**APPROVED MINUTES**
Mason, Michigan
October 18, 2007
The Board of Ingham County Road Commissioners met for a rescheduled regular meeting on Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 5:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the Road Commission’s Austin E. Cavanaugh Administration Building located at 301 N. Bush Street, Mason, Michigan.
Present: Larry R. Smith, Chair, Joseph A. Guenther, Vice Chair, and Shirley M. Rodgers, Commissioner.
Also Present: Sandra F. Montgomery, Interim Managing Director, Deborah L. Bellows, Secretary to the Board, and Robert H. Peterson, Director of Operations.
Absent & Excused: Joseph D. Pulver, Director of Operations.
Chair Larry Smith called the meeting to Order and led with the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ITEM #4 – COMMUNITY FORUM.
Chair Smith stated the purpose of this community forum is to discuss the qualities the Board should look for in its search for a Managing Director.
Present for this discussion: Randy Maiville, Supervisor-Onondaga Township, Larry Silsby, Supervisor-Aurelius Township, Mickey Martin, Supervisor-Williamstown Township, Paul Griffes, Supervisor-Locke Township, Julie Brixie, Meridian Township Trustee, Deb Nolan, Ingham County Commissioner, and Dianne Holman, Ingham County Commissioner.
The Chair called on speakers as follows:
1. Mickey Martin, Williamstown Township Supervisor. Ms. Martin stated the Board should look for someone who is a good communicator and someone who can make a relationship with the township officials. She indicated that road repairs and maintenance should be a top priority and the townships should be able to feel comfortable in approaching this person. It should be someone who wants to get to know everyone and have a good working relationship with them.
2. Randy Maiville, Onondaga Township Supervisor. Mr. Maiville said he agreed with Ms. Martin. Mr. Maiville said there are several things that have bothered him over the last few years; one of which was that the previous manager told him that people should learn how to drive in the winter. Mr. Maiville said that is not something that people want to hear and he was rather disturbed by that comment. He said he grew up in the Onondaga area and you used to be able to tell the difference between Eaton and Jackson Counties when compared to Ingham because Ingham was maintained during the winter months much better than the other two counties. That does not happen anymore. Now, Jackson County is maintained quicker and better than Ingham. Someone needs to be brought in who help the employees get the pride of their county back.
3. Paul Griffes, Locke Township Supervisor. Mr. Griffes said he also agrees with the comments made by Ms. Martin. He added that the person who fills the manager position needs to have some visibility and accessibility for the township officials and the public. Someone who would make the Board’s job better.
4. Larry Silsby, Aurelius Township Supervisor. Mr. Silsby stated that accessibility is important and someone who is easy to work with. He said one of the applicants for the job, Joe Pulver, is a very good candidate for the position. Mr. Silsby said he has worked with Joe for many years and they have a good cooperative relationship.
5. Dianne Holman, Ingham County Commissioner. Commissioner Holman said the person should have good planning and design qualities, and be someone who is up to date on new and dynamic road design, but who can also work with traditional road design when needed. It should also be someone who can work with the community and has some background in context sensitive design. She stated this person should also be someone who will get the community involved in project design and input early on in the planning phases. Someone with a good attitude, who is not negative. Commissioner Holman also said that the person should be open and willing to work on environmental issues. It should also be someone with good personal skills. She stated that this should be someone with a good road background, but with strengths in people skills. Commissioner Holman said the individual should also have a good background in operations and maintenance.
6. Deb Nolan, Ingham County Commissioner. Commissioner Nolan stated she wrote all her comments down and sent them to the consultant. She stated the person should be all of what has been said here, and be someone who can communicate with all areas of the county, including the drain commissioner. It should also be someone who can have a good working relationship with the public. Commissioner Nolan said she hopes it will be someone who will make the Road Commission responsive to everyone and who can lead the whole community and who will provide a service oriented organization.
7. Julie Brixie, Meridian Township Trustee. Ms. Brixie said the new manager should be a person who is willing to look at the current road design standards and change them to create road standards that are more people friendly. The person does not necessarily have to be an engineer because the Road Commission currently has knowledgeable engineers on staff. Ms. Brixie commented on the frustration of county residents on design standards and perceived future needs. She said the desired outcome should be considered rather than a 20 year future. Ms. Brixie said that narrower roads are much more people friendly. She said that the Road Commission tends to be resistant to plantings on the roadsides and these types of issues need to be looked at with a more open mind. Ms. Brixie commented that thicker/ narrower roads tend to be better environmentally, too. She indicated that the individual should be someone with a personality and who can work with the public.
Chair Larry Smith asked Interim Managing Director Sandy Montgomery to give a synopsis of where they are at with the search. Ms. Montgomery stated the consultant has received 52 applications. Of those, 20 meet the qualifications. The consultant will be reviewing and talking with all 20 applicants. The Board will have a special meeting on November 7th to choose 5-7 finalists. The consultant has recommended the creation of two advisory panels to interview the finalists and forward their recommendations to the Board. One of the panels will be made up of county commissioners, township officials and community leaders; the other panel will be made up of Road Commission employees, representing the three unions and non-bargaining employees. The panelists will interview the finalists on November 26th and there will be a public forum that evening for the community and elected/appointed officials to meet the candidates. The Board will conduct its interviews on November 27th. Ms. Montgomery said the Board will then make its selection at its meeting on November 29th. The person will start around the first of the year.
Commissioner Rodgers stated she just wanted people to know that sometimes there are some things that people want us to do that we just cannot do. It is this Board’s responsibility to protect the Road Commission from liability and to also protect the infrastructure. She said that perhaps we have not done a very good job in the past explaining our decisions. Ms. Brixie responded that there is a lot of frustration because of the engineering reasoning behind those decisions. While she understands the engineering side of things, people see the City of Lansing and the City of East Lansing using various things to control speed that are effective and that work, but yet the Road Commission says these things can’t be done because they are unsafe and it would be held liable. That is where most of the frustration lies. Why do these other entities use these things, i.e., bulbouts, stops, flower pots, center islands, if they are so unsafe? Ms. Brixie said it is not because there is a communication problem, or that people don’t understand the engineering issues, but it is seemingly because of different standards.
Commissioner Holman said that is where the debate and frustration comes in because standards are guidelines only, and the Road Commission acts like it is not flexible. She said you need a manager who is willing to look beyond the initial response of “no”, to see what can be done.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if the townships are communicating some of these thoughts to the developers who come before them. Ms. Brixie said absolutely. When she started on the Planning Commission in 1999 they were talking about subdivision roads being narrower and trying to slow traffic. Commissioner Guenther stated that roads have to accommodate emergency vehicles as well as regular vehicles, and a road can’t be too narrow or these emergency vehicles can’t get through. However, he stated the Board is looking for someone who can be creative.
Commissioner Nolan asked about the panel with the public officials and if anyone from the County Board would be on the panel. Ms. Montgomery stated an email communication was sent to Commission Chair Marc Thomas asking him to appoint two county commissioners to be on the panel. She has not heard back from him.
Chair Larry Smith stated that one of the Board’s highest priorities is to find someone who is a communicator. No additional comments were offered and this portion of the meeting concluded at 5:45 P.M. Commissioner Rodgers said we are trying to restore a level of trust here and asked those present to report to their colleagues and residents that the Road Commission wants to hear from them and will listen to what they have to say. She thanked everyone for coming and sharing their ideas.
AGENDA ITEM #5 – CONSENT AGENDA.
Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers, that consent agenda items be approved as follows:
1. Agenda Item #6, minutes.
2. Agenda Item #7, routine and special permits.
3. Agenda Item #9A, accounts payable.
3 yes, 0 no. Motion carried unanimously.
Agenda
Item #6 – Minutes.
Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers, that the minutes of the meeting of October 4, 2007, be approved as presented. 3 yes, 0 no. Motion carried unanimously.
Agenda
Item #7 – Permits.
Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers, that routine and special permits be approved as follows:
06-0856 07-0627 07-0628 07-0629 07-0630 07-0631
07-0632 07-0633 07-0634 07-0635 07-0636 07-0642
07-0650 07-0652 07-0653 07-0654 07-0657 07-0658
07-0659 07-0661 07-0662 07-0666 07-0667 07-0668
07-0342 07-0617 07-0624 07-0637 07-0638 07-0639
07-0640 07-0643 07-0644 07-0645 07-0646 07-0647
07-0648 07-0649 07-0651 07-0655 07-0656 07-0660
07-0663 07-0664 07-0665
Special permit #07-0641 applied for by Carl Schlegel Inc. for a haul route on Osborne Road, one half mile south of M-36.
3 yes, 0 no. Motion carried unanimously.
Agenda
Item #9A – Accounts Payable.
Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers, that the accounts payable for the two week period from October 8-14, 2007, be approved as follows: check numbers #89268 through #89370, totaling $1,022,346.82. 3 yes, 0 no. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #10A&B – TRAFFIC CONTROL ORDERS.
Sign and Signal Shop Manager Jim Charles was present to review his recommendation for traffic control orders providing for stop locations in Indian Hills Subdivision, which were requested on behalf of the Homeowners Association by Bill Cambray. Mr. Charles stated he has reviewed the locations and has met personally with Mr. Cambray. He recommended the two stop locations.
Meridian Township Trustee Julie Brixie stated the township supports the stop locations in this neighborhood.
RESOLUTION APPROVING TRAFFIC CONTROL ORDERS FOR STOP LOCATIONS IN THE INDIAN HILLS SUBDIVISION IN MERIDIAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP.
RESOLUTION #163-07
Moved by Commissioner Guenther and Supported by Commissioner Rodgers. 3 yes, 0 no. Resolution carried unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Sign and Signal Shop Manager, the Board approves the following traffic control orders:
A. Traffic Control Order #S-10-07-005 requiring northeast bound and southwest bound traffic on Huron Hill Drive to Stop for northwest bound and southeast bound traffic on Nakoma Drive.
B. Traffic Control Order #S-10-07-006 requiring eastbound and westbound traffic on Huron Hill Drive to Stop for northwest bound and southeast bound traffic on Nakoma Drive.
AGENDA ITEM #8 – INTERIM MANAGING DIRECTOR
REPORTS.
A. The Board is scheduled to present the 2006 Annual Report to the Board of Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 13, 2007, at 7:30 P.M.
B. The computer system is in need of a new tape drive. The current one does not have enough capacity. The cost is $3500 and has been ordered.
C. A refund has been received for the MERS annual conference cancellation that was made last month.
D. The forum held recently by the Meridian Township Board regarding the upcoming millage proposal, was attended by Commissioner Guenther, the Interim Managing Director and the Director of Engineering. The Director of Operations was a panel member. Commissioner Guenther stated that the Director of Operations did a good job explaining Act 51; however, he said he thought there was too much technical information which may not have been understood by most people who were present. He indicated that the prospect of city hood was also mentioned.
E. The Board scheduled a special meeting on November 7th at 4:00 P.M. to review the applications received for the Managing Director position. At that time, the Board will choose five or six applicants to interview.
F. The Road Commission has been asked by Meridian Township Parks and Recreation to participate in “Truck or Treat” at the Meridian Mall on October 20th. Participants will bring large equipment for kids to see and get in. Candy will also be given out to youngsters and we will be giving away road maps. Metro District employee Nate Conner has volunteered to take one of the big snow plow trucks.
G. There will be a meeting next week with Rich McNulty, of Peter Cohl’s law firm, to review the status of rewriting the personnel manual. Commissioner Rodgers was asked if she would like to attend.
H. Status of Position Vacancies. A Western District employee recently accepted the vacant position in the Sign Shop. There is now a Class 3 vacancy in the Western District. Applications for a Class 7 mechanic are currently being accepted from outside the Road Commission.
I. Vice Chair Guenther asked the status of the signals at the old Fisher Body plant. Director of Engineering Bob Peterson stated that Sign and Signal Manager Jim Charles has said there is no longer a need for them. Mr. Charles did, however, recall a conversation years ago between then traffic engineer, Dave Sonnenberg, Lansing Township and GM officials. At that time, Lansing Township was concerned that as the property develops, the need for the signals will become necessary. Mr. Charles informed Mr. Peterson that the change could be transitioned so that the signal could be put on yellow flash for Michigan Avenue traffic and red flash for Hungerford Street traffic, which would include the installation of stop signs on Hungerford for Michigan, for approximately three months to get motorists used to the change, then the signal could be turned off and removed. If, at some point in the future, the property develops and the intersection once again meets the warrants for a traffic signal, it would be relatively easy to reinstall.
Mr. Peterson indicated he spoke with Township Supervisor John Daher and Mr. Daher does not see a problem with converting the intersection as described. He said he would contact Mr. Daher and request the township board’s position in writing. Chair Smith said he believes that Local 602 will be relocating its business office from this area to somewhere in the vicinity of the new Delta plant.
Mr. Peterson said the proper traffic control order would be brought to the Board at a future meeting.
AGENDA ITEM #9B – 2007 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS.
Interim Managing Director Sandy Montgomery presented the Board with adjustments to the 2007 budget. She explained the budget is now in line with the Chart of Accounts. She said most of the movement within the budget was regarding labor and equipment. These items were not put where they should be, which caused a lot of confusion. Ms. Montgomery stated there is $287,000 less in expenditures than originally budgeted for, mostly due to positions that were not filled and refunds from MCRCSIP and CRASIF. She indicated by year’s end there should be a fund balance of $3.7 million, which is a very solid number.
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2007 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS.
RESOLUTION #164-07
Moved by Commissioner Rodgers and Supported by Commissioner Guenther. 3 yes, 0 no. Resolution carried unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED that upon recommendation of the Interim Managing Director, the Board approves the following 2007 Budget Adjustments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GENERAL OPERATING FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
2007 |
Sept, 2007 |
Oct. 18, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSE BUDGET |
Budget |
Adjusted Budget |
Actual |
Budget Adjustment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRIMARY ROAD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non Motorized Pathways |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heavy Maintenance |
5,793,900 |
7,941,405 |
1,887,302 |
7,950,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance |
1,341,000 |
1,361,000 |
2,589,737 |
3,050,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
7,134,900 |
9,302,405 |
4,477,039 |
11,000,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOCAL ROAD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heavy Maintenance |
454,000 |
1,240,020 |
213,123 |
1,365,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance |
783,760 |
768,760 |
1,991,189 |
2,500,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
1,237,760 |
2,008,780 |
2,204,312 |
3,865,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GROSS EQUIP EXPENSE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct Expense |
1,167,607 |
1,200,000 |
728,399 |
1,200,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indirect Expense |
1,016,860 |
1,000,000 |
719,974 |
1,200,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expense |
391,731 |
350,000 |
264,483 |
350,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Rental Credits |
-2,213,775 |
-2,400,000 |
-1,791,292 |
-2,400,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Net Equipment Expense
|
362,423 |
150,000 |
-78,436 |
350,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GROSS ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSE |
1,321,548 |
1,307,798 |
749,394 |
1,200,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Purchase Discounts |
-2,100 |
-2,100 |
-428 |
-2,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Handling Charges |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Overhead Charges |
-2,800 |
-2,800 |
725 |
-2,800 |
|
|
|