or at the request of the property owner. Pacific Holdings has a prospective tenant that is considering leasing the facility for 7 years and they will undertake substantial repairs and remodeling in order to better meet the needs of the business. The 2012 State Equalized Value of the building is $330,417. The 2012 State Equalized Value of all property within the proposed district is $535,440. Since the building is obsolete for the needs of the prospective tenant, then the obsolete portion of existing property exceeds 50% of the State Equalized Value of property within the proposed district. Establishment of the Plant Rehabilitation District is prerequisite to consideration of an Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate for the proposed restoration project. The major difference between a restoration facility and a new facility is that the taxes on a restoration facility are frozen at the taxable value of the facility prior to the commencement of the restoration investment, while the taxes on a new facility are based on the value of the investment in the new improvements. The tax savings to the company on a restoration facility are 100%, while the savings on a new facility would be 50%. TAX INCENTIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (TIRC) This application went before the city s Tax Incentive Review Committee on September 10, Mr. Jared Roth, owner of Pacific Holdings, LLC, was present to speak about his request and intentions. Motion by Mr. Iacobelli to recommend to city council, the establishment of a PRD at 3900 Joslyn Rd. (former site of Food Town), parcel ID [Legal Description: Same as in 5a] Supported by Mr. Landsberg Motion carried (4-0) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on reviewing the city s tax incentive policy, combined with the recommendation forwarded by TIRC, staff recommends approval Pacific Holdings, LLC s request for establishment of the property as an PRD. MOTION Move to approve the request to establish a Plant Rehabilitation District for Pacific Holdings by adopting the attached resolution. I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER

73 CITY OF AUBURN HILLS RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PLANT REHABILITATION DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC HOLDINGS At a meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of October, 2012 at the City Council Chambers at 1827 N. Squirrel Rd., Auburn Hills MI It was moved by Council Member and supported by Council Member WHEREAS, Act 198 of the Public Acts of 1974, as amended, authorizes the City Council of Auburn Hills to establish a "Plant Rehabilitation District ; and WHEREAS, restoration of a proposed facility within the district has not commenced as of this date; and WHEREA, It has been determined that property comprising not less than 50 percent of the state equalized valuation of property within the proposed Plant Rehabilitation District is obsolete; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Auburn Hills, has given written notice by certified mail to the owners of real property within the proposed Plant Rehabilitation District and to the public by newspaper advertisement in the Oakland Press, and public posting of the hearing on the establishment of the proposed district; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 15, 2012 at which all of the owners of real property within the proposed Plant Rehabilitation District and all residents and taxpayers of Auburn Hills were afforded an opportunity to be heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Auburn Hills that the following described parcel of land situated in the City of Auburn Hills, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, to wit: T3N, R10E, SEC 4 PONTIAC ACRES SUB PART OF LOTS 1 TO 7 INCL, ALSO PART OF LOT 15, ALSO ALL OF LOT 16, ALSO PART OF LOT 17, ALSO PART OF SE 1/4 ALL DESC AS BEG AT PT DIST N W 60 FT & S W FT FROM SE SEC COR, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH N E 7.56 FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH S E FT TO BEG FR 011, 012 & Parcel Identification No be and here is established as a Plant Rehabilitation District pursuant to the provisions of Act 198 of the Public Acts of 1974 to be known as Pacific Holdings Plant Rehabilitation District.

74 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: None STATE OF MICHIGAN) ) SS COUNTY OF OAKLAND) RESOLUTION ADOPTED I, the undersigned, the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of October, 2012, the original of which is on file in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official signature on this ---- day of January, Terri Kowal, City Clerk

75

76 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 9D. ASSESSING To: Mayor and City Council From: Peter E. Auger, City Manager and Micheal R. Lohmeier, City Assessor Submitted: October 1, 2012 Subject: Public Hearing and Request to Establish an Industrial Development District (IDD) for Pacific Holdings, LLC INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY A request to establish an Industrial Development District (IDD) has been submitted by Pacific Holdings, LLC, for the property located at 3900 Joslyn Rd, also identified as assessment parcel Site and Building The site is acres in size and is zoned T&R, Technology and Research. The building was constructed in 1994 and has 45,875 square feet, with 23-foot wall height. It was originally constructed for single-occupant grocery store use. The building has been vacant for over ten years. Subject

77 Page 2 Prior Owner This is the site of the former Food Town grocery store. This site had been purchased in 2011 by TD Joslyn Rd (aka LaSorda Group). It was purchased along with the adjacent parcel, a former Kmart, which has been since sold (circa 05/2012 and is occupied by Prefix Coatings). At LaSorda s request, City Council approved its establishment into a Commercial Rehabilitation District with accompanying certificate (i.e., C ) for the property to be used as a business incubator. No work had been done by LaSorda Group, therefore no value has been developed for the existing C certificate). Certificate C , unless revoked, is scheduled to remain in force for a period of 10 years; which begins December 31, The real property investment amount for this obsolete facility is $770,000. The frozen taxable value of the real property related to this certificate is $188,980. The certificate was issued on April 17, Pacific Holdings The property requested for the IDD was purchased in August 2012 by Pacific Holdings, LLC (Pacific Holdings) from TD Joslyn Road, LLC. Pacific Holdings purchased the property with the intention of soliciting a tenant for the property. Pacific Holdings intends to rehabilitate this property regardless of the user, but believes there is strong probability that the user would be of an industrial nature. The rehabilitation would include rehabilitating certain parts of the property, such as exterior walls, floors, electric, lighting, site improvements, and the like to make it user ready. Pacific Holdings believes that because of the size of this building, the industrial user would most likely involve personal property and establishment of an IDD on this parcel would make the property more attractive for a prospective tenant, understanding that there might be potentiality for a future abatement. Pacific Holdings has a tenant in mind already for the property. In addition, Pacific Holdings is considering at least one additional building on this parcel and establishment of an IDD involving this parcel would make future applications for new construction abatements attractive. Property Tax Appeals There are no pending appeals involving this property. To the best of staff s knowledge there are no pending appeals involving the applicant. Industrial Development Districts Industrial Development Districts (IDD) are established for new real property or personal property projects as provided for by Public Act 198, 1974 as amended. The legislative body of a local governmental unit may establish a plant rehabilitation district or an industrial development district on its own initiative or upon a written request filed by the owner or owners of 75% of the state equalized value of the industrial property. (PA 198 4(2), 1974 as amended). Establishment of an IDD is prerequisite to consideration of an Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate for any proposed, or future, improvements.

78 Page 3 TAX INCENTIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (TIRC) This application went before the city s Tax Incentive Review Committee on September 10, Mr. Jared Roth, owner of Pacific Holdings, LLC, was present to speak about his request and intentions. Motion by Mr. Iacobelli, to recommend to City Council, the establishment of an IDD for Pacific Holdings at 3900 Joslyn Rd (former site of Food Town), Parcel ID: ]: [Legal Description: T3N, R10E, SEC 4 PONTIAC ACRES SUB PART OF LOTS 1 TO 7 INCL, ALSO PART OF LOT 15, ALSO ALL OF LOT 16, ALSO PART OF LOT 17, ALSO PART OF SE 1/4 ALL DESC AS BEG AT PT DIST N W 60 FT & S W FT FROM SE SEC COR, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH N E 7.56 FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH S E FT TO BEG FR 011, 012 & ] Supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried (4-0) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on reviewing the city s tax incentive policy, combined with the recommendation forwarded by TIRC, staff recommends approval of Pacific Holdings, LLC s request for establishment of the property as an IDD. MOTION Move to approve the request to establish an Industrial Development District for Pacific Holdings by adopting the attached resolution. I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER

79 CITY OF AUBURN HILLS RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC HOLDINGS At a meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of October, 2012 at the City Council Chambers at 1827 N. Squirrel Rd., Auburn Hills MI It was moved by Council Member and supported by Council Member WHEREAS, Act 198 of the Public Acts of 1974, as amended, authorizes the City Council of Auburn Hills to establish an Industrial Development District; and WHEREAS, Pacific Holdings, LLC has petitioned this City Council to establish an Industrial Development District on the property herein described; and WHEREAS, construction, acquisition, alteration, or installation of a proposed facility within the district has not commenced as of this date of the filing of the request to establish the district; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Auburn Hills, has given written notice by certified mail to the owners of real property within the proposed Industrial Development District and to the public by newspaper advertisement in the Oakland Press, and public posting of the hearing on the establishment of the proposed district; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 15, 2012 at which all of the owners of real property within the proposed Industrial Development District and all residents and taxpayers of Auburn Hills were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City of Auburn Hills to establish the Industrial Development District as proposed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Auburn Hills that the following described parcel of land situated in the City of Auburn Hills, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, to wit: Parcel identification: Legal description: T3N, R10E, SEC 4 PONTIAC ACRES SUB PART OF LOTS 1 TO 7 INCL, ALSO PART OF LOT 15, ALSO ALL OF LOT 16, ALSO PART OF LOT 17, ALSO PART OF SE 1/4 ALL DESC AS BEG AT PT DIST N W 60 FT & S W FT FROM SE SEC COR, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH N E 7.56 FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH S E FT TO BEG FR 011, 012 & be and here is established as a Industrial Development District pursuant to the provisions of Act 198 of the Public Acts of 1974 to be known as the Pacific Holdings Industrial Development District.

80 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: None RESOLUTION ADOPTED STATE OF MICHIGAN) COUNTY OF OAKLAND) ) SS I, the undersigned, the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of October, 2012, the original of which is on file in my office IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official signature on this ---- day of October Terri Kowal, City Clerk

81

82 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 9. ASSESSING To: Mayor and City Council From: Peter E. Auger, City Manager and Micheal R. Lohmeier, City Assessor Submitted: October 1, 2012 Subject: Public Hearing and Request to Approve Transfer of Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate C for Pacific Holdings, LLC INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY An application has been submitted to transfer Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate C from TD Joslyn Road, LLC to Pacific Holdings, LLC. The request is for real property only. The facility is located at 3900 Joslyn Road, also identified as assessment parcel The building has been vacant since the application was filed pertaining to C , and no work has been completed as of this writing. The original certificate was issued to TD Joslyn Road, LLC for rehabilitation of the existing property. The term of the abatement is for 10 years, beginning on December 31, Site and Building The site is acres in size and is zoned T&R, Technology and Research. The building was constructed in 1994 and has 45,875 square feet, with 23-foot wall height. It was originally constructed for single-occupant grocery store use. The building has been vacant for over ten years. Subject

83 Page 2 Prior Owner This is the site of the former Food Town grocery store. This site had been purchased in 2011 by TD Joslyn Rd (aka LaSorda Group). It was purchased along with the adjacent parcel, a former Kmart, which has been since sold (circa 05/2012 and is occupied by Prefix Coatings). At LaSorda s request, City Council approved its establishment into a Commercial Rehabilitation District with accompanying certificate (i.e., C ) for the property to be used as a business incubator. No work had been done by LaSorda Group, therefore no value has been developed for the existing C certificate). Certificate C , unless revoked, is scheduled to remain in force for a period of 10 years; which begins December 31, The real property investment amount for this obsolete facility is $770,000. The frozen taxable value of the real property related to this certificate is $188,980. The certificate was issued on April 17, Pacific Holdings, LLC (Pacific Holdings) The property was purchased in August 2012 by Pacific Holdings from TD Joslyn Road, LLC. Pacific Holdings purchased the property with the intention of soliciting a tenant for the property. Pacific Holdings intends to rehabilitate this property regardless of the user. The rehabilitation would include rehabilitating certain parts of the property, such as exterior walls, floors, electric, lighting, site improvements, and the like to make it user ready. Property Tax Appeals There are no pending appeals involving this property. To the best of staff s knowledge there are no pending appeals involving the applicant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the transfer is recommended. MOTION Move to approve the request for the transfer of C to Pacific Holdings, LLC by adopting the attached resolution. I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER

84 CITY OF AUBURN HILLS RESOLUTION APPROVING A TRANSFER OF A COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE C FOR PACIFIC HOLDINGS, LLC At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan, held in the Council Chambers at 1827 N. Squirrel Road, Auburn Hills MI at 7:00 p.m. on the 15 th day of October, The following resolution was offered by Councilperson : and supported by Councilperson WHEREAS, Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate for 3900 Joslyn Road was approved by the State Tax Commission for a period of 10 years with an ending date of December 30, 2022, and WHEREAS, Pacific Holdings, LLC. has purchased the facility at 3900 Joslyn Road, and has requested that the City of Auburn Hills approve a transfer of the real property portion of Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate , and WHEREAS, the Clerk has notified in writing the owner, Assessor of the City of Auburn Hills and the legislative body of each taxing unit which levies ad valorem property tax within the City of Auburn Hills and given notice to the general public so that they shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard at this public hearing to determine whether the transfer of the Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate shall be approved or disapproved; and WHEREAS, said public hearing having been held on the 15 th day of October, 2012 at a regularly scheduled meeting; and WHEREAS, comments on the transfer of the Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate were heard and considered; and WHEREAS, the aggregate SEV of real and personal property exempt from ad valorem taxes within the city of Auburn Hills after granting this certificate will exceed 5% of an amount equal to the sum of the SEV of the unit, plus the SEV of personal and real property exempted. WHEREAS, it is hereby found and determined by the City of Auburn Hills Council that the transfer of the real property portions of Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate to Pacific Holdings, LLC is proper under the provisions of Public Act 210, of 2005 as amended, and the granting of the transfer considered together with the aggregate amounts of other tax abatements granted will not impair the financial soundness of the tax units, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for transfer of the real property portions of Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate to Pacific Holdings, LLC is hereby approved. The City Council of Auburn Hills finds and determines that granting of this Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate, together with the aggregate amount of the certificates previously granted and currently in force, under Public Act 210 of 2005, Public Act 198 of 1974 and Public Act 255 of 1978, shall not have the affect of substantially impeding the operating of the City of Auburn Hills, or of impairing the financial soundness of a taxing unit which levies an ad valorem property tax in the City of Auburn Hills.

85 AYES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NAYS: RESOLUTION STATE OF MICHIGAN) COUNTY OF OAKLAND) ) SS I, the undersigned, the duly qualified and appointed Clerk of the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15 th day of October, 2012 the original of which is on file in my office IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official signature on this day of October, Terri Kowal, City Clerk

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 9. ASSESSING To: Mayor and City Council From: Peter E. Auger, City Manager and Micheal R. Lohmeier, City Assessor Submitted: October 1, 2012 Subject: Public Hearing and Request to Approve IFEC Rehabilitation of Real Property for Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY An application for an IFEC has been received for Real Property Restoration at 3900 Joslyn Road and on assessment parcel The request was submitted by Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. (Inalfa) on September 4, 2012, and as of this date the rehabilitation had not been started yet. This application involves real property restoration work including removal and replacement of exterior features including north and part of west entrance exterior walls, new elevation, new front entrance, reconfiguration and resurface of parking lot, landscaping, all windows, sidewalk, painting. It also includes interior renovation including demolition of existing offices, interior build-out, HVAC, bathrooms, interior partitioning, ceiling and floors, lighting and doors. The total project investment is $2,578,000 and is anticipated to result in retaining 80 jobs with an expected 71 new jobs. Replacement and restoration is defined by Public Act, 198, 1974 as amended; Replacement is defined as the complete or partial demolition of obsolete industrial property and the complete or partial reconstruction or installation of new property of similar utility. (PA 198(3)(5), 1974, as amended). Restoration is defined, in part, as changes to obsolete industrial property other than replacement as may be required to restore the property, together with all appurtenances to the property, to an economically efficient functional condition. (PA 198(3)(6), 1974, as amended). Examples of obsolescence in industrial buildings includes such items as insufficient floor loads, excessive or deficient ceiling height, deficient mechanical equipment, excessive delayed maintenance items such as roofs, floors and wall covering, exterior appearance, inadequate electrical capacity, unnecessary partitions and poor room layout. The Tax Incentive Policy 1 of the City of Auburn Hills provides for requests for this type of incentive; B. Replacement or Rehabilitation of Obsolete Industrial Property (IFEC) - Real Property which meets the definition of obsolete property as contained in the Plant Rehabilitation and Industrial Development Districts Act 198 of 1974 and is included within a plant rehabilitation district and which is proposed for occupancy by either a new business or a existing business and which will require restoration or replacement as defined in the Plant Rehabilitation and Industrial Development Districts Act 198 of 1 March 19, 2012.

100 Page may be granted a 100% tax incentive for up to eight (8) years based upon the criteria included in this policy and with the following considerations; i. A minimum planned investment in rehabilitation of real property improvements at least equal to 25% of the existing true cash value of the property at commencement of the rehabilitation of the qualified facility. ii. The planned investment must correct functional obsolescence in addition to maintenance and repairs. iii. Personal property replacement will not be considered for tax incentive as part of a rehabilitation project. Investments in personal property by a new business or an existing business during a rehabilitation project may be considered for 50% tax incentive in an Industrial Development District as a new facility. The 2012 State Equalized Value of the building is $330,417. The 2012 State Equalized Value of all property within the proposed district is $535,440. Since the building is obsolete for the needs of the prospective tenant, then the obsolete portion of existing property exceeds 50% of the State Equalized Value of property within the proposed district. Differences between Restoration and New Facility The major difference between a restoration facility and a new facility is that the taxes on a restoration facility are frozen at the taxable value of the facility prior to the commencement of the restoration investment, while the taxes on a new facility are based on the value of the investment in the new improvements. The tax savings to the company on a restoration facility are 100%, while the savings on a new facility would be 50%. Tenant Occupancy Inalfa will be the tenant for this property. Section VI of the Property Tax Incentive Policy 2 provides: Applicants requesting Tax Incentives for a facility under a lease must provide a lease that includes an initial length of lease equal to the length of the incentive plus the additional two or four years as required in A. or B. above. Options to extend a lease will not be counted as part of the initial term of the lease. Given the policy requirement to continue operations at the facility for 2 years beyond the term of the certificate, the length of the incentive would be eligible for five (5) years. Tax Collection The taxes that will be generated by the investment during the certificate period will be approximately $0, including $0 in city revenues. The company will save approximately $605,000 in total taxes, of which approximately $129,000 in city taxes. The city will continue to collect taxes on the property that will not be subject to the abatement. Pending Plant Rehabilitation District The real property that this restoration is going to be made on is subject to a pending request by Pacific Holdings, LLC for a Plant Rehabilitation District (PRD). The request for the PRD is to be heard by City Council on October 15, 2012, and is provided for by Public Act 198, 1974, as amended. Establishment of a PRD is a prerequisite to approving this application. 2 Ibid.

101 Page 3 Property Tax Appeals There are no pending appeals involving this property. To the best of staff s knowledge there are no pending appeals involving the applicant. TAX INCENTIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (TIRC) This application went before the city s Tax Incentive Review Committee on September 10, Mr. Jared Roth, owner of the property, Mr. Glen Holtz, Vice President of Technology with Inalfa, and Sergio Cabada, CFO with Inalfa, were present to speak about this request. As discussed in item 5b, the facility at 3900 Joslyn Rd. requires both interior and exterior renovations to repurpose the property for this light industrial use. The tentative lease between Inalfa Roof Systems and Pacific Holdings is for a term of 7 years which would allow a 5 year abatement plus a 2 year clawback period. Motion by Mr. Nelson to forward to city council, contingent upon the execution of a 7 year lease, a recommendation for approval of a Rehab IFEC for renovations to be made at 3900 Joslyn Rd, Parcel ID: The term of the recommended abatement is 12/31/2012 through 12/30/2017, with the requirement to stay in this facility an additional 2 years after the certificate expires. [Legal Description: Same as in item 5a] Supported by Mr. Landsberg Motion carried (4-0) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on reviewing the city s tax incentive policy, combined with the recommendation forwarded by TIRC, staff recommends approval of the application for five (5) years as requested. MOTION Move to approve the request for a 5-year IFEC pertaining to Rehabilitation for Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. for a total real property investment of $2,578,000 by adopting the attached resolution. I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER

102 CITY OF AUBURN HILLS RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE FOR INALFA ROOF SYSTEMS, INC At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan, held in the Council Chambers at 1827 N. Squirrel Road, Auburn Hills MI on the 15 th Day of October, The following resolution was offered by Councilperson Councilperson and supported by WHEREAS, pursuant to P.A. 198, 1974, M.C.L et seq., after a duly noticed public hearing held on the, 15 th Day of October, 2012 the City Council of Auburn Hills established a Plant Rehabilitation District, commonly referred to as the Pacific Holdings Plant Rehabilitation District; and WHEREAS, Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. has filed an application for an Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate with the Clerk of the City of Auburn Hills with respect to a proposed rehabilitation facility within the Pacific Holdings Plant Rehabilitation District; and WHEREAS, before acting on said application, the City Council of Auburn Hills held a hearing on 15 th Day of October, 2012, at a regularly scheduled meeting, at which time the applicant, the Assessor, and a representative of the affected taxing units were given written notice and were afforded an opportunity to be heard on said application; and WHEREAS, rehabilitation of the facility had not begun earlier than six (6) months before September 4, 2012, the date of the acceptance of the application for the Industrial Facility; and WHEREAS, completion of the facility is calculated to and will at the time of issuance of the certificate have the reasonable likelihood to retain, create or prevent the loss of employment in Auburn Hills; and WHEREAS, the aggregate SEV of real and personal property exempt from ad valorem taxes within the City of Auburn Hills after granting this certificate will exceed 5% of an amount equal to the sum of the SEV of the unit, plus the SEV of personal and real property thus exempted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of Auburn Hills that: 1. The City Council of Auburn Hills finds and determines that the granting of this Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate, together with the aggregate amount of the Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificates previously granted and currently in force, under Act No. 198 of the Public Acts of 1974, shall not have the effect of substantially impeding the operation of the City of Auburn Hills, or of impairing the financial soundness of a taxing unit which levies an ad valorem property tax in the City of Auburn Hills.

103 2. The application for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate with respect to a rehabilitation facility on the following described parcel of real property situation within the Pacific Holdings Plant Rehabilitation District to wit: T3N, R10E, SEC 4 PONTIAC ACRES SUB PART OF LOTS 1 TO 7 INCL, ALSO PART OF LOT 15, ALSO ALL OF LOT 16, ALSO PART OF LOT 17, ALSO PART OF SE 1/4 ALL DESC AS BEG AT PT DIST N W 60 FT & S W FT FROM SE SEC COR, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH N E 7.56 FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH S E FT TO BEG FR 011, 012 & The real property is also identified as , having an address of 3900 Joslyn Road, Auburn Hills, MI is hereby approved. 3. The Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate shall remain in force and effect for a period of 5 years, and the starting date for the certificate is December 31, 2012 and the ending date is December 30, The project cost approved is $2,578,000 for real property. 5. Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc agrees to continue operation of the facility for the full term of the certificate and for an additional two years after expiration of the certificate. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: None None RESOLUTION ADOPTED STATE OF MICHIGAN) )SS COUNTY OF OAKLAND) I, the undersigned, the duly appointed City Clerk for the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Auburn Hills City Council held on the 15 th Day of October, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official signature on this October, Day of Terri Kowal, City Clerk

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 9. To: From: Mayor and City Council Peter E. Auger, City Manager and Micheal R. Lohmeier, City Assessor Submitted: October 1, 2012 Subject: Public Hearing and Request to Approve IFEC New Personal Property for Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. ASSESSING INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY An application for an IFEC has been received for Personal Property to be located at 3900 Joslyn Road and on assessment parcel The request was submitted by Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. (Inalfa) on September 4, 2012, and as of this date the personal property had not been purchased yet. This application involves personal property including testing and lab equipment and other personal property, such as phone furniture, phone switches, and servers. The total project investment is $1,471,000 and is anticipated to result in retaining 80 jobs with an expected 71 new jobs. Personal Property is defined by the city s Property Tax Incentive Policy to include: 1 machinery, equipment, furniture, fixtures and similar items as defined in the General Property Tax Act and that are utilized by the business in producing the end product or service of the business and real property assessable as personal property pursuant to sections 8(d) and 14(6) of the general property tax act, 1893 PA 206, MCL and The project proposed in this application would be eligible for consideration of an IFEC under the provision of the city s Property Tax Incentive Policy, as 2 A. New facility (IFEC) industrial real property and land improvements, and personal property, other than a replacement facility to be built or installed in a plant rehabilitation district or industrial development district by an existing business or a new business, as provided in PA 198, 1974 as amended may be granted a 50% tax incentive for up to eight (8) years based upon the criteria included in this policy. The minimum investment by a business in a new facility shall meet one of the following requirements C. The installation and/or location on more than a temporary basis of new equipment, furniture or other personal property with an estimated value of the new personal property in excess of $250,000, or 10% of the historical cost of current personal property 1 March 19, Ibid.

116 Page 2 Tenant Occupancy Inalfa will be the tenant for this property and the personal property applied for will be owned by Inalfa. Section VI of the Property Tax Incentive Policy 3 provides: Applicants requesting Tax Incentives for a facility under a lease must provide a lease that includes an initial length of lease equal to the length of the incentive plus the additional two or four years as required in A. or B. above. Options to extend a lease will not be counted as part of the initial term of the lease. Given the policy requirement to continue operations at the facility for 2 years beyond the term of the certificate, the length of the incentive would be eligible for five (5) years. The taxes that will be generated by the investment during the certificate period will be approximately $33,524, including $15,255 in city revenues. Pending Industrial Development District The real property that this personal property is going to be located on is subject to a pending request by Pacific Holdings, LLC for an Industrial Development District (IDD). The request for the IDD is to be heard by City Council on October 15, 2012, and is provided for by Public Act 198, 1974, as amended. Establishment of an IDD is a prerequisite to approving this application. Property Tax Appeals There are no pending appeals involving this property. To the best of staff s knowledge there are no pending appeals involving the applicant. TAX INCENTIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (TIRC) This application went before the city s Tax Incentive Review Committee on September 10, Mr. Jared Roth, owner of the property, Mr. Glen Holtz, Vice President of Technology with Inalfa, and Sergio Cabada, CFO with Inalfa, was present to speak about this request. Motion by Mr. Iacobelli to forward to city council, contingent upon an executed lease agreement with a 7 year term (minimum), a recommendation for approval of an IFEC for personal property to be installed at Inalfa Roof Systems at 3900 Joslyn Rd. The term of the recommended abatement is 12/31/2012 through 12/30/2017 with the requirement to stay in this facility an additional 2 years after the certificate expires. [Legal Description: Same as in item 5a] Supported by Mr. Landsberg Motion carried (4-0) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on reviewing the city s tax incentive policy, combined with the recommendation forwarded by TIRC, staff recommends approval of the application for five (5) years as requested. 3 Ibid.

117 Page 3 MOTION Move to approve the request for a 5-year IFEC for Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. for a total personal property investment of $1,471,000 by adopting the attached resolution. I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER

118 CITY OF AUBURN HILLS RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE FOR INALFA ROOF SYSTEMS At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan, held in the Council Chambers at 1827 N. Squirrel Road, Auburn Hills MI on the 15th day of October, The following resolution was offered by Councilperson Councilperson and supported by WHEREAS, pursuant to P.A. 198, 1974, M.C.L et seq., after a duly noticed public hearing held on the 15 h Day of October, 2012, the City of Auburn Hills, established an Industrial Development District, commonly referred to as the Pacific Holdings Industrial Development District; and WHEREAS, Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. has filed an application for an Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate with the Clerk of the City of Auburn Hills with respect to proposed personal property to be acquired and installed within the Pacific Holdings Industrial Development District; and WHEREAS, before acting on said application, the City Council of Auburn Hills held a hearing on the 15th day of October, 2012 at a regularly scheduled meeting, at which time the applicant, the assessor, and a representative of the affected taxing units were given written notice and were afforded an opportunity to be heard on said application; and WHEREAS, construction and installation of the facility has not begun earlier than six (6) months before September 4, 2012, the date of the acceptance of the application for the Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate; and WHEREAS, completion of the facility is calculated to and will at the time of issuance of the certificate have the reasonable likelihood to retain, create or prevent the loss of employment in Auburn Hills; and WHEREAS, the aggregate SEV of real and personal property exempt from ad valorem taxes within the City of Auburn Hills after granting this certificate will exceed 5% of an amount equal to the sum of the SEV of the unit, plus the SEV of personal and real property thus exempted.

119 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of Auburn Hills that: 1. The City Council of Auburn Hills finds and determines that the granting of this Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate, together with the aggregate amount of the certificates previously granted and currently in force, under PA 198 of 1974, and PA 225 of 1978, shall not have the effect of substantially impeding the operation of the City of Auburn Hills, or of impairing the financial soundness of a taxing unit which levies an ad valorem property tax in the City of Auburn Hills. 2. The application for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate with respect to a New Facility on the following described parcel of real property situated within the Pacific Holdings Industrial Development District; to wit; Legal Description T3N, R10E, SEC 4 PONTIAC ACRES SUB PART OF LOTS 1 TO 7 INCL, ALSO PART OF LOT 15, ALSO ALL OF LOT 16, ALSO PART OF LOT 17, ALSO PART OF SE 1/4 ALL DESC AS BEG AT PT DIST N W 60 FT & S W FT FROM SE SEC COR, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH N E 7.56 FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH N E FT, TH S E FT TO BEG FR 011, 012 & The real property parcel is also identified as , having an address of 3900 Joslyn Road, Auburn Hills, MI is hereby approved for Personal Property Improvements only. 3. The Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate shall remain in force and effect for a period of five (5) years, and the starting date for the certificate is December 31, 2012 and the ending date is December 30, The total project investment approved is $1,471, Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. agrees to operate the facility for which the Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate is granted for the term of the certificate, plus an additional two years after the date of the expiration. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS:

120 RESOLUTION ADOPTED STATE OF MICHIGAN) )SS COUNTY OF OAKLAND) I, the undersigned, the duly appointed City Clerk for the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Auburn Hills City Council held on the 15 th day of October, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official signature on this October, day of Terri Kowal, City Clerk

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 9. To: From: Mayor and City Council Peter E. Auger, City Manager and Micheal R. Lohmeier, City Assessor Submitted: October 1, 2012 Subject: Public Hearing and Request to Approve IFEC New Personal Property for Dieomatic Inc. dba P&F Systems ASSESSING INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY An application for an IFEC has been received for Personal Property to be located at 3800 Lapeer Road and on assessment parcel The request was submitted by Dieomatic Inc. dba P&F Systems (Dieomatic) on August 3, 2012, and as of this date the personal property had not been purchased yet. This application involves personal property improvement include computers, telephone systems, ERP, EDI and CAD, network infrastructures, furniture and machinery and equipment (i.e., weldlines, CMM, Lathe, and Grinder). The total project investment is $18,804,000 and is anticipated to result in an expected 195 new jobs. Personal Property is defined by the city s Property Tax Incentive Policy to include: 1 machinery, equipment, furniture, fixtures and similar items as defined in the General Property Tax Act and that are utilized by the business in producing the end product or service of the business and real property assessable as personal property pursuant to sections 8(d) and 14(6) of the general property tax act, 1893 PA 206, MCL and The project proposed in this application would be eligible for consideration of an IFEC under the provision of the city s Property Tax Incentive Policy, as 2 A. New facility (IFEC) industrial real property and land improvements, and personal property, other than a replacement facility to be built or installed in a plant rehabilitation district or industrial development district by an existing business or a new business, as provided in PA 198, 1974 as amended may be granted a 50% tax incentive for up to eight (8) years based upon the criteria included in this policy. The minimum investment by a business in a new facility shall meet one of the following requirements C. The installation and/or location on more than a temporary basis of new equipment, furniture or other personal property with an estimated value of the new personal property in excess of $250,000, or 10% of the historical cost of current personal property 1 March 19, Ibid.

134 Page 2 Tenant Occupancy Dieomatic will be the tenant for this property and the personal property applied for will be owned by it. Section VI of the Property Tax Incentive Policy 3 provides: Applicants requesting Tax Incentives for a facility under a lease must provide a lease that includes an initial length of lease equal to the length of the incentive plus the additional two or four years as required in A. or B. above. Options to extend a lease will not be counted as part of the initial term of the lease. Dieomatic has applied for seven (7) years. Given the executed lease, combined with the city s policy requirements to continue operations at the facility for 2 years beyond the term of the certificate, the length of the incentive would be eligible for eight (8) years. Therefore Dieomatic s request is within the requirements of the city s policy. The taxes that will be generated by the investment during a 7-year certificate period will be approximately $474,868, including $223,728 in city revenues. Industrial Development District This personal property is going to be located in two established Industrial Development Districts. Property Tax Appeals There is a 2012 pending real property tax appeal involving 3800 Lapeer Road, filed by 3800 Lapeer LLC and 3800 Lapeer Investor. To the best of staff s knowledge there are no pending appeals involving the applicant. TAX INCENTIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (TIRC) This application went before the city s Tax Incentive Review Committee on September 10, Ms. Janice Thomas (Government Projects Program Administrator at Magna International) was present to speak about this request. Motion by Mr. Iacobelli to forward to city council, contingent upon an executed lease agreement with a 9 year term (minimum), a recommendation for approval of an IFEC [personal property] for Dieomatic, Inc. at 3800 Lapeer Rd. for 7 years, with the term of 12/31/2012 through 12/30/2019 and the requirement to stay in this facility an additional 2 years after the certificate expires. [Legal Description: T3N, R10E, SEC 2 PART OF SE 1/4 BEG AT PT DIST N W FT & N E FT FROM S 1/4 COR, TH N W 350 FT, TH N E FT, TH S E FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT TO BEG A FR 008, 009, 026, 027 & 028] Supported by Mr. Landsberg Motion carried (4-0) 3 Ibid.

135 Page 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION At the time this application went before TIRC only a draft of a lease was provided. Since TIRC met, an executed lease has been provided which indicates a commencement date of October 2012 and its lease duration of 10 years and 3 months. Based on reviewing the city s tax incentive policy, Dieomatic actually qualifies for eight years. Mr. Lohmeier asked Mr. Frank Ervin if he would like to revise his application to eight years and he indicated that he would prefer to still apply for seven (7) years. Therefore, based on reviewing the application, the TIRC s recommendation and the executed lease, staff recommends approval of the application for seven (7) years as requested, which would still allow for the applicant to meet the residence requirements. MOTION Move to approve the request for a 7-year IFEC for Dieomatic Inc. dba P&F Systems for a total personal property investment of $18,804,000 by adopting the attached resolution. I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER

136 CITY OF AUBURN HILLS RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE FOR DIEOMATIC INC. DBA P&F SYSTEMS At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan, held in the Council Chambers at 1827 N. Squirrel Road, Auburn Hills MI on the 15th day of October, The following resolution was offered by Councilperson Councilperson and supported by WHEREAS, pursuant to P.A. 198, 1974, M.C.L et seq., after a duly noticed public hearing held on the 18 h Day of November, 1985, the City of Auburn Hills, established an Industrial Development District, commonly referred to as the Gardiner Brothers Industrial Development District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to P.A. 198, 1974, M.C.L et seq., after a duly noticed public hearing held on the 23rd Day of October, 2000, the City of Auburn Hills, established an Industrial Development District, commonly referred to as the Bekaert ECD Solar Systems LLC Industrial Development District; and WHEREAS, Dieomatic Inc. DBA P&F Systems has filed an application for an Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate with the Clerk of the City of Auburn Hills with respect to proposed personal property to be acquired and installed within the Gardiner Brothers Industrial Development District and the Bekaert ECD Solar Systems LLC Industrial Development District; and WHEREAS, before acting on said application, the City Council of Auburn Hills held a hearing on the 15th day of October, 2012 at a regularly scheduled meeting, at which time the applicant, the assessor, and a representative of the affected taxing units were given written notice and were afforded an opportunity to be heard on said application; and WHEREAS, construction and installation of the facility has not begun earlier than six (6) months before August 3, 2012, the date of the acceptance of the application for the Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate; and WHEREAS, completion of the facility is calculated to and will at the time of issuance of the certificate have the reasonable likelihood to retain, create or prevent the loss of employment in Auburn Hills; and WHEREAS, the aggregate SEV of real and personal property exempt from ad valorem taxes within the City of Auburn Hills after granting this certificate will exceed

137 5% of an amount equal to the sum of the SEV of the unit, plus the SEV of personal and real property thus exempted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of Auburn Hills that: 1. The City Council of Auburn Hills finds and determines that the granting of this Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate, together with the aggregate amount of the certificates previously granted and currently in force, under PA 198 of 1974, and PA 225 of 1978, shall not have the effect of substantially impeding the operation of the City of Auburn Hills, or of impairing the financial soundness of a taxing unit which levies an ad valorem property tax in the City of Auburn Hills. 2. The application for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate with respect to a New Facility on the following described parcel of real property situated within the Gardiner Brothers Industrial Development District and the Bekaert ECD Solar Systems LLC Industrial Development District; to wit; Legal Description T3N, R10E, SEC 2 PART OF SE 1/4 BEG AT PT DIST N W FT & N E FT FROM S 1/4 COR, TH N W 350 FT, TH N E FT, TH S E FT, TH S W FT, TH N W FT, TH S W FT TO BEG A FR 008, 009, 026, 027 & 028 The real property parcel is also identified as , having an address of 3800 Lapeer Road, Auburn Hills, MI is hereby approved for Personal Property Improvements only. 3. The Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate shall remain in force and effect for a period of seven (7) years, and the starting date for the certificate is December 31, 2012 and the ending date is December 30, The total project investment approved is $18,804, Dieomatic Inc. DBA P&F Systems agrees to operate the facility for which the Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate is granted for the term of the certificate, plus an additional two years after the date of the expiration. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: RESOLUTION ADOPTED

138 STATE OF MICHIGAN) )SS COUNTY OF OAKLAND) I, the undersigned, the duly appointed City Clerk for the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Auburn Hills City Council held on the 15 th day of October, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official signature on this October, day of Terri Kowal, City Clerk

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA O CTOBER 15, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 9. ASSESSING To: Mayor and City Council From: Peter E. Auger, City Manager and Micheal R. Lohmeier, City Assessor Submitted: October 1, 2012 Subject: Public Hearing and Request to Approve Extension of IFEC for BAE Industries Inc INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY A request for an extension of IFEC has been received for real property and personal property from BAE Industries Inc for a facility located at 1426 Pacific Drive. Existing Certificate IFEC was approved for 6 years with an expiration of December 30, It includes both real property and personal property. The certificate was for the following amounts: Real property component: $150,000 Personal property component: $4,005,612 Under Public Act 198, as amended, if an Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate was issued for less than 12 years; (a) The owner or lessee of the replacement facility, new facility, or speculative building may, within the final year in which the certificate is effective, within 12 months after the certificate expires, or, as permitted by the local governmental unit, at any other time in which the certificate is in effect apply for another certificate under this act. If the legislative body of a local governmental unit disapproves an application submitted under this subdivision, then the applicant has no right of appeal of that decision as described in section 6. (b) The legislative body of a local governmental unit shall not approve applications for certificates the sum of whose periods exceeds the maximum permitted under section 16 for the user or lessee of a replacement facility, new facility, or speculative building. (Amended in 2008, Act 306, Imd. Eff. Dec 18, 2008). The decision to approve or disapprove an application for an additional certificate to extend the benefit of the abatement is strictly discretionary by the legislative body of the local governmental unit, and there is no right to appeal.

165 Page 2 Extension of Certificate Section VI of the Property Tax Incentive Policy 1 provides: Applicants requesting Tax Incentives for a facility under a lease must provide a lease that includes an initial length of lease equal to the length of the incentive plus the additional two or four years as required in A. or B. above. Options to extend a lease will not be counted as part of the initial term of the lease. BAE Industries Inc. has requested City Council approve extending the abatement for another 5 years which would provide for the maximum based on its current lease expiration. Lease commenced October 25, Lease duration 15 years. BAE Industries Inc. has agreed to remain in the facility for an additional 4 years after the expiration of the certificate. The lease provides for the certificate and business residence periods. If the certificate is extended for the additional 5 years, BAE Industries Inc. will save an additional $57,608 in taxes, including $23,765 in city taxes. Pending Property Tax Appeal(s) There is an existing appeal involving the ad valorem real property parcel under MTT Docket The appeal is for tax years 2010, 2011 and STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on reviewing the application, the executed lease, and the city s tax incentive policy, staff recommends approval of the extension for five (5) years, as requested. MOTION Move to approve the request for an additional five (5) years of abatement for BAE Industries Inc. and IFEC with the adoption of the attached resolution with the condition that BAE Industries Inc. agrees to operate the facility for an additional five (5) years after expiration of the certificate. I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER 1 Ibid.

166 RESOLUTION APPROVING ADDITIONAL YEARS FOR THE FACILITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE for BAE INDUSTRIES INC. At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan, held in the Council Chambers at 1827 N. Squirrel Road, Auburn Hills MI at 7:00 p.m. on the 15 th day of October, The following resolution was offered by Councilperson and supported by Councilperson : WHEREAS, the City of Auburn Hills and the State Tax Commission approved an Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate in the year 2006 for BAE Industries Inc. for a facility located at 1426 Pacific Drive, and WHEREAS, the certificate, known as Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate , was approved for 6 years for real property and personal property, and WHEREAS, BAE Industries Inc. has requested that another certificate be granted for additional years for the facility under Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate as provided by Public Act 198, of 1974, Sec 16a, and WHEREAS, the Clerk has notified in writing the Assessor of the City of Auburn Hills and the legislative body of each taxing unit which levies ad valorem property tax within the City of Auburn Hills and given notice to the general public so that they shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard at this public hearing to determine whether the extension of the Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate shall be approved or disapproved; and WHEREAS, the aggregate SEV of real and personal property exempt from ad valorem taxes within the city of Auburn Hills after granting this certificate will exceed 5% of an amount equal to the sum of the SEV of the unit, plus the SEV of personal and real property exempted. WHEREAS, it is hereby found and determined by the City of Auburn Hills Council that the granting of another certificate for the facility previously approved under Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate is reasonable and proper, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the request for another certificate to extend the years approved under Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate for real property and personal property for the facility located at 1426 Pacific Drive is hereby approved, and

167 The City Council of Auburn Hills finds and determines that granting of this Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate, together with the aggregate amount of the certificates previously granted and currently in force, under PA 198 of 1974 and PA 255 of 1978, shall not have the affect of substantially impeding the operating of the City of Auburn Hills, or of impairing the financial soundness of a taxing unit which levies an ad valorem property tax in the City of Auburn Hills. That another certificate be granted to extend the years approved under Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate for an additional five (5) years for real property and personal property, and That BAE Industries Inc. hereby agrees to occupy and operate the facility approved for the new Industrial Facility Exemption Certificate and located at 1426 Pacific Drive for an additional four (4) years beginning on 12/30/2017. The City Clerk shall send an original copy of this resolution to the State Tax Commission. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: STATE OF MICHIGAN) )SS COUNTY OF OAKLAND) RESOLUTION I, the undersigned, the duly qualified and appointed Clerk of the City of Auburn Hills, Oakland County, Michigan do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15 th day of October, 2012 the original of which is on file in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official signature on this XXth day of October, Terri Kowal, City Clerk

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA O CTOBER 1 5, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 9 J. FINANCE DEPARTMENT To: Mayor and City Council From: Peter E. Auger, City Manager; Gary L. Barnes, Finance Director Submitted: October 12, 2012 Subject: Public hearing and Motion Adopt 2013 Budget and Millage Rates INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY The City s proposed 2013 fiscal year budget is attached for your review. The enclosed budget includes the planned revenues, operating expenses, and capital outlays for each fund. In addition, the budget includes the planned tax millage for the 2012 tax year which provides tax revenues to support the 2013 budget. Fiscal year 2013 Budget Overview Tax Millage The proposed millage of ( including the Library s dedicated millage of.7041) is the same as the prior year and has remained the same for the seventh consecutive year. The city s total millage has declined or remained the same for the past twenty years. The City s and the Library s millage rates and the resulting tax revenues are used entirely to support the operations of the City and Library respectively as there no outstanding debt millages for either entity. Revenues The City s total revenue for the 2013 budget is $52.8 million. After excluding internal revenues sources, the total net revenues are budgeted at $44.1 million which is approximately $326 thousand or.7% higher than the projected 2012 net revenues of $43.8 million. Property tax revenues, which represent 43.1% of the City s total net revenues, will decline by $861,000 or 4.4% from The 2012 property tax values are set at 5.54% lower than the prior tax year. The City s reliance on tax revenues is more evident if its 2013 budgeted tax revenues of $19.0 million are compared to its net revenues excluding the revenues in the Water and Sewer proprietary funds in which case the tax revenues compose 65.5% of the City s net revenues. For tax years 2011 and prior, the City has approximately 107 tax appeals outstanding as opposed to 212 cases outstanding at same time last year for the 2010 tax year and prior. There are an additional 62 cases that are outstanding for the 2012 tax valuations which are 2 less than the 64 cases outstanding as of last year for the 2011 tax year. The City will budget an additional reserve of approximately $300,000 in Service charge revenues in the Water and Sewer funds will continue to increase due to biannual rate increases which will be no lower than the cost increase percent that is enacted by the Detroit Water & Sewer Department. The 2013 service charge revenues for the combined water/sewer fund are anticipated to be $14.4 million which will be $1.0 million higher than the projected amount for 2012 and will result in a $500,000 increase in the Water/Sewer s cash fund balance. Expenses The 2013 total expense budget of $59.8 million will be $3.4 million higher than the 2012 projected expenses. The increase amount will be slightly less at $3.2 million if interfund expenses are eliminated from the comparison. While the 2013 budget includes $9.9 million for capital outlay expenditures which appears higher than the expected 2012 capital outlay of $9.2 million, the 2013 capital budget includes $2.0 million of matching City funds ($1.0 million each in TIFA B & D) for the potential I-75/University bridge project. The primary areas contributing to the $3.2 million expense increase include 1) increased expenses of $900,000 due to expected O:\CITY COUNCIL PACKET\OCTOBER 15\9j. Cover Memo Budget And Millage Rates.Doc

187 Page 2 rate increases in the purchase of water and sewer treatment costs, and 2) a combined increase of $1.7 million in the three TIFA funds for non-capital road and maintenance projects (Seyburn Drive - $200,000 and University Landscape project with Oakland University $200,000), site improvement grants, ($350,000), and school projects for Pontiac ($100,000) and Avondale ($750,000). Since the commitment to Avondale School projects will be directed toward the University Center downtown, it will effectively reduce additional capital expenditures that the City would have had to pay to complete the University Center. Fund Balances The fund balances in the governmental funds are budgeted to decline from $22.6 million to $20.6 million or almost $2.0 million, virtually of which will be in the General fund. The General fund 2012 revenues will decline by $664,000 of which $500,000 is due to a decrease in tax revenues. The decline in the fund balance will occur even though the General fund s expenditures for 2013 budget are being reduced by $2.4 million from the prior year. Despite the fund balance decline, the General fund is projected to have a fund balance equal to 74% of its annual expenditures as of December 31, 2013 which is substantially more than the minimum recommended practice goal of 15% set forth by the GFOA. The component unit funds, composed of the TIFAs and Brownfield Authority, are budgeted to have a fund balance decline of approximately $6.0 million. The decrease is largely due to the collective capital budget amount of $5.7 million as well as the $1.7 million non-capital expenses described above. As noted previously, the TIFA capital budgets include $2.0 million for the I-75 replacement bridge which is dependent on the City receiving a substantial grant for the project before it can consider moving ahead with this major project. The proprietary funds consisting of the Water/Sewer fund and the Fieldstone Golf fund are expected to increase their cash fund balances by $1.4 million. The Water/Sewer fund is projected to increase by $500,000 while the Fieldstone Golf fund will increase by almost $900,000 due to the final $1.5 million transfer from the General fund in The golf fund will have satisfied the state approved deficit elimination plan in 2013, and the transfers in the future to support its operations during the remaining years of the outstanding bonds (paid off in 2017) will decline to $450,000 per year. As a result of the continued declining tax revenues and less state and federal funding, the City has responded aggressively to control its operating costs, particularly payroll and benefit costs. In the General fund which has 148 of the full-time positions or 87% of the total, the payroll and benefit costs for the 2013 budget are virtually flat compared to the 2012 projected amount. The expenditures will increase primarily as a result of capital outlays, infrastructure improvements, and continued development of the downtown area. The 2013 budget allows for the City s continued growth, maintains its financial health, and includes capital projects that will allow the City to prosper and be financially stronger in the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends acceptance of the 2013 Budget as submitted for the City of Auburn Hills and the Library. The staff also recommends approval of the proposed millages for the City and the Library for the 2012 tax year which will be maintained at the same level as the prior year. MOTION Move to accept and adopt the proposed 2013 budgets for the City and the Library, and to approve the proposed millages for the City and Library for the 2012 tax year. I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER

188 C ITY OF A UBURN H ILLS C ITY C OUNCIL A GENDA D ATE: O CTOBER 11, 2012 A GENDA I TEM N O. 9 K. To: Mayor and City Council From: Peter E. Auger, City Manager; Gary L. Barnes, Finance Director Submitted: October 12, 2012 Subject: Proposed 2012 Budget Amendments INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY The annual financial report required and accordance with GASB standards includes a detailed financial report of the General Fund s revenues and expenditures. Material variances from the budgeted amounts must also be reported with clarifications and/or reasons for any unfavorable variances. In addition, the Treasury Department at the State of Michigan requires municipalities to file a separate report if the General Fund s actual amounts are unfavorable to the adopted budget amounts. The attached schedule lists two transfer changes and seven property parcel acquisitions (that will be in part or in their entirety be completely executed in 2012) that were not included in the City s adopted 2012 budget. Because of the magnitude of the expense amounts, there is a strong possibility that the General Fund s actual expenditures will exceed the adopted 2012 budget amount. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In order to avoid the necessity of including additional material in the City s annual financial report for 2012 as well as satisfying the additional reporting that will be required by the Treasury Department, staff is recommending that all of the transactions listed on the attached schedule be approved as 2012 budget amendments. Each of the transactions was discussed with the Council either at the budget workshops or in executive sessions of the City Council with respect to the property acquisitions. MOTION Move to approve all of the items on the attached schedule as 2012 budget amendments which in total increase the City s government fund revenues/transfers by $575,000 and increase the City s government fund expenditures/transfers by $1,416,459. I CONCUR: on behalf of PETER E. AUGER, CITY MANAGER O:\CITY COUNCIL PACKET\OCTOBER 15\Cover Memo.Proposed 2012 Budget Amendments.Doc

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213