**APPROVED MINUTES**

 

 

Mason, Michigan

July 26, 2007

 

 

The Board of Ingham County Road Commissioners met for a regular meeting on Thursday, July 26, 2007, at 6:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the Ingham County Road Commission’s Austin E. Cavanaugh Administration Building at 301 N. Bush Street, Mason, Michigan.

 

Present:  Larry R. Smith, Chair, Joseph A. Guenther, Vice Chair, and Shirley M. Rodgers, Commissioner.

 

Also Present:  John W. Midgley, Managing Director, Deborah L. Bellows, Secretary to the Board, Kathryn M. Haves, Administrative Services Director, and Robert H. Peterson, Director of Engineering.

 

Absent & Excused:  Joseph D. Pulver, Director of Operations.

 

Others Present:  Dan Chapman, ICRC Engineering Dept. employee and OPEIU Chief Steward, Duane Yerks, ICRC Fleet Manager and SEIU President, Will Comstock, ICRC employee, Chuck Hicks, ICRC employee, Carl Langham, ICRC employee, Wayne Oglesbee, ICRC employee, and Tom Doyle, ICRC employee.

 

AGENDA ITEM #4 – LATE ITEMS.

 

A.         Add as Agenda Item #13A, authorization to sign the construction contract for the Lake Lansing Road construction project.

 

AGENDA ITEM #4 – CONSENT AGENDA.

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers, that the following items be approved under consent:

 

A.         Agenda Item #9, minutes of the meeting of June 28, 2007.

B.         Agenda Item #10, routine and special permits.

 

3 yes, 0 no.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

            Agenda Item #9 – Minutes.

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers, that the minutes of the meeting of June 28, 2007, be approved as presented.  3 yes, 0 no.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

            Agenda Item #10 – Routine and Special Permits.

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers, that routine and special permits be approved as follows:

 

07-0375 07-0385 07-0386 07-0387 07-0388 07-0389

07-0390 07-0391 07-0392 07-0393 07-0398 07-0400

07-0401 07-0402 07-0403 07-0404 07-0405 07-0406

07-0409 07-0420 07-0421 07-0422 07-0423 07-0424

07-0425 07-0426 07-0427 07-0428 07-0429 07-0430

07-0432 07-0433 07-0434 07-0435 07-0436 07-0437

07-0440 07-0441 07-0443 07-0444 07-0445 07-0450

07-0066 07-0394 07-0396 07-0397 07-0399 07-0407

07-0408 07-0410 07-0411 07-0412 07-0413 07-0414

07-0415 07-0416 07-0418 07-0417 07-0419 07-0438

07-0439 07-0442 07-0447 07-0448 07-0449

 

Permit #07-0395 for the Leslie 5k run/walk to be held on July 27, 2007, from 6:45 PM to 9:00 PM.  The event is sponsored by the Ann Arbor Track Club and is sanctioned by Leslie Township.  (confirm MD approval)

 

Permit #07-0431 for conducting the Holt Hometown Festival parade to be held on August 25, 2007, from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM.  The event is sponsored by the Holt Hometown Festival and is sanctioned by Delhi Township.

 

Permit #07-0446 for the purpose of conducting a benefit motorcycle ride for Pushin’ A Cure for MRSA on August 11, 2007, from 1:00 PM to 10:00 PM.  The event is sponsored by the Onondaga Tavern and is sanctioned by Onondaga Township.

 

3 yes, 0 no.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

AGENDA ITEM #11 – MANAGING DIRECTOR REPORTS.

 

A.         MCRCSIP Refund.  The refund from MCRCSIP will be $293,316.00.

 

B.         Rental of Equipment.  The Eaton County Road Commission has requested the rental of our truck mounted distributor (#100), plus driver, for the week of July 30th.  Apparently theirs was involved in an accident and is not functional.  They will be charged $45.75 per hour for the equipment and $35.05 (straight time) per hour for the operator.  Any overtime will be based on time and a half the normal labor rate.  The Eaton County Road Commission is working four 10 hour days, so our employee will be working from 6:00 AM until 4:30 PM (minimum) each day.  This should only be for one week.

 

C.         Towar Gardens Project.  Ingham County Drain Commissioner Pat Lindemann has requested assistance by the Road Commission in making the intersection of Lake Lansing Road and Towar Avenue more pedestrian friendly.  There will be some signal issues, but the Road Commission’s signal technician is currently looking at what adjustments will have to be made in order to accomplish the Drain Commissioner’s goal. 

 

Chair Smith asked who would pay for the improvements.  Mr. Midgley stated the Drain Commissioner would cover the cost as part of the drain improvements his office is currently working on in Towar Gardens.  Improvements to this intersection are part of the Drain Commission’s project.  In response to a question by Commissioner Rodgers, Mr. Midgley stated the road bed itself would not be disturbed but there will need to be cuts made to the curb lip.

 

Commissioner Rodgers asked who would be doing the plans for this improvement.  Mr. Midgley stated the Drain Commissioner’s consultant, Fitzgerald Henne.  Director of Engineering Bob Peterson stated that Fitzgerald Henne has worked on the Towar Gardens project and this is all part of that project.  Commissioner Rodgers asked if discussions have been held with the neighborhood.  Chair Smith stated many, many meetings have been held with the neighborhood regarding the entire Towar Gardens project.

 

Vice Chair Guenther suggested staff go back over the original plans to see if these proposed curb cuts were included.  He said the Drain Commissioner wants to do this work at the intersection next week.  Vice Chair Guenther stated he believes the Drain Commissioner’s intent is to put in a paved crosswalk within the existing island.

 

Mr. Midgley said he would be discussing this with the Road Commission’s signal people to determine what can be done to accommodate the pedestrian crossing.  Vice Chair Guenther asked if this was already in the plans.  Mr. Midgley stated he did not believe so, as this suggestion was just recently made to the Drain Commissioner by Meridian Township.  Mr. Peterson said this proposed pedestrian crossing at this location was not in the original plans.  Vice Chair Guenther stated if we can plan for this and it is feasible to do, then he would not have a problem with it.  Mr. Midgley stated the work would involve a disruption to traffic flow while the signal changes are being made.

 

Commissioner Rodgers stated if this year is the second year of the Towar drain project, then why wasn’t this discussed in the original plan.  Chair Smith stated he doesn’t remember it ever coming up.  Mr. Peterson said it was not in the original plan.  Commissioner Rodgers stated it appears we are responding to a request – is there enough pedestrian traffic to warrant a pedestrian crossing?  Maybe we should have been a little more proactive during the initial planning phases.

 

Chair Smith stated this is a Drain Commission project, not the Road Commission, and it wasn’t anything that was initially planned.  He said that during the course of this project, the Drain Commissioner has come to the Road Commission and asked for some things, but this is not the Road Commission’s project and we are not otherwise involved in it.  Commissioner Rodgers asked, though, wouldn’t we have looked ahead at the beginning to see what all would be impacted.  Chair Smith stated this is something new, and, no, the Road Commission wasn’t involved in the planning phases of the Drain Commissioner’s Towar Gardens project.

 

D.         Meeting Cancellation.  A reminder that the regular meeting scheduled for August 9th will be cancelled and rescheduled for August 8th to begin at 8:00 A.M.  The Board will be taking a road tour of various projects and then returning to the Road Commission offices for its regular business meeting.

 

AGENDA ITEM #12 – ACCOUNTS PAYABLE.

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers, that the accounts payable be approved as follows:

 

A.                  Accounts payable for the period from June 25-July 8, 2007.  Check numbers #88668 through #88748, totaling $463,184.59 (which includes payroll wire transfer, MERS, 4D and PEHP wire transfers). 

 

B.                  Accounts payable for the period from July 9-22, 2007.  Check numbers #88749 through #88840, totaling $501,592.25 (which includes payroll wire transfer, MERS, 4D and PEHP wire transfers).

 

3 yes, 0 no.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

AGENDA ITEM #5 – BONDING RESOLUTION.

 

The Board’s Bond Attorney, Patrick Berardo, presented to the Board, an alternative to the bonding process.  He said that in complying with the IRS and the Board’s statutory authority, Section 10 of the road statute provides for the entering of installment contracts for payment.  Mr. Berardo stated that road commissions can only issue bonds or notes for road construction.  The projects that the Road Commission wants to do are buildings and grounds improvements.  He indicated the Road Commission would have a contract with the vendor and the contract, called an installment contract, would be assigned to a bank and the bank would issue a check to the Road Commission, and the Road Commission would then pay the vendor.  Mr. Berardo said his office would select the banking institution to, in essence, loan this amount to the Road Commission.  He said the interest rates are very favorable right now and by using this method, it will save the Road Commission the bonding fees. 

 

Commissioner Rodgers asked if all of the projects will be able to be done this way.  Mr. Berardo said yes.  Vice Chair Guenther asked if the bank will issue payment directly to the vendor.  Mr. Berardo said no, the payment will be issued to the Road Commission, and the Road Commission will issue a check to the vendor. 

 

Mr. Berardo recommended adoption of the first resolution to get the process started.  Commissioner Rodgers asked if this method of borrowing money will save the Road Commission any money.  Mr. Berardo said yes, it will save on the bonding fees and his attorney fees will be reduced to about half of the quoted charge.

 

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE BOARD’S BOND ATTORNEY TO PROCEED WITH THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS OR INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING CERTAIN PROJECTS.

 

RESOLUTION #106-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

WHEREAS:

 

1.         The Road Commission intends to issue bonds or installment purchase agreements for the purpose of financing the projects identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto, as well as engineering, contingency, financing, and issuance costs (referred to herein as the “Projects”); and

 

2.         The Internal Revenue Service authorizes, by regulation, the allocation of bond or installment purchase agreement proceeds to reimburse expenditures previously made by an issuer of bonds or installment purchase agreements, being Section 1.150-2 of the federal tax regulations; and

 

3.         In anticipation and preparation for the Projects, the Board may incur certain expenses in advance of the receipt of bond or installment purchase agreement proceeds; and

 

4.         Payments of any such expenses for the Projects made by the Board are an advance from the General Operating Fund, or such other fund(s) as approved by the Board, to be repaid upon the approval and receipt of bond or installment purchase agreement proceeds.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

 

1.         All of the payments of expenses for the Projects initially to be made with funds other than proceeds of the bonds or installment purchase agreements and then to be reimbursed by the Board from proceeds of the bonds or installment purchase agreements will be for costs of a type properly chargeable to the capital account of the Projects under general income tax principles, non-recurring working capital expenditures (of a type not customarily payable from current revenues), or costs of issuing the bonds or installment purchase agreements.  Other than any preliminary expenditures for architectural, engineering, surveying, soil testing, costs of issuing the bonds or installment purchase agreements, or similar purposes that may have been paid more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of this resolution, all such expenditures have been paid not more than sixty (60) days earlier than the date of this resolution or will be paid on or after the date of this resolution.

 

2.         The payments of expenses for the Projects and the purposes of said payments are hereby approved, and the monies are authorized to be advanced from monies on hand in the General Operating Fund, or such other fund(s) as may be approved by the Board, which monies will be repaid to the fund, respectively, from the bond or installment purchase agreement proceeds when received.

 

3.         The Board shall reimburse the General Operating Fund, or such other fund(s) as approved by the Board, not earlier than the date on which the expenses for the projects are paid and not later than the latter of:

 

            (a)        the date that is eighteen (18) months after the expense are paid, or

 

(b)        the date the Projects, or any portion thereof, is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three (3) years after the expenses are paid.

 

4.         All resolutions and parts of resolutions insofar as they conflict with the provisions of this resolution be, and the same are, hereby rescinded.

 

EXHIBIT A

PROJECT LIST

 

            ITEM                                                                 ESTIMATED COST

 

Dismantle and Replace Existing Radio Tower                   $  50,000.00

 

Construct Metro District Salt Storage Building                  $225,000.00

 

Mason Complex – Demo part of Block Storage

     Building, Repair Roof, Repaint Building                       $  15,000.00

 

Mason Complex – Construct New Storage Building           $150,000.00

 

Mason Complex – Install Electronic Scales for

     Permits and Operations                                             $  15,000.00

 

Mason Complex – Remove and Replace Tile

     Flooring in the Sign Shop                                           $    6,000.00

 

 

Chair Smith informed Mr. Berardo that he was to work with the Secretary to the Board and the Director of Operations for project and payment coordination.

 

LAKE LANSING ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.

 

Director of Engineering Bob Peterson stated the Lake Lansing Road project is finally ready to begin.  The contractor is scheduled to start the project on August 6th.  He said an agreement has been reached with the Drain Commissioner for reimbursement to the Road Commission by the Groesbeck Park Extension Drainage District (through the Ingham County Drain Commissioner) for the work that will be performed by our contractor for the drainage district.  The official Agreement between the Road Commission and the Drain Commissioner is ready for approval and signing.  Mr. Peterson stated the construction contract with C&D Hughes is also ready for approval and signing by the Board.  He recommended that the Board consider approval and signing of both Agreements.

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER THROUGH THE GROESBECK PARK EXTENSION DRAINAGE DISTRICT FOR WORK TO BE PERFORMED AS PART OF THE LAKE LANSING ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.

 

RESOLUTION #107-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Rodgers and Supported by Commissioner Guenther.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Director of Engineering, the Board approves and authorizes the Chair and Secretary to sign, an Agreement with the Groesbeck Park Extension Drainage District, through the Ingham County Drain Commissioner, for various items of construction to be performed by the Road Commission’s contractor on the Lake Lansing Road construction project for, and on behalf of, the Groesbeck Park Extension Drainage District.  The work is estimated to cost $307,243.21 and the actual cost will be reimbursed to the Road Commission by the Groesbeck Park Extension Drainage District, through the Ingham County Drain Commissioner.

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING AND SIGNING OF THE CONTRACT WITH C&D HUGHES INC. OF CHARLOTTE, MICHIGAN, FOR THE LAKE LANSING ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.

 

RESOLUTION #108-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Director of Engineering, the Board approves the construction contract for the Lake Lansing Road construction project with C & D Hughes of Charlotte, Michigan, for a total estimated contract amount of $1,656,738.35.

 

AGENDA ITEM #13D – FINAL PLAT OF WHITEHILLS LAKES SOUTH.

 

Director of Engineering Bob Peterson reviewed the Final Plat of Whitehills Lakes South and recommended approval.  There is also a Bituminous Pavement Agreement to be signed by the Board.

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF WHITEHILLS LAKES SOUTH LOCATED IN MERIDIAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP.

 

RESOLUTION #109-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Rodgers and Supported by Commissioner Guenther.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously. 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Director of Engineering, the Board approves the Final Plat of Whitehills Lakes South located in Section 5 of Meridian Charter Township.  The proprietor is Gilbert White.  The Board also approved and signed a Bituminous Pavement Agreement in the amount of $16,000.00.

 

AGENDA ITEM #13E – GALE ROAD BRIDGE STRUCURE OVER WILLOW CREEK.

 

Director of Engineering Bob Peterson reported that the Gale Road Bridge structure over Willow Creek, located just north of Ferris Road in Onondaga Township, has finally reached a point where the deteriorated fascia beams cannot support traffic.  This year, the Road Commission’s bridge consultant has recommended that we convert the bridge to a one lane bridge, which would prevent all live loads from exercising the two outside beams.  This is the same problem that we have experienced in the past couple of years with the Noble Road, Kirby Road and Eifert Road structures. 

 

Mr. Peterson said the recommended remedy to the problem is the same treatment that we installed at Noble Road; i.e., conversion to one lane and reposting.  A detailed inspection and load analysis will be performed to determine the proper posting for the bridge in the one lane configuration, if the Board elects to pursue this option.  He said this structure is eligible for Local Bridge Program replacement funding, but the next call for applications is for the year 2011 funds.  Mr. Peterson said we are limited to only five applications per year, and we just submitted five in 2007.  He indicated he believes the ones submitted this year have a higher priority than Gale Road because of the low amount of vehicular traffic on Gale Road. 

 

Chair Smith asked the traffic volumes on Gale Road.  Mr. Peterson said he didn’t have numbers, but it is a very lightly traveled roadway.

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONVERSION OF THE GALE ROAD BRIDGE TO A ONE LANE STRUCTURE.

 

RESOLUTION #110-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Board agrees with the recommendation of the Director of Engineering to convert the Gale Road Bridge over Willow Creek in Onondaga Township to a one lane bridge and authorizes the Director of Engineering to make application for Local Bridge Program replacement funding for 2011.  The one lane bridge conversion will cost an estimated $3,000.00.

 

AGENDA ITEM #6 – 2007/2008 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PUBLIC HEARING.

 

Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.  He stated the purpose of the public hearing is to review the proposed construction projects for 2007 and 2008 and hear public comment regarding any of the proposed projects.

 

Public Officials present:  Ray Severy, Director of Engineering and Public Works for Meridian Township, and Peter Stoughton, Planning Director for Delhi Township.

 

The notice of the public hearing was published in the East Lansing Towne Courier, Ingham County Community News, Holt Community News, and the Williamston Enterprise on June 24, 2007, and July 15, 2007.

 

Secretary to the Board Deborah Bellows read into the record, the following communications received:

 

1.         Email from David Rector, 1091 Bonanza, Okemos, regarding his opposition to the proposed Okemos Road Enhancements.

2.         Email from Christine Grossman, requesting information on the Cedar Street project. 

3.         Letter from Annette Barton and Michael Mattingly, 2380 N. Wild Blossom Court, East Lansing, regarding their opposition to the Old Interurban Pathway Enhancement.

4.         Letter from Jean Goetz, 735 Knightsford Lane, Okemos, expressing no objection to any of the proposed projects, but offering some additional suggestions.

5.         Email from Michael Wise requesting additional information on the Howell Road project.

 

Road Commission Director of Engineering Bob Peterson reviewed each of the proposed projects as follows:

 

2007:

 

1.                   Howell Road – Meridian Road to Williamston Road.  Add paved shoulder, resurface and minor storm sewer improvements.  Ingham and Wheatfield Townships.  Federal funding.  Estimated Cost:  $675,300.00.

2.                   Marsh Road – Haslett Road to Towner Road.  Resurface with storm sewer improvements.  Meridian Charter Township.  Federal funding.  Estimated Cost: $926,900.00.

3.                   Kirby Road Culvert – West of Kinneville Road intersection.  Replace structure.  Leslie Township.  Road Commission funded.  Estimated Cost:  $45,000.00.

4.                   Eifert Road Culvert – South of Columbia Road intersection over the West Aurelius Drain.  Replace structure.  Aurelius Township.  Road Commission and Township funded.  Estimated Cost: $40,000.00.

5.         Old Inter-Urban Pathway Enhancement – Burcham Drive at the water treatment plant east to Okemos Road.  Paved cross-country pathway along the Consumers’ Energy right of way.  Federal Enhancement Grant funds and township match.  Meridian Charter Township.  Estimated Cost:  $200,100.00.

 

2008:

 

1.         Okemos Road Enhancement – Heritage Drive to Mt. Hope Road.  Decorative paving, plantings and furniture.  Meridian Charter Township.  Federal Enhancement Grant funds and township match.  Estimated cost:  $472,000.00.

2.         Barnes Road – Aurelius Road to College Road.  Add paved shoulder and resurface.  Aurelius Township.  Federal funding.  Estimated Cost: $420,000.00.

3.         Williamston Road – City of Williamston to Haslett Road.  Add paved shoulders and resurface.  Williamstown Township.  Federal funding.  Estimated Cost:  $1,025,000.00.

4.         Haslett Road – At Okemos Road Intersection.  Intersection and signal improvements.  Meridian Charter Township.  Federal CMAQ funding.  Estimated Cost: $350,000.00.

5.         Delhi Township Pathway Enhancement Grant – Holt Road north through Valhalla Park and Maple Ridge Cemetery to Willoughby Road.  Paved cross country pathway construction.  Delhi Charter Township.  Federal Enhancement Grant funds.  Estimated Cost:  $462,000.00.

6.         Cedar Street – Dallas Avenue to Holbrook Drive.  Complete reconstruct with roundabout at Holbrook Drive.  Delhi Charter Township.  Township DDA funded project.  Estimated cost:  $3,800,000.00.  This is phase 1 of a several phase project on Cedar Street running all the way to College Road.

 

Meridian Township Director of Engineering and Public Works, Ray Severy, made a presentation of the proposed Inter-Urban Pathway Enhancement, indicating this has been on the Township’s master plan for about five years (or more).  Concerns have been raised about drainage.  Mr. Severy said all of the condos adjacent to a stretch of this paved pathway are above the pathway, so there should be no drainage problems; also, a ditch will be created that will carry water to the county drain.  Mr. Severy stated that in the communication that was read regarding this proposed pathway, the resident commented that the pathway will be within 15 to 30 feet from living areas and residents will be subjected to noise during construction, as well as noise of walkers, bicyclists and people in general, after construction.  Mr. Severy said the pathway will be, at the least, 45 feet from the back porch of a few of the units, and in most cases, further away than that.  He indicated there is also a heavy line of trees between the condo units and the pathway.  There will also be a six foot high chain link fence with one-inch mesh protecting pathway users from the pond and wetland area.

 

Mr. Severy stated bids are scheduled to be received in September, with construction to begin the first part of October. 

 

Mr. Severy stated that regarding the Okemos Road Enhancement project, the consultant’s conceptual plan is scheduled for review by the Township Board on August 7th.  The Township will be looking for public input on the conceptual drawings, which include street lighting, street furniture, trees, landscaping, and coloration on some sections of the concrete road pavement.

 

Chair Smith asked the purpose of the coloring on the concrete.  Mr. Severy said for beautification and crossing delineation.  The goal of the Township is to do the work in 2008.  He said right now, the plans are strictly conceptual until they have received public input.

 

Chair Smith opened the floor for public comment, and the following was offered:

 

1.         Cheryl Fritze, 2207 White Owl Way, Okemos.  Regarding the proposed Okemos Road Enhancement project, Ms. Fritze stated her concerns are as before and she believes the enhancement project should be for the length of Okemos Road between Jolly Road and Mt. Hope Road.  She said she heard that AT&T wants to do something different with its box that sits along her property line, for enhancement purposes she said, which would include putting in a longer box.  Ms. Fritze stated if this is for enhancement purposes, then why not relocate the box closer to the railroad tracks where it isn’t so visible?

 

2.         Kathleen Lipstraw, 715 Burkley Road, Dansville.  Ms. Lipstraw stated her comments were regarding the Howell Road project.  She said she has been approached for the removal of several trees from in front of her property.  Ms. Lipstraw stated that removing these trees is a hardship for them.  She said she was notified on February 9th that the trees would be removed.  She called Dale Arnett and he told her that all four trees on her property were scheduled for removal.  Ms. Lipstraw asked why these trees need to be removed if all that is being done is resurfacing and paved shoulders?  The trees are already there, why do they have to go?  Ms. Lipstraw stated that someone from the Road Commission’s engineering department told her that because of federal grant guidelines, all of the trees have to be removed.  She indicated that two of the four trees were removed today, someone has agreed to save the Sycamore tree, and there remains one that she does not want cut down.  Ms. Lipstraw submitted pictures of the trees.

 

Chair Smith asked which tree it was that she was asking to save.  Ms. Lipstraw stated it is the one standing alone in the picture.  She said she respects the decisions made by the engineers, but if this one remaining tree and the Sycamore tree could be saved, she would be very grateful.  Ms. Lipstraw stated the road crew was there today and she is very appreciative of their respect for her feelings.  They told her they would be back tomorrow depending on the answer she gets tonight.

 

Mr. Peterson said that the trees are too close to the edge of the road.  There are road design guidelines from the federal level that must be followed and the Road Commission doesn’t have much leeway.  Mr. Peterson indicated the Road Commission could put in replacement trees, but, of course, they would not be mature trees.  Unfortunately, the design criteria required at the federal level does not allow us to save the trees. 

 

The Board directed staff to meet at the site tomorrow to see what, if anything, can be worked out regarding the proposed tree removal.

 

3.         Leonard Provencher, 5824 Beuna Parkway, Haslett.  Mr. Provencher made comment on several of the proposed projects, including Howell Road, Barnes Road and Williamston Road.  He said that he believes all of those proposed improvements are good ones.  Mr. Provencher said he favors paved shoulders because they not only help preserve the road, but, as a cyclist, they are appreciated for means of travel.  The white lane lines delineate them well for the cyclist.  He said that he also believes the proposed culvert/bridge replacement projects are necessary.  Mr. Provencher stated that as a cyclist, the proposed paved shoulders in both locations are appreciated as additional means of travel.  By constructing paved shoulders like these, it keeps cyclists off the traveled portion of the roadway, while providing great recreational options.  Mr. Provencher said he thinks the Marsh Road project is long overdue as this section of Marsh Road is in very bad shape.

 

Regarding the intersection improvements at Haslett Road and Okemos Road and the federal funding involved, Mr. Provencher said there are other people affected like cyclists and pedestrians, especially on the north side of Haslett Road crossing Okemos Road.  He said there is a very short cycle on the signal and he believes there are federal standards on those and this should be checked out.  Mr. Provencher said he is concerned about the use of the intersection by non-motorized people.

 

4.         Jim Getting, 4377 Doncaster Avenue, Holt.  Mr. Getting stated he doesn’t know much about the Cedar Street project, but it seems that the cost is a lot of money for such a short stretch of road.  Mr. Getting asked the purpose of constructing a roundabout at Cedar Street and Holbrook Drive?

 

Mr. Peterson replied the roundabout is more the result of planning for the future due to the projections of traffic using this area.  Mr. Getting said the speed of traffic through this area is around 55 MPH, will the roundabout bring those speeds down?  Mr. Peterson responded affirmatively.  Mr. Getting asked what the other phases of work will be on Cedar Street.  Mr. Peterson said there were three phases talked about a few years ago, but after a few public hearings, the township decided it would only pay for the improvements to Holbrook Drive at this time. 

 

Mr. Getting said, then, that this phase does not include the bypass for trucks?  Commissioner Guenther suggested that residents visit the township office to look at the maps and drawings that show what the “dreams” are for Cedar Street.  Mr. Getting stated his beef is more with a proposed truck bypass than with the road improvements themselves.  He asked if the storm sewer work will be in conjunction with the culvert problem at Cedar Lake, and will that resolve the problem there.  Mr. Peterson stated that work involved with the Cedar Lake problem will be included in Phase 2 of the Cedar Street improvements.  The problems between the Drain Commissioner and the DEQ need to be addressed first, so for right now, the project phasing stops short of that area.

 

5.         Don Taylor, 2145 Haslett Road, East Lansing.  Regarding the Haslett Road and Okemos Road intersection improvements, Mr. Taylor asked what determines the necessity for a center left turn lane?  He said he lives next to the gas station and he has seen many accidents involving vehicles coming out of the gas station, but hasn’t see too many accidents actually at the intersection.  He said he thinks the current signaling handles the traffic sufficiently. 

 

Mr. Peterson stated that the intersection is being designed and built to better accommodate existing and future traffic.  Federal CMAQ funds are being used for these improvements and the application phase requires modeling using future traffic estimates.  The purpose of the CMAQ program is to reduce delay within the transportation system, thus reducing congestion and improving air quality.

 

Mr. Taylor said his concern is with the accidents at the gas station.  Mr. Taylor asked if Marsh Road would be open to traffic during construction.  Mr. Peterson responded yes, for most of the work.  However, during installation of the drain crossing, the road will be closed for two or three weeks and detoured.  Vice Chair Guenther asked how much wider the traveled roadway will be with the construction of the center turn lane at Haslett and Okemos Road?  Mr. Peterson said 11 feet; the Road Commission has 100 feet of right of way along Haslett Road and it will be wider by 5.5 feet on each side.

 

Commissioner Rodgers stated that based on some of the questions being asked about what the Road Commission is doing, it may be beneficial to conduct a workshop for the public in order to explain why we do the things we do.  Regarding the last question, people should be able to call the Road Commission office and get those types of answers.

 

Mr. Taylor stated he heard about the public hearing and thought he could get the answers here.

 

6.         Peg MacDougall, 4169 Santa Clara Drive, Holt.  Ms. MacDougall said her comments regard the proposed improvements on Cedar Street.  She said she understood there to be a bypass for trucks from the railroad tracks in Holt which would come out on Cedar Street.  She is also concerned about the need for a roundabout at Holbrook Drive.  Ms. MacDougall said she thought someone from the township would be here to respond to questions, but so far she hasn’t seen anything to explain why this project is being done. 

 

Delhi Township’s Planning Director Pete Stoughton apologized and said he was present for discussion regarding the proposed pathway enhancement grant.  He said he thought someone from the DDA was going to be present to respond to questions regarding the proposed Cedar Street improvements. 

 

Chair Smith stated that since the Cedar Street project is not scheduled to begin until 2008, residents have time to go to the township offices and speak with the DDA regarding the project.

 

Ms. MacDougall said she would like to know the rationale for the roundabout.  She said she knows of no accident history at the intersection that would have prompted it.  Ms. MacDougall said she does not believe there is a need to interrupt the traffic flow on Cedar Street at Holbrook Drive.  She stated she was very disappointed that the township DDA was not here to address residents’ concerns.  Ms. MacDougall asked when the Board would be voting on the project.  Chair Smith responded probably near the end of this year or early in 2008.

 

7.         Joseph Nemshak, 4351 Willesdon Avenue, Holt.  Mr. Nemshak said he just heard most of what he wanted to know.  He said concerning the roundabout, he is an old man now, but what goes around, comes around.  He said that New Jersey used to have many traffic circles.  They no longer have them, they have traffic signals.

 

8.         Daria Schlega, 2446 Burcham Drive, East Lansing.  Ms. Schlega stated she was present to talk about the proposed paved travelway on the Consumers Power right of way.  Ms. Schlega said the pathway is currently inaccessible.  There are no trees in there, only bushes.  She stated that the proposed pathway doesn’t lead to anywhere.  Ms. Schlega stated that Burcham Drive is a wide enough roadway to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians.  She indicated the old right of way hasn’t been used for years and is completely grown over.  Ms. Schlega asked why the residents in the condos can’t get a fence installed between their property lines and the pathway to protect their safety.  She said that a fence is being erected to protect the township’s property and the pond, why not protect the residents and their properties as well.  Ms. Schlega stated that one single chain link fence will not be sufficient protection and said that the township has no concern for their safety.

 

Vice Chair Guenther asked if there wouldn’t be two fences when the project is done.  Mr. Severy stated there is an existing fence at the property lines now, and a new one will be installed between the pathway and the ponds.  Ms. Schlega said the pathway will be 12 feet wide, which will make it more like a road than a pathway.  She stated it won’t connect to anything and now the condition of the right of way is rutted with a lot of bush cover, which will create a dangerous situation, not to mention no one will use it because it doesn’t go anywhere.  Ms. Schlega said that 23 of the homeowners wrote to the township asking that the variances be denied.

 

Ms. Schlega stated that the way she reads the McNitt Act, this pathway does not meet the sections addressing non-motorized facilities.

 

Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Severy how much contact the Township has had with the residents who live in the condo units?  It appears this project has been approved by the Township even though the people who live there apparently have been very vocal about being opposed to it.  She asked what has occurred to meet with the residents to discuss the project.

 

Mr. Severy said the project has been on the books for five years.  The grant for the project was approved five or six years ago.  Meetings started occurring two years ago and the grant has now been postponed a couple of times.  The special use permit expired because nothing happened and that is what started the process over again.  This has been before the Township Board.  Mr. Severy said the residents have been told that the Township will plant trees to help screen the pathway.  There isn’t much that can be done to modify the location because of the wetlands and ponds.

 

Commissioner Rodgers asked where the idea for a pathway along the Consumers Power right of way came from?  Mr. Severy said this has been on the Township’s Master Plan since 1976.  It is anticipated that the pathway will eventually go through and connect to Park Lake Road.  He indicated that the Township has an extensive pathway Master Plan.

 

Ms. Schlega said the proposed pathway isn’t contiguous with anything, and all it is, is a 12 foot wide paved bike path.

 

Mr. Severy indicated that when using federal grant money, all off road pathways are required to be at least 12 feet in width.  He stated that 1976 was the first year that a millage was ever passed in the Township for paved pathways.

 

Ms. Schlega said that it is not logical to construct a pathway in bits and pieces.

 

Chair Smith stated that Burcham Drive is very wide, he lives there.  There are many bicyclists on the road, as well as walkers and runners, and there is plenty of room for all, including motorists.  He said the safety issue raised may be a valid one and he is not convinced this is a good idea right behind the condos.  He said people will be using the pathway during darkness, as well as the daylight hours. 

 

Mr. Severy said he didn’t know how much it would be used during darkness because there will be no lighting along the pathway.  Chair Smith asked if anyone is going to patrol the pathway?  Mr. Severy said the pathway built between Okemos and Hulett is similar and isn’t a problem, this shouldn’t be a problem either.  He said that as the pathway becomes more and more populated, it will be more safe, not less safe.

 

Ms. Schlega said there is grass and weeds out there up to her chin.  There is plenty of opportunity for criminals to hide.  Does the Township plan to maintain the pathway and grass areas?

 

9.         Christine Grossman, 4373 Doncaster, Holt.  Ms. Grossman said the first time she became aware of the proposed project on Cedar Street was when she saw the Notice of the public hearing in the paper.  After an inquiry to the Road Commission, she was contacted by Bob Peterson.  She said she was interested in seeing a cost benefit analysis for the project and was told that this was a township DDA funded project, one which was proposed by the township to the Road Commission.  Ms. Grossman said she is in favor of projects that are done to address needs, but she is not sure the need is there for the Cedar Street project.  She said she is disappointed in the lack of public notification by the DDA.

 

Chair Smith stated he would contact the DDA Director personally and discuss this project with him and request that the township consider holding a public informational meeting.

 

10.        David Perkins, 6299 Marsh Road, Haslett.  Mr. Perkins asked if the Marsh Road project is going to be done yet in 2007.  Chair Smith said yes.  Mr. Perkins asked how long the project would take.  Chair Smith said mid to late August through November.  Mr. Peterson indicated bids are being received by the state on August 6th.  Mr. Severy said the Township will be replacing watermain from Lake Lansing Road north to Pike Street, and that work will start next week.

 

No additional public comment was offered.  The public hearing adjourned at 7:40 P.M.

 

Commissioner Rodgers stated there were some questions here tonight on projects that the Road Commission is not technically responsible for because other entities are paying for them and the costs are not coming out of Road Commission funds.  However, the roads have to be constructed in such a way that they meet the Road Commission’s standards.  As far as the planning stages and gathering public input, the Road Commission is not responsible for that either.  That is up to the individual entities proposing and paying for the work.  Commissioner Rodgers stated that, as a Commissioner, she is concerned that it appears that these residents have no where else to go for gathering information.  She said that while this disappoints her, she must also announce that if the Road Commission stops any of these federally funded projects, the money will be lost. 

 

Commissioner Rodgers stated that, as taxpayers, citizens tell us what they want to see in Ingham County and they should be brought into the mix early on as plans were being made.  Directed at the individual with the tree dilemma on Howell Road, maybe the Road Commission wasn’t proactive enough with you.  She concluded her comments by saying that at some point along the way, residents need to tell the Road Commission how it can help them get more information.

 

AGENDA ITEM #7 – AFSCME STEP 3 GRIEVANCE HEARING.

 

Present:  David G. Stoker, Labor Attorney for the Board, Dan Hamilton, AFSCME Council Representative, Gregory K. Barnett, AFSCME Local 1499 President, and Bryan Wieferich, AFSCME Local 1499 Chief Steward.

 

Mr. Stoker presented the grievance and stated it stems from the closure of the Eastern District Garage.  It alleges violations of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).  He stated the Union contends that all work performed in the Eastern District should be done by Eastern District employees, not others.  Mr. Stoker said the current CBA does not cover this situation.  He stated if the garage is closed, it is no longer part of the Eastern District and there is nothing that prohibits employees from other districts working in the area. 

 

Mr. Stoker continued that the issues of the grievance are more of a policy question because the contract sections quoted by the Union as being violated, do not apply.  He said he does not see a basis for the grievance and management was correct to deny it. 

 

AFSCME Council Representative Dan Hamilton submitted a handout to the Board.  He said he believes the situation is a violation of the current contract and can be found specifically in the temporary transfer language.  Mr. Hamilton stated that while management rights are broad in scope and most of the time that is enough of a reason, they believe this was a procedural decision and not really an operational decision as they have been told.  Mr. Hamilton stated that Greg Barnett has said that more fuel is being used, both personally and for the Road Commission’s operations, and Bryan Wieferich was assigned and worked in all three districts just this week.  He stated that they can show that this garage closure is not working out.

 

Mr. Hamilton stated that the minutes reflect that the garage was to be shuttered and closed, but it has been open every day since the announcement of the closure.  He said it appears to them that the supervisor has been assigned to the garage, but he’s not supervising anyone.  Mr. Hamilton said the supervisor is sitting in the office at the Garage, but employees are not allowed to enter the building to use the restroom.  He indicated that the members interpret these actions to mean that the garage was not ever really closed. 

 

Mr. Hamilton stated he agrees that management has certain rights, but there are seniority issues too.  He said that the contract spells out how individuals are to be moved, or transferred, which is by seniority unless in the circumstance of an emergency and there are steps to be followed.  But in this case managed moved a whole group of people and spread them to the wind.  Mr. Hamilton said it just cannot be done in this way with no regard to the employees’ status.

 

Mr. Hamilton stated there has also been an economic loss to the employees.  Those employees who were not assigned to the Metro Garage and who didn’t get a choice in the matter, didn’t get the twenty cent per hour premium.  There are also additional fuel costs for those employees who have farther to drive back and forth to work now.  Mr. Hamilton explained that some people live according to where they work and many of these employees live fairly close to the Eastern District Garage site.  There is also loss in overtime.  He indicated that employees pay check stubs even indicate what district they work at.

 

Mr. Hamilton stated that some remedies have been brought forward in an attempt to settle this grievance.  One of which would be to let the more senior employees work in the Metro District in order to get the twenty cent per hour premium for that district.  Seniority should also be maintained by district.  The employees should also be reimbursed for additional transportation costs.

 

Mr. Stoker stated that the issue of closing the Eastern District garage is clearly a management right.  Whether it is more efficient or not to have the garaged closed, is a decision to be made by management.  He agreed this is something an arbitrator may have to rule on.  Mr. Stoker stated that Article 7 provides very detailed situations as to when seniority is to be applied.  It is silent on garage closures.  If it isn’t in black and white, then it is not required.  Mr. Stoker stated he does not believe the labor contract requires a reassignment to be done by seniority when closing a garage.  It is management’s right to handle this type of situation however it deems appropriate.  This is not a contract violation because the contract does not require management to close a garage and assign the employees by seniority.

 

This should not have been dealt with through the grievance procedure because there is no contract violation.  It should have been handled through a special conference with both parties meeting to discuss the concerns.

 

Mr. Stoker also stated that in the newly ratified labor contract, overtime options are by seniority.  If we are not doing that, then it needs to be corrected.  He said we can look at that on a case by case basis.  Mr. Midgley stated there is a separate grievance pending now at his level regarding the overtime issues.

 

Commissioner Rodgers stated she needed some clarification.  The current contract was ratified in July.  The reassignments were made in June.  When the union says the contract language has been violated regarding overtime and the premium pay, which contract would the union be speaking of?  She said that language is not typically retroactive.  She asked Mr. Hamilton about one of the remedies he mentioned, i.e., travel time and fuel costs; is the union asking management to pay those employees to go to work?  For the cost of their fuel?

 

Mr. Hamilton said many of these employees live close to where they work.  They are now being asked to travel a longer distance back and forth to the work.  Mr. Hamilton agreed that once the new contract is ratified they can’t go back on an old contract, but these incidents occurred after ratification of the new contract. 

 

Commissioner Rodgers asked if the union equates the closure to a temporary assignment?  Mr. Hamilton said yes.  Mr. Hamilton said they are not asking to be paid to go to work, but those who have farther to travel to get to work are paying more in fuel costs.

 

Commissioner Rodgers stated, then, that the union is essentially asking the employer to pay them to go to work, the difference between the travel to the Eastern Garage and the Metro Garage?  Bryan Wieferich stated that if the employee is now driving to the Metro Garage, it is further to go than if that same employee would have been able to go to the Western Garage by bidding it.

 

Commissioner Rodgers stated, then, that the union is asking to be paid to drive to work?  Mr. Wieferich said yes.

 

Vice Chair Guenther asked if we ever go through the bid process for temporary assignments?  Mr. Stoker stated that technically the new contract cuts off any past practice.  There has been no practice of closing a garage and he does not agree that this would fall under a temporary transfer.

 

Mr. Hamilton stated he agreed with Commissioner Rodgers that the twenty cent premium for the Metro District could be construed as a promotion.   He said they are just trying to find a way to get past this and do things right. 

 

Commissioner Rodgers stated the premium pay should not be equated to any type of promotion and she never said that.  The premium pay is because the employees are asked to work in a different environment. 

 

Mr. Hamilton stated their presentation was finished.

 

RESOLUTION DENYING GRIEVANCE SUBMITTED BY AFSCME ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE UNION BODY REGARDING THE REASSIGNMENT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT GARAGE EMPLOYEES TO OTHER DISTRICTS.

 

RESOLUTION #111-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Board denies the Grievance filed by AFSCME Local 1499 on behalf of the entire union body, dated June 20, 2007, regarding the closure of the Eastern District Garage facility and work being performed in that district by employees originally assigned to that district.

 

AGENDA ITEM #8 – CLOSED SESSION.

 

Moved by Commissioner Rodgers and Supported by Commissioner Guenther, that the Board enter closed session at 8:15 P.M. for the purpose of discussing an Attorney-Client Privileged communication from Attorney David Stoker.  Roll call vote:  Commissioner Smith, yes, Commissioner Guenther, yes, Commissioner Rodgers, yes.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Smith, that the Board reconvene the regular meeting at 9:20 P.M.  Roll call vote:  Commissioner Smith, yes, Commissioner Guenther, yes, Commissioner Rodgers, yes.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

AGENDA ITEM #13B – AGREEMENT WITH MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP FOR OLD INTER-URBAN PATHWAY CONSTRUCTION.

 

Present for discussion:  Ray Severy, Meridian Township Director of Engineering and Public Works.

 

Director of Engineering Bob Peterson reviewed an Agreement with Meridian Township before the Board for consideration and approval regarding the costs to be reimbursed to the Road Commission for the Old Inter-Urban Pathway construction along the old Consumers Energy Company right of way.  He recommended approval and signing of the Agreement.  Mr. Peterson also recommended approval and signing of the title sheet for the project.  It is due to MDOT tomorrow.  Mr. Peterson stated if this paperwork is not turned in on time, then the project will not make the September letting date.  In that case, an extension on the grant will be required in order to postpone the project until next year.

 

Mr. Severy stated the grant has already been extended twice.  He said between the Planning Commission and the Township Board, there have been several public hearings on this proposal.  The issues brought up by Ms. Schlega are nothing new to the Township.  The purported drainage problem does not exist. 

 

Vice Chair Guenther stated that it sounded to him like the Township is treating its own property differently than the condo residents by not installing the same type of fence on their side of the pathway.  Why not just give them the same protection for their property as for the Township’s property.  It would probably make for much better relations.  Chair Smith stated that the bushes referred to during the public hearing are really not the greatest, they are rather scrubby and wouldn’t offer much protection.  Mr. Severy stated that they are, however, thick enough to stop someone from running through them.  He said the fence going in on the north side to protect the ponds and wetlands is as a result of comments from the condo residents.

 

Vice Chair Guenther asked what it would cost to install a fence for the condo owners?  Mr. Severy stated it would involve removing much of the existing brush buffer.  Commissioner Rodgers stated the key is  how the public is dealt with so they feel they have been heard?  She said that normally 95 percent of the public will agree to something, but its all in trying to communicate with the other five percent so they know they have been heard. 

 

Mr. Severy pointed out that he believes the Township has done all that.  Two lawsuits were filed over this issue to stop the project.  The residents lost both lawsuits.  He stated that Ms. Schlega just doesn’t want the pathway built – period.  Chair Smith asked if this was still in the court system?  Mr. Severy said no, they have the authorization to move forward with the project; unless, of course, she is successful in obtaining an injunction to prevent work from starting, but the court denied her suit two years ago, and he has no reason to believe it wouldn’t do the same today.  Mr. Severy indicated the residents’ claim the pathway is only ten feet off their decks.  He said it is not.  Actually, it is 45 feet from where the decks are located.

 

Chair Smith said he agreed with Mr. Guenther regarding the fence on the condo property side of the pathway.  If it would make those residents feel safer, why not install one?  It makes sense and it would be a relatively inexpensive compromise.  Mr. Severy agreed to look into the possibility of installing a fence on the condo side of the pathway.

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TITLE SHEET FOR THE MERIDIAN OLD INTER-URBAN PATHWAY CONSTRUCTION ALONG THE CONSUMERS ENERGY RIGHT OF WAY.

 

RESOLUTION #112-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Rodgers and Supported by Commissioner Guenther.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Director of Engineering, the Board approves and signs the title sheet for the Meridian Old Inter-Urban Pathway construction along the Consumers Energy right of way.  The project is described as:  A non-motorized pathway starting at Burcham Drive, adjacent to the entrance to the East Lansing and Meridian Water and Sewer Authority Water Treatment Plant, then due east along the Consumers’ Energy utility easement and ending at Okemos Road.  Totaling 0.75 mile in length, more or less.

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING INTER-AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH MERIDIAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE LOCAL SHARE OF THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OLD INTER-URBAN PATHWAY ALONG THE CONSUMERS ENERGY RIGHT OF WAY.

 

RESOLUTION #113-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Rodgers and Supported by Commissioner Guenther.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Director of Engineering, the Board approves and signs an Inter-Agency Agreement with Meridian Charter Township for reimbursement to the Road Commission by the Township for the local share of the cost of the construction of the Old Inter-Urban Pathway along the Consumers Energy right of way, plus all costs of contingencies, preliminary engineering, project administration, construction engineering and inspection.  The project is described as:  A non-motorized pathway starting at Burcham Drive, adjacent to the entrance to the East Lansing and Meridian Water and Sewer Authority Water Treatment Plant, then due east along the Consumers’ Energy utility easement and ending at Okemos Road.  Totaling 0.75 mile in length, more or less.

 

AGENDA ITEM #13C – MDOT CONTRACT FOR MARSH ROAD.

 

Director of Engineering Bob Peterson reviewed and recommended approval of the MDOT contract for the 2007 Marsh Road improvements.

 

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON MARSH ROAD LOCATED IN MERIDIAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP.

 

RESOLUTION #114-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

WHEREAS, a Contract has been presented to the Board of Ingham County Road Commissioners for approval by and between the Michigan Department of Transportation (herein referred to as the Department) and the Board of Ingham County Road Commissioners (herein referred to as Requesting Party); and

 

WHEREAS, in said Contract the Department and the Requesting Party agree to the following improvements:

 

PART A – FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.

 

Reconstruction work along Marsh Road from Haslett Road to Towner Road, including concrete pavement, hot mix asphalt paving, storm sewer, culvert, guardrail improvements, concrete curb and gutter, pavement marking, and slope restoration work; and all together with necessary related work.

 

PART B – NO FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.

 

Sanitary sewer work along Marsh Road from Haslett Road to Towner Road, and all together with necessary related work.

 

WHEREAS, the Requesting Party is fully cognizant of the terms and conditions of the Contract as prepared and presented by the Department.

 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Requesting Party authorizes its Chair and its Secretary to execute this Contract on behalf of the Requesting Party; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the total estimated cost for this project is as follows:

 

Job Number:  73901                                           Control Section:  STU 33400

MDOT Contract No. 07-5381                               Project:  STP 0733(047)

Federal Item No. HH 5063                                   CFDA No. 20.205

 

ESTIMATED COST

 

CONTRACTED WORK

 

                                                            PART A            PART B            TOTAL

 

Estimated Cost:                                                 $1,093,000        $27,700 $1,120,800

 

FORCE ACCOUNT & AGREED UNIT PRICE WORK (REQUESTING PARTY)

 

Traffic Signal Work                                             $     13,200        $    0                 $     13,200

 

GRAND TOTAL:                                     $1,106,300        $     27,700        $1,134,000

 

COST PARTICIPATION

 

GRAND TOTAL ESTIMATED COST:                    $1,106,300        $     27,700        $1,134,000

Less Federal Funds*                                          $   905,500        $          000       $   905,000

BALANCE (Requesting Party’s Share)                 $   200,800        $     27,700        $   228,500

 

NO DEPOSIT REQUIRED.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Requesting Party has designated Mr. Richard Phillips as project engineer:

 

            Business Address:                     301 Bush Street, Mason, Michigan 48854

            Telephone Number:                    517/676-9722

 

AGENDA ITEM 14A-E – LOCAL ROAD AGREEMENTS.

 

Managing Director John Midgley reviewed and recommended approval and signing of five local road agreements for proposed local road work in 2007.  Those agreements are as follows:  Leroy Township for improvements on Kane Road, Stockbridge Township for improvements on Chapman Road, Wheatfield Township for improvements on Frost Road, Aurelius Township for improvements on Eifert Road, and Williamstown Township for improvements on Barry Road.  Mr. Midgley answered some questions by Commissioner Rodgers for clarification on the costs of these projects and how the cost allocations are made.

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOCAL ROAD AGREEMENT WITH LEROY TOWNSHIP FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON KANE ROAD IN 2007.

 

RESOLUTION #115-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Managing Director, the Board approves and signs a Local Road Agreement with Leroy Township for Phase 3 (final) improvements on Kane Road between Dennis Road and Howell Road, at an estimated cost of $41,516.00.

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOCAL ROAD AGREEMENT WITH STOCKBRIDGE TOWNSHIP FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON CHAPMAN ROAD IN 2007.

 

RESOLUTION #116-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Rodgers and Supported by Commissioner Guenther.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Managing Director, the Board approves and signs a Local Road Agreement with Stockbridge Township for Phase 4 (final) improvements on Chapman Road between Catholic Church Road and Obrien Road, at an estimated cost of $57,780.00.

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOCAL ROAD AGREEMENT WITH WHEATFIELD TOWNSHIP FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON FROST ROAD IN 2007.

 

RESOLUTION #117-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Managing Director, the Board approves and signs a Local Road Agreement with Wheatfield Township for Phase 3 (final) improvements on Frost Road between Zimmer Road and Williamston Road, at an estimated cost of $49,755.00.

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOCAL ROAD AGREEMENT WITH AURELIUS TOWNSHIP FOR CULVERT IMPROVEMENTS ON EIFERT ROAD IN 2007.

 

RESOLUTION #118-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Rodgers and Supported by Commissioner Guenther.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Managing Director, the Board approves and signs a Local Road Agreement with Aurelius Township for culvert improvements on Eifert Road crossing the West Aurelius Drain between Curtice Road and Columbia Road, at an estimated cost of $40,000.00.

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOCAL ROAD AGREEMENT WITH WILLIAMSTOWN TOWNSHIP FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON BARRY ROAD IN 2007.

 

RESOLUTION #119-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Managing Director, the Board approves and signs a Local Road Agreement with Leroy Township for Phase 2 improvements on Barry Road between Lounsbury Road and Williamston Road, at an estimated cost of $62,060.00.

 

AGENDA ITEM #14F – COST AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL WITH MDOT.

 

Managing Director John Midgley reviewed an Agreement for traffic signal modernization at Park Lake Road and M-43.  MDOT will be installing LED bulbs and the new yellow for the caution phase.  The cost of the modernization will be paid for 100 percent with federal funding.  The only cost to the Road Commission is to share in the annual cost of power.  He recommended approval and signing of the Agreement.

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODERNIZATION WITH MDOT FOR THE INTERSECTION OF PARK LAKE ROAD AND M-43.

 

RESOLUTION #120-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Managing Director, the Board approves and authorizes the Chair and Secretary to sign, an Agreement for Traffic Signal Modernization with MDOT for the signal located at the intersection of Park Lake Road and M-43.

 

AGENDA ITEM #14G – REPLACEMENT OF THE FLOOR IN THE SIGN SHOP.

 

Managing Director Midgley reported that quotes have been received for the replacement of the floor in the Sign Shop.  He recommended approval to proceed to the company who had the low quote, Discount Carpet Warehouse of Mason.

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE FLOOR IN THE SIGN SHOP.

 

RESOLUTION #121-07

 

Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers.  3 yes, 0 no.  Resolution carried unanimously.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Managing Director, the Board approves the replacement of the floor in the Sign Shop and authorizes the notice to proceed to Discount Carpet Warehouse of Mason, for their low quoted price of $5,979.00.

 

AGENDA ITEM #15A – PROPOSED REZONING OF PROPERTY IN WARDCLIFF AREA.

 

Chair Smith reported that he and Commissioner Guenther had recently attended a meeting regarding the proposed rezoning of the Mobile Home Manor property near the Wardcliff area of Meridian Township.  Commissioner Guenther commented he believes it is clear that this Board is not willing to allow the extension of Greencliff Drive to allow for a second access to the proposed development.  He asked if the Road Commission has to approve that for access just because it has the right of way available to use.  Director of Engineering Bob Peterson said no.

 

AGENDA ITEM #16 – BOARD UPDATES/COMMENTS.

 

1.         Regarding the 457 Plan, Commissioner Rodgers stated that Eric Gill of Ameriprise is doing the research necessary for finding us an additional company that will offer this benefit to the employees.  Mr. Gill is approaching companies for quotes and he will handle the RFP process.  She said that there will be no cost to the Road Commission for Mr. Gill’s efforts. 

 

Commissioner Rodgers stated she would like the Board to consider hiring a Benefits Administrator who would handle and coordinate all of the employee benefits, including the 457 and Section 125 plans.  This should be discussed at length at a future meeting.

 

2.         Chair Smith asked about the crackfilling recently done on Waverly Road from the Flapjack Restaurant north past the bridge over the Grand River. 

 

3.         Chair Smith stated there is a proposed nursing care home to be constructed on Okemos Road, south of Briarwood Subdivision, that required a curb cut.  He asked if the developer ever got a permit from the Road Commission for that cut.  Mr. Peterson stated he knew there was an approved plan, but he was not sure the permit had been issued yet.  He said he would check on it.

 

AGENDA ITEM #17 – PUBLIC COMMENT.

 

1.         Leonard Provencher, 5824 Beuna Parkway, Haslett.  Mr. Provencher stated that the bike lane needs to be re-marked with symbols on Haslett Road from Carlton Street east to VanAtta Road.  He asked who is responsible for the storm drains, the Road Commission or the Drain Commission, because of the debris around them, and asked if citizens can adopt a roadway for cleanup purposes, similar to the program that MDOT has.  Chair Smith stated he would look into it.

 

Mr. Provencher stated that AASHTO is conducting a training course for bicyclists on August 15th and asked if anyone from the Road Commission is going.  Both Mr. Peterson and Mr. Midgley stated they were unaware of this training class.

 

Mr. Provencher asked if the Road Commission was still planning on constructing a roundabout at Park Lake Road and Burcham Drive?  Chair Smith stated he thought that was scheduled for 2009.  Mr. Peterson stated there is a problem with right of way at the retirement home, but they hope to have that worked out in the next year.

 

No additional public comment was offered.  The meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                           

Larry R. Smith, Chair                                                      Deborah L. Bellows, Board Secretary