CHAIRPERSON COUNTY SERVICES COMMITTEE DEBBIE DE LEON VICTOR CELENTINO, CHAIR CAROL KOENIG VICE-CHAIRPERSON DIANNE HOLMAN DALE COPEDGE DALE COPEDGE MARK GREBNER VICE-CHAIRPERSON PRO-TEM DONALD VICKERS RANDY SCHAFER

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

P.O. Box 319, Mason, Michigan 48854 Telephone (517) 676-7200 Fax (517) 676-7264

THE COUNTY SERVICES COMMITTEE WILL MEET ON TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009 AT 6:00 P.M., IN THE PERSONNEL CONFERENCE ROOM (D & E), HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING, 5303 S. CEDAR, LANSING.

NOTE CHANGE IN TIME Agenda

Call to Order Approval of the April 21, 2009 Minutes Additions to the Agenda Limited Public Comment 1. Interviews a. Women’s Commission b. Equal Opportunity Committee 2. Register of Deeds Office – Request to Start Employee at Step 4 3. Treasurer’s Office

a. Notification of Overnight Travel b. Resolution to Provide United Way 211 with Funding for Tax Foreclosure

Prevention Efforts c. Resolution to Provide Legal Services of South Central Michigan with Funding for

Tax and Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention d. Resolution to Provide Greater Lansing Housing Coalition (GLHC) with

Additional Funding for Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention e. Resolution to Provide the Ingham County Land Bank Fast Track Authority with

Capacity Building Funding 4. Animal Control Department - Request for Recommendation to Waive Hiring Freeze on

Vacant Shelter Operator Position 5. Parks Department - Information – Overnight Travel to Vet Tech Workshop 6. Facilities Department

a. Resolution Awarding a Contract to Pavement Management Services, Inc. to Provide Consulting for Pavement Installation Services at the Ingham County Fairgrounds

b. Resolution Authorizing a Contract with Laux Construction, LLC to Provide Restoration Services at the Human Services Building

c. Resolution Authorizing the Replacement of the Chiller at the Ingham County Human Services Building to be Performed by Myers Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

d. Resolution Authorizing the Replacement of the Chiller at the Ingham County Youth Center to be Performed by Myers Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

7. Human Resources Department a. Resolution Approving a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the United Automobile

Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) Ingham County Unit Local 2256 for the Technical, Office, Para-Professional and Service Employees

b. Resolution Approving a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Michigan Association of Police

8. MIS Department – Discussion: Collaboration Efforts and Stimulus Money Opportunities

to Advance Connectivity with other Counties and Intermediate School Districts 9. Controller’s Office

a. Discussion: Resolution Updating Various Fees for County Services b. Notification of Overnight Travel – Annual Spring MACAO Conference

10. County Services Committee a. Resolution in Support of the State of Michigan to Fulfill Its Obligations and

Promises and Fully and Unconditionally Restore State Revenue Sharing for All Michigan’s 83 Counties

b. Resolution Honoring David Henley Announcements PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES OR OTHER ELECTRONIC Public Comment DEVICES OR SET TO MUTE OR VIBRATE TO AVOID Adjournment DISRUPTION DURING THE MEETING

The County of Ingham will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as interpreters for the hearing impaired and audio tapes of printed materials being considered at the meeting for the visually impaired, for individuals with disabilities at the meeting upon five (5) working days notice to the County of Ingham. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary aids or services should contact the County of Ingham in writing or by calling the following: Ingham County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 319, Mason, MI 48854 Phone: (517) 676-7200. A quorum of the Board of Commissioners may be in attendance at this meeting. Meeting information is also available on line at www.ingham.org

COUNTY SERVICES COMMITTEE April 21, 2009

Minutes

Members Present: Victor Celentino, Carol Koenig, Dianne Holman, Dale Copedge, Mark

Grebner, Donald Vickers and Board Chairperson Debbie DeLeon Members Absent: None Others Present: Matthew Myers, Tony Lindsey, Laura Davis, Becky Bennett, Rick Terrill,

Jim Hudgins, Janeil Valentine, Eric Schertzing, Paul Pratt, Pat O’Brien, Cindy Lounds, Jonathon Esch, Zane Hubbard, Justin Converse, Elias Jensky, Ben Wright, Chris Keck, Nick Hobart, Phil Vaughn, Mike Parker, Lynne Meade, Jen Feasal, Dale Collins, Carlos Varona, Charles Cleven, Becky Brimley, George Van Coppenolle, Kenneth Stevens, Nicholas Rodgers, Terry Potts, Brian Brannick, Sherri Wiegman, Marie Wolf, Jeff Donahue, Guy Sweet, Jim Chapman, Linn Driver, Willis Bennett, Steve Dougan, Rich McNulty, Eric Matwiejczyk, Michael Marks, Bill Byrck, Vince Dragonetti, Richard Van Den Berghe, Chris Ruethe, Steven McDonald, B. Pat Weber, Mark Stambaugh, Aaron Gregory, Eric Prater, Todd McCastle, Ken Taylor, Andrew Mosser, Tom Shewchuk, Mary Benedict, Chris Fisher and others

The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Celentino at 7:01 p.m. in the Personnel Conference Room of the Human Services Building, 5303 S. Cedar, Lansing. Approval of the April 7, 2009 Minutes MOVED BY COMM. KOENIG, SUPPORTED COMM. HOLMAN, TO APPROVE THE APRIL 7 MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Minutes were amended on page one as follows:

The Consent Agenda motion was moved by Comm. Copedge, not Comm. Dougan. Additions to the Agenda 4a. Substitute Resolution 4b. Revised Memorandum from Dr. Myers 8a. Substitute Resolution 8b. Substitute Resolution 8c. Resolution and Staff Review Limited Public Comment Mr. Michaels addressed the agenda item 6. He stated Sparrow, MSU, LCC and private and public entities use Project Labor Agreements (PLA). PLA’s are legal documents. This issue involves competition. Mr. Chapman stated non-union workers are required to pay union dues on Project Labor Agreement projects. Non-union workers would also be required to pay into union benefit funds.

Mr. Fisher, president of ABC, stated there is only one concern about the PLA. Union and non-union workers should have an equal opportunity to work within the County. He then stated Ingham County, including its contractors and vendors, shall not prohibit nor require agreements with labor organizations; and it shall require employees to be either members or nonmembers of a labor organization. Mr. Fisher left copies of a letter he sent to the Board of Commissioners recently. He then stated he hopes this Committee will consider the language in his letter. Mr. VanDenBerghe stated he is concerned about the economy. PLA’s will result in a division between union and non-union workers. The two groups should be able to work for the County. Mr. Bitzer said he represents trades people, tax payers, etc. He then spoke about the recent Career Day. This event brings young people into the trades business. Mr. Bitzer then spoke about the Project Labor Agreement. Currently, there are two PLA’s in this town. A PLA does not exclude contractors who are not union workers. Mr. Parks said PLA’s almost always means a contractor has to be a signatory to the union. The contractor also has to pay union dues and union benefit funds. If the County wants to have a better control over the contracts, it should rely on the contractors. Mr. Parks asked the Committee to please consider that PLA’s are not good for all trades. Mr. Donahue, Ingham County employee union representative, spoke about Mr. Matwiejczyk. Mr. Matwiejczyk was an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney in the Ingham County Attorney’s Office. Mr. Dunnings withdrew Mr. Matwiejczyk appointment as an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney from his Office on August 20, 2008. This move was based on Mr. Dunning’s belief that of a negative public perception for his Office. The Attorney General’s August 19, 2008 report found “there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that any applicable criminal statute or common law crime occurred.” Mr. Donahue further stated the Attorney General’s office referred this matter to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission. On March 21, 2009, the Commission determined the evidence did not warrant further action by the Commission and directed that any investigation be dismissed. Mr. Donahue stated Mr. Dunnings had informed Mr. Matwiejczyk that if he was cleared by the Attorney Grievance Commission he would welcome him back into his Office. Mr. Donahue said Mr. Matwiejczyk should receive a full 12 month severance pay per his bargaining agreement. He then asked that this Committee grant Mr. Matwiejczyk an additional four months of severance pay. Mr. Sweet, union president and Chief Steward, stated he represented Mr. Matwiejczyk through his termination process. During this process, Mr. Dunnings made the following statements: that he did not believe Mr. Matwiejczyk had done anything wrong during a specific trial; and that, Mr. Matwiejczyk was being terminated only because of negative public and perspective concerns. Mr. Dunnings had also stated if Mr. Matwiejczyk was cleared by the Commission, he would welcome him back. Mr. Sweet asked this Committee to compel Mr. Dunnings to keep his promise to Mr. Matwiejczyk.

2

Ms. Wiegman stated she was present this evening to collaborate Mr. Sweet’s statements regarding Mr. Matwiejczyk. Ms. Wolf, a previous Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, stated she has known Mr. Matwiejczyk for many years. He is a highly skilled and sought after attorney. Ms. Wolfe spoke of her positive work experience with Mr. Matwiejczyk. She then urged the Committee to read the Attorney Grievance Commission report and to allow him to receive an additional four months of severance pay. Mr. Matwiejczyk distributed copies of Mr. Dunning’s reference letter, Mr. Matwiejczyk’s wife’s letter to Mr. Dunnings and the Attorney Grievance Commission’s report. He then stated Mr. Dunnings did promise him that he could be returned to the Office if he was cleared by the Commission. This has not happened. Mr. Matwiejczyk spoke about how this has affected his family life. He also stated he loved working in the Prosecutor’s Office and would like to return to the Office. Mr. Matwiejczyk asked the Committee to extend his severance pay to August 20, 2009 so that he can continue to look for employment. Mr. Eastwood, IBEW, said the proposed policy does not include “union only” language. He then spoke about the ABC website. The website has less than 20 contractors who are based in Ingham County. Mr. Driver distributed copies of his April 21, 2009 letter to this Committee from Mackenzie Environmental Services, Inc. He then referred to an attachment to his letter which illustrated that his business was the lowest bidder for two projects. The union bidders were well above his bid amounts for the two projects. Mr. Driver stated the County would be well served to use County-based businesses. Mr. Clark, Clark Construction, stated Clark Construction is a local business and is very involved in the community. The issue of concern is freedom of choice. The County’s proposed policy will limit the freedom of choice. Mr. Clark further stated a PLA will require non-union workers to pay union dues. The PLA is not equitable for everyone in the community. Mr. Mosser said the County can stipulate what is included in their PLA. A PLA provides oversight and accountability. He further stated he is present this evening to protect the people who are working on the projects, not the business owners. Mr. Stevens said PLA’s are for better wages and this would result in a better community. Mr. Strank stated a payroll audit shows that the employees are paid. If anything, a PLA limits where the employees come from within the community. Mr. Parker asked people in attendance to raise their flags to demonstrate their support for PLA’s. He then stated PLA’s support people making health care benefits for their families and people making a decent wage. PLA’s also support a pension so that people can retire and live with dignity in their old age. Mr. Kirk said we all need to work for the benefit of all union and non-union local residents.

3

MOVED BY COMM. VICKERS, SUPPORTED BY COMM. GREBNER, TO APPROVE A CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: 1. Drain Commissioner – Resolution Pledging Limited Tax Full Faith and Credit for the

Gilbert and West Town Intercounty Drain Drainage District 2009 Drainage District Bonds

2. Parks Department – Requesting Approval for Zoo Staff to Travel Out of State for 2009

Conferences and Workshops 3. Facilities Department

a. Resolution Authorizing a Contract with John E. Green Company for Replacement of Heating and Cooling Valves at the Ingham County Courthouse in Mason

b. Resolution Authorizing Replacement of A//C Units in the Data Center at the

Hilliard Building to be Performed by Myers Plumbing & Heating, Inc. c. Resolution to Establish a Policy and Guidelines for Use of Electronic Devices,

Computers, and Open Flames in County Facilities (Tabled from the February 6, 2009 and April 8, 2009 County Services Agendas.)

8. Controller’s Office

c. Resolution to Require the County Wide Elected Officials: Drain Commissioner, Clerk, Register of Deeds, Prosecutor, Sheriff and Treasurer to Pay an Additional 1% of their wages toward their premium share of their Health Benefits for 2010

d. Information – April 3, 2009 Building Authority Minutes

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Human Resources Department a. Resolution to Authorize Reclassification of the Chief Deputy Treasurer MOVED BY COMM. GREBNER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. KOENIG, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE CHIEF DEPUTY TREASURER. Comm. Vickers asked for clarification regarding the cost of this position. Mr. Schertzing explained that this position will result in lower attorney costs. Those costs will be returned to the County’s General Fund. Comm. Grebner asked if the Treasurer can use revolving funds without Board approval. Mr. Myers stated the Treasurer is to seek Board approval in this matter; however, staff trusts Mr. Schertzing.

4

In response to Chairperson Celentino, Mr. Schertzing explained the tax revision process. He stated this is a foreclosure process. Chairperson Celentino then asked why the Treasurer does not use the County Attorney for this matter. Mr. Schertzing said the County Attorneys do not work on foreclosure matters. Comm. Copedge asked about the proposed salary for this position. Mr. Schertzing stated he estimates this position will result in a sustainable savings of $40,000 per fiscal year in payments to outside legal vendors. Comm. Copedge said the savings would only be $10,000. He then asked if the Treasurer will need to hire an additional employee to cover the work that Mr. Schlinker currently does. Mr. Schertzing said Mr. Schlinker may use a quarter of his time for the legal work. He further stated there will be ample savings over the long term that will work its way into the General Fund. Comm. Copedge stated he wants to ensure that the Treasurer’s Office will not need an additional employee due to the proposed reclassification. Mr. Schertzing stated the Treasurer’s Office’s responsibilities are affected by many other factors. He also stated there is no expectation that the reclassification will result in an additional employee. Comm. Holman asked if the job description was written specifically for Mr. Schlinker. Mr. Lindsey stated the job description was fitted to Mr. Schlinker because he has a legal degree. If Mr. Schlinker leaves this position, the Treasurer will find another person with the same qualifications. Comm. Koenig stated the savings resulting from the reclassification are actually about $33,000 in legal fees. Comm. Grebner pointed out that this position is under the control of the Treasurer. All these matters are cooperative between the Board of Commissioners and the Treasurer’s Office. MOTION CARRIED with Comm. Vickers voting NO.

b. Resolution to Authorize Movement of Two (2) Vacant Insurance Positions to the Ingham County Financial Services Department

MOVED BY COMM. GREBNER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. VICKERS, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE MOVEMENT OF TWO (2) VACANT INSURANCE POSITIONS TO THE INGHAM COUNTY FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT. Mr. Myers explained the Insurance Billing Coordinator and the Benefit and Insurance Administrator positions will be moved from the Human Resources Department to the Financial Services Department. This move will result in greater efficiency. Mr. Myers also reviewed the financial aspects of this Resolution. Comm. Grebner stated the costs for these positions should be figured at the top step. Mr. Myers said he will have that information for the Finance Committee meeting tomorrow evening. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5

5. Management Information Services Department – Resolution to Approve Entering into an Agreement with the Spyglas Group for Telecommunication Expense Management for Ingham County

MOVED BY COMM. GREBNER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. VICKERS, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SPYGLAS GROUP FOR TELECOMMUNICATION EXPENSE MANAGEMENT FOR INGHAM COUNTY. Mr. Shewchuk explained the Spyglas Group will audit all of the County’s telecommunication expenses and make cost savings recommendations. In Phase I (typically 4-6 months) of this agreement, Spyglas will examine our current expenses and will retain 50% of the recovered savings. Ingham County will retain the other 50%. After Phase I, all cost savings recovered will be retained by Ingham County. In addition, Ingham County will pay Spyglas $4,000 per month for a 12-month period to assist the County in further reducing telecommunication costs. Comm. Vickers asked what Spyglas would look for per the contract. Mr. Shewchuk stated Spyglas will audit the County’s bills and they will work with the vendors. Without the vendor, it would take two full time employees to perform this service. Comm. Holman asked if this process was done recently. Mr. Shewchuk stated if the auditing was performed, it was before he assumed his position. Comm. Grebner asked if this service will always be needed. Mr. Shewchuk said this contract will be evaluated after the first twelve months. A recommendation will be submitted to this Committee. Board Chairperson DeLeon asked how the determination was made to use Spyglas. Mr. Shewchuk explained that his office, the Purchasing and the Controller’s Offices evaluated the proposals. The list of vendors was reduced to two vendors, Spyglas and RMS Associates. Spyglas was selected due to their skills and their costs. Board Chairperson DeLeon stated the 50% recovery cost is high. Mr. Shewchuk stated the 50% recovery fee is only for the first four to six months. Comm. Davis said the local vendor would cost less. Mr. Shewchuk stated staff called RMS references. The references indicated that RMS is mainly a consultant firm. Ingham County needs an auditing firm. Spyglas fits our needs at this time. Comm. Copedge asked if the contract will contain language regarding the 12-month period. Mr. Shewchuk stated the contract is for one year with an option to renew for additional two years. The cost is the same for the first two years of the contract. Mr. Shewchuk also stated he hopes to conduct this service in house in the future in an effort to save money. Comm. Koenig asked if this service has been performed in the past. Comm. Grebner said the County has done many different things in the past. Comm. Koenig also asked if most of the savings would be in the first four months of the contract. Mr. Shewchuk stated his office will receive regular reports and disclosures from the vendor. The MIS Department needs to get a handle on its expenses.

6

Comm. Grebner said this process is a good illustration between a bid process and a proposal process. The proposal process is more complicated than a bid process. This Committee’s role in this matter is to review staff’s recommendation and to approve same unless staff made a mistake. It sounds like staff did a good job in this matter. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. County Services Committee – Resolution Authorizing the Ingham County Board of

Commissioners to Continue as a Member of the Lansing Area Economic Partnership (LEAP)

MOVED BY COMM. VICKERS, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO CONTINUE AS A MEMBER OF THE LANSING AREA ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP (LEAP). MOTION DIED due to lack of support. MOVED BY COMM. GREBNER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. KOENIG, TO ALLOCATE $5,000 TO THE LANSING AREA ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP (LEAP) FOR A JUNIOR MEMBERSHIP. Chairperson Celentino stated the $5,000 membership does not allow the County to vote on LEAP’s issues. Comm. Vickers stated he supports the above motion with reservations. Joining LEAP is a better use of County funds than some other County projects. Board Chairperson DeLeon said the $5,000 is insignificant; however, it doesn’t allow us to vote. She then stated the concept with the Airport and LEAP is there will be a significant process to get Eaton and Clinton Counties on board. Potter Park is another matter to be addressed. Ingham County will see what kind of service it would receive from LEAP if it is a voting member. Comm. Copedge asked if the County is a full LEAP member, if LEAP could work out an agreement with Eaton and Clinton Counties regarding the Airport. Ms. Ferguson said a full membership is a voting membership. The County has to determine if it wants to be involved in the airport discussions. Comm. Copedge asked how important it is for LEAP to have a regional airport. Ms. Ferguson stated that issue is very important for LEAP. This matter ranks highly on their list of priorities. Comm. Koenig asked if there is any reason for the County to be a $5,000 member. Ms. Ferguson said the County would not have a voice in the strategy for the projects. Comm. Koenig asked what the County gained during its first year as a member of LEAP. Ms. Ferguson stated one of the key areas LEAP focused on was transportation. LEAP has not yet focused on the airport issue. Chairperson Celentino said he will vote against the motion. The County should be a full member or not a member at all. The Committee can reevaluate its position next year. Comm. Dougan echoed Chairperson Celentino’s statements above.

7

Ms. Ferguson said Ms. Pigg has been a critical person for the LEAP’s retention team. This partnership would dissolve if the County is not a full member. MOTION CARRIED with Comms. Celentino and Vickers voting NO. 6. Purchasing Department – Ingham County Construction Policy Mr. Myers said he met with Mr. Terrill, Mr. Hudgins and Ms. Valentine to address this Committee’s concerns about this Policy. Staff also met with the Board Chairperson to review the Policy. The Policy before the Committee tonight addresses this Committee’s concerns and suggestions. Comm. Grebner said his general sense is that this Committee will adopt a Project Labor Agreement Policy. The Committee should not debate if it wants a PLA or not. It should focus on the critical specific problems for staff to address. The issues include: the minimal amount that applies to the PLA; focus on a construction amount that is higher than $50,000; and the requirement for non-union workers to pay union benefit funds. Comm. Grebner said staff should determine the vendors’ concerns. Comm. Grebner suggested the Committee should not change its underlying policy regarding local vendors’ preference. The Committee should agree that it likes PLA’s. He further stated the Committee should not try to solve five different political disputes. If the Committee wants to change the local preference policy, it should be done separately. Comm. Vickers referred to page two of the Attorney’s Attorney/Client Privilege letter dated April 20, 2009. He stated the Committee should keep the first four and the last bullets in mind during these discussions. Comm. Vickers then volunteered to work with staff on this matter. Comm. Grebner stated the County should have a process that it assumes in the event that a PLA is not necessary for a specific project. This Committee would approve a resolution which explains why a PLA is not needed. Comm. Holman said this Committee has not defined a PLA yet. The Committee needs to determine what it wants that is different from the current policies. Do we need a PLA or just another alternative to the current policies? Comm. Davis said a PLA would protect the project workers. Comm. Holman said this concern could be addressed in a number of forms. A template should be drafted to address specific concerns. Mr. McNulty, County Attorney, stated if the Committee does not want a union-only policy, it should not be called a PLA. He then explained that PLA’s are only allowed for construction projects. Most of the bullets on page two of his letter are negotiable items. Mr. McNulty stated the definition of a PLA is contained on page one of his letter.

8

Comm. Grebner said a PLA has to accept union contracts. If there are specific reasons why this is not rationale, there should be alternatives to the PLA. He further said it should not be impossible for a non-union vendor to bid on a County contract. Comm. Vickers said this Committee originally spoke about having better oversight on County projects. The five bullet points in the County Attorney letter would mean the difference between a PLA and a non-union contract. Board Chairperson DeLeon referred to the Ingham County Construction Projects Valued at $50,000 or more or 2006-2009 spreadsheet. She stated she asked staff to identify which vendors are registered with the County, which vendors have received payment from the County and how much money was received during the same time period. From 2006 to 2009, there were 27 registered vendors, 21 received payment from the County, there were three bidders, and four bidders did not proceed through the normal process because they were for the Drain Office. Of the vendors who received payment from the County, 14 of them received under $48,000. Two of those vendors worked on the same project. Board Chairperson DeLeon stated the Ingham Academy project probably would have fallen under the terms of a PLA. Comm. Grebner said the amounts paid are not necessarily the cost of the projects. Ms. Valentine stated a very large project would only list one vendor. Chairperson Celentino said staff should understand what this Committee is asking of them in this matter. Staff should determine the minimal contract amount and the required amount of funds for non-union contractors. The Committee is not dealing with the local preference policy at this time. Comm. Copedge stated staff should address the two mandatory issues with the County Attorney. The County Attorney should develop ideas for staff and the Commissioners to consider. Mr. Myers said staff will address the minimal amount, determine if anyone who bids on the project would have to pay into the retirement funds; address when a PLA might or might not be appropriate. The Local Preference Policy will not be addressed at this time. Board Chairperson DeLeon said the Construction Policy includes a piece that addresses the use of a PLA. The Policy requires a PLA. She then said the only part that should be changed in this Policy is the minimal amount. Comm. Vickers stated the five bullet points should be reviewed by this Committee. The County many not need a PLA; it may need an alternative document. Mr. McNulty said the two elements needed for a PLA are a union and a no-strike provision. This is a real collective bargaining agreement. He will help staff to draft a policy to meet the concerns from this Committee. Vendors will need to determine if they want to agree with a PLA. Mr. Terrill stated staff will come back to this Committee with a Policy that addresses it needs. 8. Controller’s Office a. Resolution Authorizing Adjustments to the 2009 Ingham County Budget

9

MOVED BY COMM. GREBNER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. COPEDGE, TO APPROVE THE SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE 2009 INGHAM COUNTY BUDGET. Comm. Vickers stated he voted against this Resolution in the Human Services Committee meeting on Monday. He expressed his concern about the items that aren’t needed. Board Chairperson DeLeon reminded the Committee that some of the items in the budget are funded through grants. Comm. Davis said she also voted against this item in the Human Services Committee on Monday. She then stated the email she received today cleared her concerns. Comm. Davis said she will support this item for the Finance Committee tomorrow evening. MOTION CARRIED with Comm. Celentino and Vickers voting NO.

b. Resolution Establishing Areas of Priority Emphasis Guiding 2010 Activities and Budget Process

MOVED BY COMM. GREBNER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. COPEDGE, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AREAS OF PRIORITY EMPHASIS GUIDING 2010 ACTIVITIES AND BUDGET PROCESS. Comm. Vickers stated he took issue with the road patrol matter at the Human Services Committee last evening. The phrase “supporting public safety” is a concern. Comm. Vickers asked for the definition of “supporting.” MOVED BY COMM. HOLMAN, SUPPORTED BY COMM. GRENBER, TO AMEND THE SECTION TO PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND SMART GROWTH, SPECIFIC ENHANCEMENT: SEVENTH LINE, REMOVE “(OR “SUCH AS LEED STANDARDS”).” Comm. Holman said she will not support this Resolution because of the road patrol language. MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Comm. Holman asked which road patrol services will be eliminated. Board Chairperson DeLeon reminded the Committee that this Resolution is for 2010. We are developing a plan to implement next year. MAIN MOTION CARRIED with Comms. Holman and Vickers voting NO. 9. Board Referrals

a. Resolution from Oscoda County in Support of the County Remonumentation Program

b. Resolution from Oceana County Regarding the State of Michigan Survey and

Remonumentation Program 10

The Board Referrals were received and placed on file.

Announcements Mr. Myers said the Committee tabled the Resolution to Transfer the Jury Administration Duties from the Ingham County Management Information Systems Department to the Ingham County Jury Administrator at the April 7 Committee meeting. Mr. Bryanton wants to make sure that he has an agreement with the Circuit Court before this Resolution is approved. Mr. Myers stated Mr. Bryanton made it clear to him that he would not accept the position due to the emails he received from the Court. This will not be a workable situation in the Clerk’s position. Mr. Myers stated he will request the Board of Commissioners to allow his Office to work with the Clerk and assume those duties until something can be worked out with the Court. If this matter is not resolved, the Committee will see a resolution to have the position in his Office. Comm. Copedge said there should be cooperation between elected officials to better the County. We should look at other ways or methods to mold the Court into being more cooperative. This is an opportunity to improve efficiently. The Committee needs to open the eyes of the Court in some way. Comm. Koenig agreed with Comm. Copedge’s comments. She then asked if the problem is related to personalities. Comm. Koenig also asked if it is possible for the staff to work out this problem. Mr. Myers indicated this problem cannot be resolved. Comm. Vickers said we need to do a better job to let people know that an upcoming change will affect them. Mr. Myers provided a brief history and background of the jury position. The Clerk agreed to try to take on the jury duties. Judge Collette and the Court both said they did not want the two positions under their wing. Chairperson Celentino informed the Committee that the May 5, 2009 meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. The first County Services Committee meeting of the month will be held at 6:00 p.m. instead of 7:00 p.m. Public Comment: None The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Neff

11

Agenda Item 2

TO: County Services Committee

FROM: Curtis Hertel, Jr., Register of Deeds

DATE: April 28, 2009

RE: Request to Start Employee at Step 4 The Community Outreach Coordinator position is the newly created classification in the Register of Deeds Office. The position has been offered to Martha Miles who is an outstanding candidate. Martha brings to the position more than 18 years of experience in the Lansing area organizing community events. A higher starting salary is recommended due to her education and experience. Because of the on the ground work experience and exceptional skills, it is anticipated that Ms. Miles will be able to quickly assume her job responsibilities. She will be an outstanding addition to our staff. I am requesting that Martha start at Step 4 of the MCF 07 classified position, for a salary of $50,752. A higher starting salary is appropriate given the assets she will bring to the department.

Thank you for your support in this matter. I will be in attendance at the meeting to address any questions you may have.

Agenda Item 3a

Memorandum From: Eric Schertzing, County Treasurer To: County Services Committee Members Date: April 20, 2009 Re: Notification of Overnight Travel Pursuant to the County’s March 24, 2009 Resolution Establishing a revised Travel Policy (Resolution #09-90), I am writing to inform you that my Chief Deputy Treasurer, John Schlinker is attending a Michigan Municipal Treasurer’s Association (MMTA) Training session in Mt. Pleasant April 26- May 1. Mr. Schlinker registered for this training in November 2008 and the overnight lodging is approximately $70 per night.

Agenda Item 3b RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE April 24, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution to Provide United Way 211 with Funding for Tax

Foreclosure Prevention Efforts Submitted by: Ingham County Treasurer Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This Resolution will authorize an additional $5,000 from the Delinquent Tax Administration Fund, to be given to United Way 211 to provide assistance for tax foreclosure prevention efforts. Financial Implications: $5,000 will be transferred from the Delinquent Tax Administration Fund to United Way, for possible prevention of tax foreclosed properties. Successful prevention of the tax foreclosed properties will generate revenue for the County. Other Implications: None. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

Agenda Item 3b Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE UNITED WAY 211 WITH FUNDING FOR TAX FORECLOSURE PREVENTION EFFORTS

WHEREAS, the economic pressure caused by foreclosure is expected to be severe throughout 2009 and beyond; and WHEREAS, the County works with the United Way, City of Lansing and the non-profit community to coordinate and increase the local capacity for foreclosure prevention response; and WHEREAS, the County Treasurer and the tax foreclosure process drives significant call volume to 211 from 11,000 tax delinquent parcels; and WHEREAS, the need exists for additional brochures and call center staff hours to respond to the foreclosure referrals to 211. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Board of Commissioners authorizes additional funding of $5,000 to the United Way for 211 services from the Delinquent Tax Administration Fund (516-25601). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Controller/Administrator is directed to make all necessary budget adjustments consistent with this resolution to strengthen the capacity within Ingham County for Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention efforts.

Agenda Item 3c RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE April 24, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution to Provide Legal Services of South Central Michigan

with Funding for Tax and Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Submitted by: Ingham County Treasurer Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This Resolution authorizes the expenditure of $20,000 from the Delinquent Tax Revolving Fund, to Legal Aid of South Central Michigan to assist with legal services specifically related to Mortgage Foreclosure efforts. Financial Implications: $20,000 will be transferred from the Delinquent Tax Revolving Fund to possibly prevent the foreclosure of properties that would then generate revenue to Ingham County. Other Implications: This effort will replace the lost revenue to Legal Aid as a result of the reduced funding from the Community Agency process. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

Agenda Item 3c Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES OF SOUTH CENTRAL MICHIGAN WITH FUNDING FOR TAX AND MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE PREVENTION

WHEREAS, the incidence of predatory, sub-prime and adjustable rate mortgage products is negatively impacting our County and the economic pressure caused by these mortgage products is expected to be severe throughout 2009 and beyond; and WHEREAS, the volume of Sheriff’s Deed activity in 2008 was comparable to 2007 as a reflection of this continuing economic strain; and WHEREAS, the County Treasurer has been working since late 2006 with the City of Lansing and the non-profit community to coordinate and increase the local counseling capacity for mortgage foreclosure prevention; and WHEREAS, the need exists for additional legal services through Legal Aid of South Central Michigan; and WHEREAS, the Ingham County Treasurer wishes to enter into the attached partnership agreement with Legal Services of South Central Michigan to assist low and moderate income owners/occupants who are in jeopardy of losing their homes due to tax-foreclosure. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Board of Commissioners authorizes funding of $20,000 to Legal Aid of South Central Michigan for ongoing foreclosure prevention efforts from the Delinquent Tax Revolving Fund (516-25607). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Controller/Administrator is directed to make all necessary budget adjustments consistent with this resolution to strengthen the capacity within Ingham County for Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention efforts.

Partnership Agreement between

Ingham County Treasurer and Legal Services of South Central Michigan

This Partnership Agreement is entered into between Eric Schertzing, Ingham County

Treasurer (Treasurer) as the Foreclosing Governmental Unit, and Legal Services of South Central Michigan (Legal Services) effective April 1, 2009, for a term of two years through March 31, 2011. Purpose:

Both parties wish to assist low and moderate income owners/occupants who are in jeopardy of losing their homes due to tax-foreclosure (or due to predatory mortgage practices associated with or triggered by the non-payment of property taxes) and mortgage foreclosure, especially with assisting victims of predatory lending practices.

Legal Services agrees to provide these owners/occupants with a full range of legal services to households facing foreclosure, including: advice and advocacy regarding homestead, probate, or competency issues; advice and assistance with hardship or poverty applications; advice and assistance in accessing emergency funding or public assistance; advice and assistance in real property matters relating to the possible tax foreclosure; advice and assistance in real property matters relating to mortgage foreclosure, including cases where we suspect there may be rescue scams or predatory lending practices. These services may include: home visits, board of review hardship application preparation and advocacy, recommendations for and preparation of loan and grant documents for payment of delinquent taxes, assistance with hardship exemption applications, referral to various social work, mental health, or other social organizations, income tax preparation, negotiation with other parties regarding the homeowners’ legal claims, direct representation in administrative hearings, and direct representation in court proceedings. Because coordination of services with other services providers is an important element in serving these homeowners, Legal Services agrees to send staff to any services coordination meetings at the request of the Treasurer.

All legal assistance activities under this Agreement will be provided by Legal Services to

its clients based on Legal Services’ exercise of its independent legal opinion on behalf of agency

clients. While the Treasurer will refer clients to Legal Services, the attorney-client relationship

will be between the owner/occupant and Legal Services.

Scope: Persons eligible for referral include any customer of the Treasurer’s Office who is in jeopardy of forfeiture or foreclosure for non-payment of taxes, or any customer who the Treasurer’s Office believes may be a victim of predatory lending practices. In addition, eligible clients include persons facing tax or mortgage foreclosure who contact Legal Services directly or who are referred to Legal Services by other community agencies. Legal Services will accept for purposes of assessment and advice customers referred by the Treasurer’s office regardless of the customer’s income, as long as the home at issue is the customer’s primary residence (i.e., not an investment property) and as long as the referred client does not represent a conflict of interest for Legal Services. Customers who would otherwise not have priority eligibility for Legal Services may be served under this Agreement. Details: Responsibilities of the County Treasurer:

• This Agreement will be in the amount of $20,000 for the period April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010, with a renewal of the grant in the amount of $20,000 for the period of April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.

• Treasurer agrees to make the payment described above. $10,000 will be paid upon the signing of this agreement and/or an additional contract for services. $10,000 will be paid within 21 days after the date of receipt of the first year “interim report” (due on or before October 31, 2009) discussed below.

• Treasurer agrees to make the second year’s payment as follows: $10,000 will be paid within 21 days after the date of receipt of the first year report (due on or before April 1, 2010), and $10,000 will be paid within 21 days after the date of receipt of the second year “interim report” (due on or before October 31, 2010) discussed below.

• Treasurer agrees to refer clients to Legal Services as outlined above. To assist both organizations with client tracking and follow up, Treasurer agrees to maintain a list of all referrals to Legal Services and agrees to provide client contact information to Legal Services at the request of Legal Services.

Responsibilities of Legal Services: • Legal Services will accept referrals of customers in jeopardy due to the foreclosure

process and will provide services as described in the Purpose section of this Agreement.

• Legal Services will provide services in a minimum of 40 client cases per year in consideration for this payment. In the event the services undertaken through this agreement exceed 40 client cases per year, Legal Services will provide these services without the expectation of additional payment from the Treasurer.

• Upon request of the Treasurer, Legal Services will provide the Treasurer a report on the status of any referral. That report will include, at a minimum, information indicating whether or not the customer is represented by Legal Services.

• Files of individual clients remain the property of the respective organizations that create the file and are held as confidential under the confidentiality laws in the State of Michigan for privileged legal conversations and/or for social worker privilege and under federal regulations including any appropriate sections of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996).

• A Legal Services attorney will attend services coordination meetings as requested by the Treasurer.

• On or before October 31, 2009, Legal Services will provide the Treasurer a report on the services provided under the first six months of this Agreement. This report will include aggregate data (not client identified data) on number of client cases opened; cases closed; level of service; and outcome.

• On or before April 30, 2010, Legal Services will provide the Treasurer an annual report on the services provided during the period April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010. This report will include aggregate data (not client identified data) on number of client cases opened; cases closed; level of service; and outcome.

• On or before October 31, 2010, Legal Services will provide the Treasurer a second interim report on the services provided during the period April 1, 2010 through October 1, 2010. This report will include aggregate data (not client identified data) on number of client cases opened; cases closed; level of service; and outcome.

• On or before April 30, 2011, Legal Services will provide the Treasurer an annual report on the services provided during the period April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011. This report will include aggregate data (not client identified data) on number of client cases opened; cases closed; level of service; and outcome.

The parties will review this Agreement during February 2011 to determine whether this Agreement should be renewed under these terms or modified based on the parties’ experience with this program. This Agreement may be terminated during its term by either party without cause based on 30 days written notice. In the event of termination, Legal Services agrees to continue to completion all representation undertaken on behalf of customers referred by the Treasurer. In the event of termination, no further payments will be due from the Treasurer to Legal Services; Legal Services will not be required to refund any payments already made. _______________________ _______ _________________________ _____ Robert Gillett, Director date Eric Schertzing, Treasurer date Legal Services of South Ingham County, as the Central Michigan Foreclosing Governmental Unit

Agenda Item 3d RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE April 24, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution to Provide Greater Lansing Housing Coalition (GLHC)

with Additional Funding for Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Submitted by: Ingham County Treasurer Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This Resolution will authorize $40,000 to be paid to the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition, to be used toward educational services for prevention of mortgage foreclosure in the Greater Lansing Area. Financial Implications: As authorized by this Resolution, the $40,000 will be transferred from the Delinquent Tax Administration Fund to the GLHC. The intent of the prevention of mortgage foreclosures will also increase the property taxes paid to Ingham County. Other Implications: Clinton County, Eaton County and the City of East Lansing have recently joined the coalition in this effort. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

Agenda Item 3d Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE GREATER LANSING HOUSING COALITION (GLHC) WITH ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE PREVENTION

WHEREAS, the incidence of predatory, sub-prime and adjustable rate mortgage products is negatively impacting our County and the economic pressure caused by these mortgage products and related scams is expected to be severe throughout 2009 and beyond; and WHEREAS, the volume of Sheriff’s Deed activity in 2008 was comparable to 2007, as a reflection of this continuing economic strain; and WHEREAS, the County Treasurer has been working since late 2006 with the City of Lansing and the non-profit community to coordinate and increase the local counseling capacity for mortgage foreclosure prevention; and WHEREAS, Eaton and Clinton Counties and the City of East Lansing have joined in funding this coordinated effort; and WHEREAS, the need exists for additional counseling capacity and a communication and awareness campaign to inform the public of the services available by calling 211 or logging onto www.holdontoyourhome.org; and WHEREAS, the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition (GLHC) serves as the administrative hub for increasing the communities capacity for mortgage foreclosure prevention; and WHEREAS, in addition to funding for additional counseling capacity and public awareness of the services, a public service announcement (PSA) campaign for fraud avoidance is being designed. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Board of Commissioners authorizes funding of $40,000 to the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition for ongoing foreclosure prevention and fraud avoidance efforts from the Delinquent Tax Administration Fund (516-25601). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Controller/Administrator is directed to make all necessary budget adjustments consistent with this resolution to strengthen the capacity within Ingham County for Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention efforts.

Agenda Item 3e RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE April 24, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution to Provide the Ingham County Land Bank Fast Track

Authority with Capacity Building Funding Submitted by: Ingham County Treasurer Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This Resolution will authorize a transfer of $250,000 for each year of 2009, 2010 and 2011 from the Treasurer’s Delinquent Tax Revolving Fund. This will allow the Treasurer to continue the efforts through the Ingham County Land Bank Fast Track Authority. Financial Implications: $250,000 will be transferred to the Ingham County Land Bank from the Delinquent Tax Revolving Fund for three years. The funding will support the efforts of the Land Bank and will assist in the repair of homes for resale which will in turn bring greater property taxes to Ingham County. Other Implications: None. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

Agenda Item 3e April 23, 2009

TO: County Services & Finance Committees FROM: Eric Schertzing, Ingham County Treasurer RE: Land Bank Funding When the Land Bank authority was established in 2005, writing this memo was not expected. In 2005, it would have been hard to imagine how far the economy and housing market have fallen. The shared leadership in Ingham County that created the Land Bank gives us a tool to rebuild our community. The Land Bank has worked diligently with local government and other stakeholders to increase the capacity in our community to do good. The request to the Land Bank to assist in the improvement to homes has been overwhelming. The opportunities are greater than perhaps ever, but the burden is great. The Land Bank model of holding and maintaining property, renovating and selling to owner occupants whenever possible, has been embraced by policy makers and citizens alike. Our property inventory has grown faster than could have been expected. This funding will allow the Land Bank to add capacity and continue to carry out its work. The additional resources coming into the delinquent tax revolving fund because of our housing crisis are sufficient to fund this capacity building request.

Agenda Item 3e Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THE INGHAM COUNTY LAND BANK FAST TRACK AUTHORITY WITH CAPACITY BUILDING FUNDING

WHEREAS, the incidence of tax and mortgage foreclosure caused by economic turmoil and hardship through 2011 is expected to be significant; and WHEREAS, in 2005 the County, County Treasurer and the Michigan Land Bank Fast Track Authority entered into an agreement to establish an Ingham County Land Bank; and WHEREAS, the Land Bank has grown to be a significant economic development tool in Ingham County and is the major public responder to the plight of property thrown into tax and mortgage foreclosure; and WHEREAS, the need exists for additional capacity at the Land Bank to deal with the growing inventory of property and the federal housing initiative(s) through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program; and WHEREAS, the increased incidence of tax delinquency, forfeiture and foreclosure while increasing the responsibilities placed upon the Land Bank is also increasing the revenue to the delinquent tax revolving fund for tax years 2006 through 2008; and WHEREAS, the Land Bank has significant physical assets with value to unlock and redeploy in the future, but faces property management and disposition challenges currently. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Board of Commissioners authorizes annual funding of $250,000 to the Ingham County Land Bank from the Delinquent Tax Revolving Fund for three years (516-25606 – 516-25608). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Controller/Administrator is directed to make all necessary budget adjustments consistent with this resolution.

Agenda Item 4

To: County Services Committee From: Jamie McAloon Lampman, Director CC: Dr. Matthew Myers County Controller John Neilsen Deputy Controller Date: April 13, 2009

Re: Request for recommendation to waive hiring freeze on vacant Shelter Operator Position

The position of Animal Shelter Operator (kennel staff) has been vacant since April, 2, 2009. This position is responsible for the care and maintenance of over 200 animals daily as well as the maintenance of the shelter facility and the euthanization of animals necessary to make the space for incoming animals.

This vacancy does create a severe hardship on all aspects of the department. In 2008 this vacancy resulted in the accumulation of excessive overtime while it was vacant. This position is essential to meeting the fundamental needs of the department. Without it we can not meet the demand for space at the shelter nor care of the animals and the maintenance of the facility. If not filled, it will certainly result in hindering the department’s ability to adequately and humanely process and care for the over-5000 animals to be received in 2009. This position is not slated to be cut in 2009 and funds are available in the general fund. The minimum total personnel costs (salary and fringes) to maximum personnel costs cost for the FT Animal Shelter Operator range from $56,608 including fringe benefits to total maximum cost is $69,518 including fringe benefits. ICAC is planning on replacing this position at the minimum cost for 2009. This position is fully funded by the General Fund.

ICAC is one of the busiest and most heavily populated shelters in Michigan. With only three full-time kennel operators to attend to over 200 dogs, cats and miscellaneous animals daily, the staff is already below suggested staffing levels. This vacancy will impede ICAC’s ability to meet the Department of Agriculture’s minimum standards for care of animals in a shelter. Kennel Operators work seven days per week and cover 8-10 hour shifts each day. The use of trustee labor is limited to simple tasks as they are not trained or skilled to do the work kennel operators perform. They are not a viable substitute. The training and skill required to perform a kennel operator’s duties involve disease control, medical knowledge, the handling of vicious animals, criminal cases and the maintenance of facility operations. This is well beyond what we could expect from trustee labor.

This position requires a well trained individual with the skills to handle complex duties such as euthanasia, vaccinations, medical treatments, report writing, and coordination efforts with the health department on communicable diseases and numerous issues to many to include here.

SERVICE IMPACTS

• Inability to meet the minimum standards of the Department of Agriculture • Inability to accept animals as a result of inability to euthanize animals in a

timely manner adequate for emptying kennels to make room for the new animals arriving hourly.

• Decline in the quality of care and services provided to animals and citizens

• Decline of effectiveness of staff • Threat to the safety and health of the staff; the public and the animals. • Increase in customer complaints

Agenda Item 5

DATE: April 17, 2009 TO: Willis Bennett, Director of Parks FROM: Gerry Brady, Zoo Director RE: Additional REQUEST: Deb Paperd. Travel to vet tech workshop

to Orlando REQUEST FOUR: Deb Paperd, Veterinary Technician/ Zookeeper, is requesting approval to travel to Orlando for the Association of Zoo Veterinary Technicians workshop. She is Vice President, of this organization. Dates are May 5- 8th 2009. Several topics will be covered including the re-shaping of bylaws, the agenda and programs for the national conference in the fall, and developing standards and guidelines for veterinary technicians to become zoo board certified.

(Special Note: Deb Paperd is not requesting any money to attend this workshop. The organization will pay for all costs. She is only requesting time off and approval to travel out of state).

Agenda Item 6a RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE April 24, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution Awarding a Contract to Pavement Management

Services, Inc. to Provide Consulting for Pavement Installation Services at the Ingham County Fairgrounds

Submitted by: Facilities Department Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This Resolution will authorize a contract with Pavement Management Services Inc. (Lansing) to provide consulting services for the pavement project at the Ingham County Fairground - Campground. Financial Implications: The contract amount is $7,500 and the funds are available in the CIP funds. Other Implications: Pavement Management Services will provide cost estimates, specifications and will oversee the project until completion. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution. .

Agenda Item 6a MEMORANDUM

TO: County Services and Finance Committees FROM: Rick Terrill, Facilities Director DATE: April 22, 2009 SUBJECT: Resolution Awarding a Contract to Pavement Management Services, Inc. to

Provide Consulting for Pavement Installation Services at the Ingham County Fairgrounds

The resolution before you authorizes awarding a contract to Pavement Management Services Inc., for an amount not to exceed $7,500.00, for the purpose of providing consulting services. They will provide cost estimates, specifications and oversee the entire project from start to finish. We are confident that Pavement Management Services Inc. will provide us with the quality service we need to complete this project successfully. The funds for this project are available in the 2009 CIP-Parking Lot Replacement, 561-76900-931000. I recommend approval of this resolution.

Agenda Item 6a Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. TO PROVIDE CONSULTING FOR PAVEMENT INSTALLATION

SERVICES AT THE INGHAM COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS

WHEREAS, the Fairgrounds Parking Lots are in need of pavement improvements due to some deterioration over the years; and WHEREAS, the Director of Facilities deems it necessary to use Pavement Management Services, Inc. for consulting services to provide cost estimates, specifications and oversee the entire project from start to finish; and WHEREAS, the funds for this project are available within 2009 CIP 561-76900-931000 Parking Lot Replacement; and WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the Facilities Department that the consulting services are necessary and the prices are reasonable. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes entering into a contract with Pavement Management Services, Inc., 435 South Washington Square, Lansing, Michigan 48933 to perform consulting services for a total not to exceed cost of $7,500.00. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners authorizes the Board Chairperson and the County Clerk to sign any necessary documents that are consistent with this resolution and approved as to form by the County Attorney.

Agenda Item 6b RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE April 24, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution Authorizing a Contract with Laux Construction, LLC to

Provide Restoration Services at the Human Services Building Submitted by: Facilities Department Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This Resolution will authorize a contract with Laux Construction, LLC to make repairs and restoration to the exterior of the Human Services Building. The Resolution will authorize a total contract not to exceed $61,269. Financial Implications: The bid amount was $56,269. The Facilities Department is adding $5,000 for contingencies for unforeseen issues. The money is budgeted from CIP funding. Other Implications: Laux is a local company from Dansville and was the lowest bidder. The next low bid was from a Detroit company whose bid was almost $20,000 higher than Laux. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution. As required by the Board Ethics Policy, the role of the Board is to accept or reject the recommendation. If the recommendation is rejected, the committee should state the reason(s) for the rejection and instruct the staff to review the recommendation.

Agenda Item 6b MEMORANDUM

TO: County Services and Finance Committees FROM: Rick Terrill, Facilities Director DATE: April 23, 2009 SUBJECT: Human Services Building Restoration Services The resolution before you authorizes awarding a contract to Laux Construction LLC for the purpose of providing the services needed to restore the anodized aluminum entrance panels and replace and extend the masonry screen wall at the Human Services Building. The fee for these services is not to exceed $56,269.00. A contingency of $5,000.00 is being asked for due to any unforeseen circumstances that may arise with this type of restoration. This would bring the total to $61,269.00 which is budgeted within the 2009 CIP Plan, 631-23304-931000-9FC13. Laux Construction LLC, who submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, was chosen after going through a competitive bidding process and the recommendation of the Purchasing Department. Due to the scope and size of this project, it is necessary to contract with a qualified and experienced firm. We are confident that Laux Construction LLC will provide us with the quality service we need to complete this project successfully. I recommend approval of this resolution.

Agenda Item 6b MEMORANDUM

TO: County Services and Finance Committees FROM: Jim Hudgins, Director of Purchasing DATE: April 23, 2009 SUBJECT: Bid Summary – Improvements to the Human Services Building

Project Description: This project involves making improvements to the Ingham County Human Services Facility in accordance with the Project Manual prepared by the County’s consultant, Structure Tec. These improvements include coating the aluminum entrance panels and replacing the existing masonry screen wall. Bid Summary: Bidders Contacted: 16 Local: 2 Bidders Responding: 4 Local: 1 The following firms submitted a bid: Firm Cost Local Laux Construction $ 56,269 Y – Dansville, MI M One Limited Inc $ 76,131 N – Detroit, MI Cusack’s Masonry $ 84,500 N – Hubbardston, MI D C Byers Company $100,003 N – East Lansing, MI (Clinton County) Recommendation: Award a contract to Laux Construction in an amount not to exceed $ 61,269.00 (includes $5000.00 for contingency). Advertisement: The RFP was advertised in the Lansing State Journal, various construction news services, and posted on the Purchasing Department Web Page. Prevailing Wage: Contractor is required to comply with the County’s Prevailing Wage Policy. Contact Person(s): Rick Terrill, Facilities Director; Jim Hudgins, Purchasing Director

Agenda Item 6b Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH LAUX CONSTRUCTION, LLC TO PROVIDE RESTORATION SERVICES

AT THE HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING

WHEREAS, the anodized aluminum entrance panels at the Human Services Building are in need of restoration due to deterioration over time; and WHEREAS, the masonry screen wall needs to be replaced and extended to surround adjacent mechanical equipment; and WHEREAS, the funds for this project are available within 2009 CIP 631-23304-931000-9FC13 Phase IV HSB Tuck Pointing/Painting Entrances; and WHEREAS, after careful review of bids, the Purchasing and Facilities Departments both concur that a contract be awarded to Laux Construction LLC, who submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid in the amount of not to exceed $56,269.00, which also reflects the payment of prevailing wage; and WHEREAS, a contingency of $5,000.00 is being asked for by the Facilities Department for any unforeseen circumstances that may arise with this type of restoration. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes awarding a contract to Laux Construction, LLC, 1535 Jessop Road, Dansville, Michigan 48819, to perform restorations at the Ingham County Human Services Building for a cost of $56,269.00, plus $5,000.00 contingency for a total of $61,269.00. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners authorizes the Board Chairperson and the County Clerk to sign any necessary documents that are consistent with this resolution and approved as to form by the County Attorney.

Agenda Item 6c RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE April 24, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution Authorizing the Replacement of the Chiller at the

Ingham County Human Services Building to be Performed by Myers Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

Submitted by: Facilities Department Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This Resolution will authorize a contract with Myers Plumbing & Heating for the replacement of the chiller at the Human Services Building. Financial Implications: The total cost for this contract is not to exceed the bid amount of $77,510. The Facilities Department is not requesting a contingency amount for this project. Other Implications: Myers Plumbing & Heating was the lowest bid and while there were local vendors who bid on this project, the bid was not within the Counties “Local Preference” bid policy. Myers Plumbing & Heating, Inc. address is in Lansing, but not within Ingham County. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution. As required by the Board Ethics Policy, the role of the Board is to accept or reject the recommendation. If the recommendation is rejected, the committee should state the reason(s) for the rejection and instruct the staff to review the recommendation.

Agenda Item 6c MEMORANDUM

TO: County Services and Finance Committees FROM: Rick Terrill, Facilities Director DATE: April 23, 2009 SUBJECT: Human Services Building Chiller Replacement The resolution before you authorizes awarding a contract to Myers Plumbing & Heating Inc. for the purpose of replacing the chiller at the Human Services Building. This replacement is necessary due to deterioration over time. The fee for this service is not to exceed $77,510.00. A budget for this project was approved in the 2009 CIP Budget, 631-23304-976000-9FC06. Myers Plumbing & Heating Inc., who submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, was chosen after going through a competitive bidding process and the recommendation of the Purchasing Department. Due to the scope and size of this project, it is necessary to contract with a qualified and experienced firm. We are confident that Myers Plumbing & Heating Inc. will provide us with the quality service we need to complete this project successfully. I recommend approval of this resolution.

Agenda Item 6c MEMORANDUM

TO: County Services and Finance Committees FROM: Jim Hudgins, Director of Purchasing DATE: April 23, 2009 SUBJECT: Bid Summary – Chiller Replacements

Project Description: This project consists of replacing the chillers at the Youth Center (YC) and the Human Services Building (HSB). Bid Summary: Bidders Contacted: 16 Local: 5 Bidders Responding: 4 Local: 2 The following firms submitted a bid: Firm YC Total HSB Total Project Total Local Preference Requested Myers Plumbing $ 132,155 $ 77,510 $ 209,665 No – Lansing (Clinton) TH Eifert $ 146,359 $ 82,913 $ 229,272 Yes – Lansing, MI Remer Plumbing $ 154,500 $ 77,200 $ 231,700 No – Saginaw, MI John E Green $ 152,600 $ 88,200 $ 240,800 Yes – Mason, MI

Recommendation: Award a contract to Myers Plumbing at a cost not to exceed $217,665.00 (includes an $8,000.00 contingency for the Youth Center). Advertisement: The RFP was advertised in the Lansing State Journal, various construction news services, The New Citizens Press, and posted on the Purchasing Department Web Page. Prevailing Wage: Contractor is required to comply with the County’s Prevailing Wage Policy. Contact Person(s): Rick Terrill, Facilities Director, Jim Hudgins, Purchasing Director

Agenda Item 6c Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CHILLER AT THE INGHAM COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING

TO BE PERFORMED BY MYERS PLUMBING & HEATING, INC.

WHEREAS, the chiller at the Human Services Building is in need of replacement due to deterioration over time; and WHEREAS, the funds for this project have been budgeted and approved in the 2009 Capital Improvement Plan line item number 631-23304-976000-9FC06 HSB Chiller; and WHEREAS, after careful review of bids, the Purchasing and Facilities Departments both concur that a contract be awarded to Myers Plumbing & Heating, Inc., who submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid in the amount of not to exceed cost of $77,510.00, which also reflects the payment of prevailing wage. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes awarding a contract to Myers Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 16825 Industrial Parkway, Lansing, Michigan 48906, to replace the chiller at the Ingham County Human Services Building, for a not to exceed cost of $77,510.00 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners authorizes the Board Chairperson and the County Clerk to sign any necessary documents that are consistent with this resolution and approved as to form by the County Attorney.

Agenda Item 6d RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE April 24, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution Authorizing the Replacement of the Chiller at the

Ingham County Youth Center to be Performed by Myers Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

Submitted by: Facilities Department Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: This Resolution will authorize a contract with Myers Plumbing & Heating, Inc., to replace the chiller at the Youth Center. Financial Implications: The bid for the contract is $132,155, and the Facilities Department is requesting an additional $8,000 for contingencies due to concerns with the ventilation system. The total contract is $140,155 and the funds are budgeted in CIP. Other Implications: Myers Plumbing & Heating was the low bid, but not a local company (Lansing address not in Ingham County). However, the local bidders did not fall within Ingham Counties “Local Preference” policy. Staff Recommendation: MJM X JN TL TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution. As required by the Board Ethics Policy, the role of the Board is to accept or reject the recommendation. If the recommendation is rejected, the committee should state the reason(s) for the rejection and instruct the staff to review the recommendation.

Agenda Item 6d MEMORANDUM

TO: County Services and Finance Committees FROM: Rick Terrill, Facilities Director DATE: April 23, 2009 SUBJECT: Youth Center Chiller Replacement The resolution before you authorizes awarding a contract to Myers Plumbing & Heating Inc. for the purpose of replacing the chiller at the Youth Center. This is necessary due to deterioration over time. The fee for these services is not to exceed $132,155.00. A contingency of $8,000.00 is being asked for due to any unforeseen circumstances that may arise with this type of restoration. This would bring the total to $140,155.00 which is budgeted within the 2009 CIP Plan, 245-66299-976000-9FC05. Myers Plumbing & Heating Inc., who submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, was chosen after going through a competitive bidding process and the recommendation of the Purchasing Department. Due to the scope and size of this project, it is necessary to contract with a qualified and experienced firm. We are confident that Myers Plumbing & Heating Inc. will provide us with the quality service we need to complete this project successfully. I recommend approval of this resolution.

Agenda Item 6d MEMORANDUM

TO: County Services and Finance Committees FROM: Jim Hudgins, Director of Purchasing DATE: April 23, 2009 SUBJECT: Bid Summary – Chiller Replacements

Project Description: This project consists of replacing the chillers at the Youth Center (YC) and the Human Services Building (HSB). Bid Summary: Bidders Contacted: 16 Local: 5 Bidders Responding: 4 Local: 2 The following firms submitted a bid: Firm YC Total HSB Total Project Total Local Preference Requested Myers Plumbing $ 132,155 $ 77,510 $ 209,665 No – Lansing (Clinton) TH Eifert $ 146,359 $ 82,913 $ 229,272 Yes – Lansing, MI Remer Plumbing $ 154,500 $ 77,200 $ 231,700 No – Saginaw, MI John E Green $ 152,600 $ 88,200 $ 240,800 Yes – Mason, MI

Recommendation: Award a contract to Myers Plumbing at a cost not to exceed $217,665.00 (includes an $8,000.00 contingency for the Youth Center). Advertisement: The RFP was advertised in the Lansing State Journal, various construction news services, The New Citizens Press, and posted on the Purchasing Department Web Page. Prevailing Wage: Contractor is required to comply with the County’s Prevailing Wage Policy. Contact Person(s): Rick Terrill, Facilities Director, Jim Hudgins, Purchasing Director

Agenda Item 6d Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CHILLER AT THE INGHAM COUNTY YOUTH CENTER TO BE PERFORMED BY

MYERS PLUMBING & HEATING, INC. WHEREAS, the chiller at the Youth Center is in need of replacement due to deterioration over time; and WHEREAS, the funds for this project have been budgeted and approved in the 2009 Capital Improvement Plan line item number 245-66299-976000-9FC05 Youth Center Chiller/Fresh Air Intake; and WHEREAS, after careful review of bids, the Purchasing and Facilities Departments both concur that a contract be awarded to Myers Plumbing & Heating, Inc., who submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid in the amount of not to exceed cost of $132,155.00, which also reflects the payment of prevailing wage; and WHEREAS, a contingency of $8,000.00 is being asked for by the Facilities Department for any unforeseen circumstances that may arise with this type of replacement project. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes awarding a contract to Myers Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 16825 Industrial Parkway, Lansing, Michigan 48906, to replace the chiller at the Ingham County Youth Center, for a cost of $132,155 plus a contingency of $8,000.00, for a total cost of $140,155.00. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners authorizes the Board Chairperson and the County Clerk to sign any necessary documents that are consistent with this resolution and approved as to form by the County Attorney.

Agenda Item 7a RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE April 28, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution Approving a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the

United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) Ingham County Unit Local 2256 for the Technical, Office, Para-Professional and Service Employees

Submitted by: T. A. Lindsey, Human Resources Director Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: 1. Duration: January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2011. 2. ARTICLE 12 – GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE FOR DISCHARGE OR DISCIPLINE FOR THE DISTRICT AND PROBATE COURTS Changed required steps…there are no immediate supervisors. Reflects current practice. Also added language - by mutual agreement the parties can agree to go to mediation and skip a step. 3. ARTICLE 13 – GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE FOR NON-DISCIPLINARY MATTERS (CONTRACT INTERPRETATION AND ECONOMIC MATTERS) FOR THE PROBATE AND DISTRICT COURTS

Same changes as in Article 12. 4. ARTICLE yet to be assigned (Newly created “Recall” article) Added language to give laid off employees preference over applicants from the outside for any new or open TOP position, not necessarily in the same seniority group or department, that the employee is being laid off from as long as the person is qualified for said position. The language also requires the employer give a written explanation when a laid off person is disqualified for a new or open position. Elected officials can opt out. Added language to determine at what salary step a recalled person will be placed. 5. ARTICLE 10 – HOURS OF WORK Changed “Court Time” language to reflect current practice for payment of employees subpoenaed to court for County business. Increased shift premium to $ .20 per hour in 2010 and $ .25 per hour in 2011. 6. ARTICLE 18 – UNION RIGHTS Changed the number of stewards in each location to 2, reflects current practice. Changed the number of bargaining committee representatives coming from all departments to 4 and 1 from Circuit Court. Added language for the Union Unit Chairperson to have 100 hours per quarter to conduct union business.

7. ARTICLE 22 – HOLIDAYS Added the Cooks at the Sheriff’s Office to get holiday pay for Easter Sunday. Updated the holiday list to reflect the change regarding 28 vacation bonus hours and Christmas Eve and New Years Eve. 8. ARTICLE 23 – VACATION Updated reflection of current practice the vacation bonus hours from 20 to 28. 9. ARTICLE 31 – SALARIES The following flat hourly increases for each employee for the three consecutive years of the agreement: 1/1/2009 - .35 per hour, equals 2% on the total salary base 1/1/2010 - .17 per hour, equals 1% on the total salary base 1/1/2011 - .18 per hour, equals 1% on the total salary base For District Court employees ONLY, changed language to allow a majority of the judges at 55th District Court to determine at what step to place new hires. 10. ARTICLE 32 – RECLASIFICATIONS The following are the reclassifications recognized through negotiations: Position Position # Grade MIS Clerk 958012 E to F Cook-Sheriff Office 301221 E to F 301220 301222 CHR III to IV 601335 E to F Health Plan Management Asst. II to III 601083 E to F Copy Center Coordinator 231004 F to G Juv. Data Coordinator 140058 G to H Secretary-YC 662007 F to H (Admin. Asst.) CHR II 601023 D to E (Billing & Reporting Clerk) Secretary-Facilities 233014 F to G (Admin. Asst.) Clerk Typist 142045 C to F (Family Serv. Enforce. Coordinator)

Fam.Child/Infant 601153 C to D Advocate 601155 601154 601156 601160 601221 601224 6012222 6012221 601223 601157

11. ARTICLE 20 – HOSPITALIZATION / MEDICAL COVERAGE Updated the current health insurance plan and benchmarks. Updated the waiver payment amounts and added language that waiver amounts would be increased annually the same as the benchmark. Updated language to reflect the current other qualified adult coverage. Premiums Effective Jan. 1, 2009 Full Family $795.93 2-Person $709.13 Single $338.69 Retirees $357.10 Waiver Full Family = $ 201.85 if participating prior to 1/1/2007 2-Person = $ 179.65 if participating prior to 1/1/2007 Single = $ 106.09 if participating prior to 1/1/2007 New enrollment on or after 1/1/2007 = $ 106.09 These waiver amounts will be adjusted annually the same percentage as the benchmarks increase. Dual Coverage. For employees participating in the waiver plan prior to January 1, 2007, the spouse receiving the waiver payment will receive $106.09 per month as taxable compensation. For newly formed couples either through marriage or new employment on or after January 1, 2007, there will be no eligibility for health waiver payments. Financial Implications: Cost for modifications were and are included in the annual Budgets. Other Implications: None. Staff Recommendation: MM JN TL X TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

Agenda Item 7a Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION APPROVING A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW) INGHAM COUNTY UNIT

LOCAL 2256 FOR THE TECHNICAL, OFFICE, PARA-PROFESSIONAL AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES

WHEREAS, an agreement has been reached between representatives of Ingham County and the United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) Ingham County Local 2256 for the Technical, Office, Para-Professional and Service Employees during the period of January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011; and WHEREAS, the agreement has been ratified by the employees within the bargaining unit; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the agreement have been approved by the County Services and Finance Committees, and are within the guidelines established by the Board of Commissioners. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ingham County Board of Commissioners hereby approves the contract with Ingham County and the United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) Ingham County Local 2256 for the Technical, Office, Para-Professional and Service Employees. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairperson of the Board of Commissioners and the County Clerk are authorized to sign the contract on behalf of the County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, retro-pay shall not be paid until the contract is signed by both parties.

Agenda Item 7b RESOLUTION STAFF REVIEW DATE April 27, 2009 Agenda Item Title: Resolution Approving a Collective Bargaining Agreement

with the Michigan Association of Police Submitted by: T. A. Lindsey, Human Resources Director Committees: LE , JD , HS , CS X , Finance X Summary of Proposed Action: 1. Duration: January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2011. 2. Longevity: Longevity bonus shall be computed as a percentage of the employee's annual base salary or wage. Base salary for computations increased from eighteen to twenty thousand dollars. 3. Health Insurance: COPS Trust shall be added as a health insurance option and the employees who elect this option will pay 50% of any amounts above the benchmarks. Premiums: Effective Jan. 1, 2008 Jan. 1, 2009 Full Family $772.75 $795.93 2-Person $688.48 $709.13 Single $328.83 $338.69 Retirees $346.70 $357.10 Waiver: Full Family = $ 201.85 if participating prior to 1/1/2007 2-Person = $ 179.65 if participating prior to 1/1/2007 Single = $ 106.09 if participating prior to 1/1/2007 New enrollment on or after 1/1/2007 = $ 106.09 These waiver amounts will be adjusted annually the same percentage as the benchmarks increase.

Dual Coverage: For employees participating in the waiver plan prior to January 1, 2007, the spouse receiving the waiver payment will receive $106.09 per month as taxable compensation. For newly formed couples either through marriage or new employment on or after January 1, 2007, there will be no eligibility for health waiver payments.

4. SALARY SCHEDULES January 1, 2008 - 3% increase January 1, 2009 - 2% increase January 1, 2010 - 1% increase January 1, 2011 - Wage Reopener (if the Union elects a fourth contract year)

Financial Implications: The costs for modifications were and are included in the 2008, 2009 and 2010 Budgets. Other Implications: None. Staff Recommendation: MM JN TL X TM JC Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

Agenda Item 7b Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION APPROVING A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF POLICE

WHEREAS, an agreement has been reached between representatives of Ingham County and the Michigan Association of Police during the period of January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011; and WHEREAS, the agreement has been ratified by the employees within the bargaining unit; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the agreement have been approved by the County Services and Finance Committees, and are within the guidelines established by the Board of Commissioners. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ingham County Board of Commissioners hereby approves the contract with Ingham County and the Michigan Association of Police. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairperson of the Board of Commissioners and the County Clerk are authorized to sign the contract on behalf of the County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, retro-pay shall not be paid until the contract is signed by both parties.

Agenda Item 8 January 8, 2009 To: Ingham County Board of Commissioners County Services Committee From: Tom Shewchuk, MIS Director Subject: Collaboration of Information Technology Resources ______________________________________________________________________________ The Ingham County Management Information Services (MIS) department continues to be presented with collaboration opportunities from other government, educational, and county agencies. Today, many of our agencies are utilizing duplicate computer systems and software to support our operations. Consolidating these resources will allow all parties to achieve significant cost savings and more efficient operations. For example, MIS currently supports and maintains the Tri-County Office on Aging network and the Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management System for all Law Enforcement agencies in Ingham County, except the City of Lansing. MIS has been meeting with agencies such as the Ingham Intermediate School District (IISD), The City of Lansing, The City of East Lansing, Livingston County, and Michigan Primary Care, to discuss the possibilities of sharing computer systems and services. MIS already possesses many these computer systems in our Data Center that could be made available to other agencies. IISD has expressed an interest in relocating their new Student Record Management Software in our Data Center and utilizing our new Cisco IP Phone application. Livingston County and Arialink wish to connect their county to Ingham County with a high-speed fibre connection. This would allow for information to be shared between county agencies such as the Register of Deeds and provide a backup site for our future 911 phone system. The possibilities of collaboration are endless and make sense, especially in these tough economic times. The reason for this memo is to seek direction, feedback, and support from the Board of Commissioners to pursue potential collaboration efforts. These opportunities will have an affect on our current staff and the support of our current customers. If managed correctly, this should not be an issue but a positive experience for all involved. I have also attached a separate document with some further detail on collaboration efforts being pursued within the State of Michigan.

Agenda Item 8

Information Technology Collaboration Initiatives – State of Michigan State Panel Looks at Consolidation and Collaboration: A special Government efficiency panel is charged by the Legislature with finding ways to reduce costs by reducing the number of governmental units in the state. For years, governors have looked at consolidating school districts and local units of government. A source familiar with the commissions work said that the commission feels that Michigan has too many townships and school districts. One solution would be to link revenue sharing to the consolidation of local services. Under this proposal, which has not been approved by the commission, a new constitutional revenue sharing funding formula would be created into state law: If local units combined services, they would get more state aid and if they did not, they would get less state aid. It is also considering recommendations for consolidating computer systems in the state (statewide data center). The panel will probably draft a report by the end of the year, but the final report is not due until October 2009. From: Michigan ASCD - Source: December 12, 2008 <http://michiganascd.org/> Email excerpts from Kevin MacRitchie to George Boersma at the State of Michigan Department of Information Technology. Kevin works for Cisco and is currently on a Fellowship program to work with Local, County and State government: “I entered the Fellowship program with the mission of bringing together Local, County and State influencers, and decision makers, on a unified strategic plan to cost effectively utilize technology to advance the quality of education for students K-12. Within the year, it became much more and now I’m leading a 5 pronged strategic plan:

– Continue the original work underway in Livingston County with Pinckney Community Schools

– Lead the technology expansion efforts to seven (7) additional counties – Create a state wide initiative involving 16-20 counties (directed by MDE) that will make

both an east-west corridor and north-south interconnected corridor ultimately leading to an 83 county broadband interconnect initiative connecting regional ISD & County governmental regional networks to a statewide broadband backbone in conjunction with MDIT

– Provide leadership and present solutions at conferences either led by the State of Michigan Department of Education, Michigan Association of Computer Users in Learning (MACUL), Consortium of School Networks (CoSN), State Education Technology Directors Association (SETDA National Convention in D.C.), and others including an invitational session by Michigan Lt. Governor John Cherry.

– Work with Senators, Legislators, and the Lt. Governor to change legislation which will pave the way to eliminating the stove piped budgets and managerial control enabling lower cost cross agency collaboration for network improvements in capacity and capability. This will enable both major focus areas of this initiative: 1) Shared Infrastructure and 2) Shared Services to reduce operating costs throughout the state by way of investment in capital networking equipment”.

Agenda Item 9a MEMORANDUM

TO: Finance and Liaison Committees FROM: Matthew J. Myers, Ph.D., Controller/Administrator DATE: April 24, 2009 SUBJECT: 2010 Update of County Fees When the Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution #02-155, setting various fees for county services, the Controller's Office was directed to annually review the fees and to recommend adjustments. This review has been completed and some adjustments are being presented to the Board of Commissioners for their consideration. This information is being presented at the current round of committee meetings as a discussion item. A resolution recommending any fee increases will be presented at the next round of meetings: however, a draft version for discussion is included in this packet. Attached are spreadsheets detailing the recommended adjustments to fees to be effective for the Health Department on October 1, 2009 and for all other departments on January 1, 2010. The first set of spreadsheets is an analysis of the 2010 update of county fees. The following information is included for each fee: 1. Location of Service. 2. Fee Description. 3. The 2009 cost as calculated in last year’s fee update process. 4. The cost increase factor. This is based on the 3-year average increase for each

department’s adopted General Fund Budget from 2006 to 2007, 2007 to 2008 and 2008 to 2009.

5. The 2010 cost, which is calculated by multiplying the 2009 cost by the cost increase

factor. 6. As identified by the Board of Commissioners, the target percent was determined by the

percentage of cost to be recovered by the fee for service. The target percent for each fee was initially passed by Resolution #02-155. For other fees added after the passage of Resolution #02-155, it is assumed that the fee as passed is charged at the appropriate cost with a target recovery of 100%.

7. The 2009 fees were passed by Resolution #08-145. In February 2009, the fee for

certified copies of vital records was amended by the Clerk’s Office by Resolution #09-

028. (Since passage of these resolutions, some fees have been amended or added, as noted on the spreadsheets.)

8. The 2010 calculated fee is based on the 2010 cost multiplied by the target percent. 9. Although many fees were proposed to remain unchanged in 2010, the initial proposed

fees were determined by rounding down the calculated fee to the full dollar amount, and in some of the larger fees rounded to the lower $5 or $10 increment. In some cases, the cost multiplied by the target percent is much more than the current fee, so only an incremental increase is proposed, with the full cost times target percent planned to be reached after several years. Fees that are proposed to increase are presented in bold.

10. Units. This information is used to calculate revenue to be generated by the proposed

fees. This information was initially provided in the Maximus study, and in some cases, has been updated by the departments. The departments have not been able to estimate the number of units for all of the individual fees and therefore the projected additional revenue is understated.

11. Department Recommendation. In most cases, the department agreed with the initial

proposed fees. In cases where there is disagreement, information such as a memo of explanation from the department has been included.

12. Controller/Administrator Recommendation: In all cases, the Controller/Administrator

agreed with the department recommendations. 13. Additional revenue is projected from the Controller/Administrator’s Recommended

increase in fees multiplied by the units. The final spreadsheet presents a summary of fees proposed to be increased in 2010. They simply list the 2009 fee, the department recommendations, the Controller/Administrator recommendation, and projected additional revenue, for each of the fees where an increase is proposed. As shown in the attached correspondence, some of the departments disagreed with the initially proposed fees. The Controller/Administrator took this feedback under consideration and made final recommendations based on the Maximus study and the department input.

(a) The Drain Commissioner’s Office agreed with all the proposed fees except the deposits for the escrow accounts are recommended to stay the same as set for 2009. These escrow accounts are not actually fees, rather they are deposited funds which are utilized for additional costs only if necessary. The Drain Office is also adding commercial soil erosion permits based on duration. Rather than having one fee for commercial soil erosion, they are recommending a 12 month, 9 month, and 6 month permit fee as they are with residential soil erosion permits. In addition, GIS has been removed from the description for photography, topography, and floodplain/wetland fees.

(b) The Circuit Court, Family Division, and Friend of the Court agreed with the initial proposed fees except for the FOC Bench Warrant fee, Felony Case Costs, Show Cause-Probation fee, and Delinquency costs. The Controller’s Office initially proposed increasing the FOC Bench Warrant fee by $50 based on the cost. However, the department recommended increasing it by only $25 to $225 as this fee has been raised significantly in the past few years. The Felony Case costs and Show Cause Probation are recommended to stay at the same as set for 2009. Because of all the other costs and fees, the Judges assess they don’t feel an increase in the Felony Case costs and Show Cause-Probation fees are appropriate in 2010. In addition, the Delinquency costs are recommended to decrease by $5 from the 2009 rate down to $150 in 2010. The Family Division also added a Ticket Fee Schedule for each offense rather than one flat rate for traffic violations. Although a flat fee was set on the fee schedule in previous years, this is the Ticket Fee Schedule that has always been used by the department.

(c) The District Court will be charging the offender a presentence report fee of $100 for 2010. The Controller’s Office has recommended each year a fee for this service. However, prior to this year, the department has chosen to charge $0. By statute, the Court can only assess fees to recoup the actual cost of the expense. The Court has determined that the actual expense of producing a presentence report is $100. All other District Court fees are recommended to remain the same as set for 2009.

(d) The Animal Control Department agreed with all initial proposed fees except for increases in licensing and adoption fees. As explained by the Department, it is not common practice for dog license fees to change annually. In most municipalities and counties the fees are seldom changed within a five year period. The prices should remain consistent for at least every third or fifth year. This helps to avoid cost incurred for printing and copying as new forms, tickets, brochures and other necessary documents require changing each time the fee changes thus incurring substantial costs and waste. The Department argues that they can stand to lose what little revenue gain they get from price increases through loss of time and money changing the materials, not to mention the frustration felt by citizens who feel confused by the constant changes. Thousands of dollars of printing goes out of date each time fees a raised. The Animal Control Department is also recommending the addition of a Boarding Fee for Dangerous Animals. These animals are deemed to be extremely dangerous and require special restrictions care due to their dangerous nature. The average boarding fee at animal shelters ranges from $7-$20 per day depending on size and species. The Department is recommending an additional $11 boarding fee be added to the current $11 fee on dangerous animals, bringing their total boarding fee to $22 per day. These animals require twice the time and twice the amount of staffing to care for them. This fee does not include the additional cost to ICAC associated with the need to purchase specialized equipment to deal with their volatile nature or the veterinary and medical cost associated with those animals, and staff members whom these animals have attacked and injured or the costs of property and equipment which they have damaged. Those costs are not recouped even with increased boarding fees.

(e) Cooperative Extension recommended the 2010 soil box analysis to remain the same as the 2009 fee. They currently have two types of soil analysis; a horticultural

analysis and an agricultural analysis. Although the fee was $12 on the 2009 fee schedule, they still continued to charge the farmers $10 for the agricultural analysis. So, rather than raising the horticultural fee, they are instead recommending to charge the same $12 fee for both types of soil analysis, thus increasing the total revenue.

If all fee increases were enacted as recommended by the Controller’s Office, it is projected that an additional $229,161 would be generated in 2010. The current total revenue generated by the listed fees is approximately $4.3 million, so the fee adjustments would increase the base by about 6.3%. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this information. Attachments

DRAFT Introduced by the Finance Committee of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION UPDATING VARIOUS FEES FOR COUNTY SERVICES

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners set various fees for county services in Resolution #02-155 based on information and recommendations of the Maximus Cost of Services Analysis completed in 2002; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners also established the percent of the cost of providing the services which should be recovered by such fees, referred to in this process as a “target percent”; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has directed the Controller’s Office to establish a process for the annual review of these fees and target percents; and WHEREAS, this process begins with the calculation of a cost increase factor, which is equal to the previous three year average increase in the General Fund adopted budget for the appropriate departments; and WHEREAS, this cost increase factor is applied to the previous year’s calculated cost and multiplied by the target percent and in most cases rounded to the lower full dollar amount in order to arrive at a preliminary recommended fee for the upcoming year; and WHEREAS, in cases where the calculated cost multiplied by target percent is much higher than the current fee, the fee will be recommended to increase gradually each year until the full cost multiplied by target percent is reached, in order to avoid any drastic increases in fees; and WHEREAS, in cases where the calculated cost multiplied by target percent is lower than the current fee, no fee increase will be recommended for that year; and WHEREAS, after initial recommendations are made by the Controller/Administrator, these recommendations are distributed to the affected offices and departments, in order to receive their input; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the input from the affected offices and departments, the Controller /Controller makes final recommendations to the Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Controller’s Office has finished its annual review of these fees and recommended increases where appropriate, based on increased costs of providing services supported by these fees and the percent of the cost of providing the services which should be covered by such fees as established by the Board of Commissioners; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has reviewed the Controller/Administrator’s recommendations including the target percentages, along with recommendations of the various county offices, departments, and staff. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Commissioners authorizes or encourages the following fee increases in Attachments A and B, at the rates established effective January 1, 2010, with the exception of the Health Department where new rates will be effective October 1, 2009. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the fees within major Health Department services are not included on the attachments and were not set by the policy above, but rather through policy established in Resolutions #05-166 and #05-242.

ATTACHMENT A SUMMARY OF FEES WHERE CHANGES ARE RECOMMENDED

County Services CommitteeLocation

of Fee 2009 Department Controller AdditionalService Description Fee Recommend. Recomm. Revenue

Clerk Marriage Solemnize (2) $25.00 $25.00 $26.00 $0Drain Comm. Photograpy (3) $260.00 $265.00 $265.00 $15Drain Comm. Topography (3) $525.00 $530.00 $530.00 $15Drain Comm. Preliminary Comm. Site Plan Review $610.00 $650.00 $650.00 $800Drain Comm. Preliminary Plat Review $610.00 $650.00 $650.00 $120Drain Comm. Plat and Commercial Drainage Review $0

First acre $610.00 $650.00 $650.00 $800 Additional acre $70.00 $75.00 $75.00 $80

Drain Comm. Plat Drain Administration Fee $1,875.00 $1,950.00 $1,950.00 $225Drain Comm. Drain Crossing Permits, Review (Commercial) $450.00 $460.00 $460.00 $450Drain Comm. Tap-in Permit - Commercial $375.00 $385.00 $385.00 $180

Drain Comm.Soil Erosion Permit - Commercial - 12 mo. Duration (12) $570+57/addl $570+57/addl

Drain Comm.Soil Erosion Permit - Commercial - 9 mo. Duration (12) $500+50/addl $500+50/addl

Drain Comm.Soil Erosion Permit - Commercial - 6 mo. Duration (12) $430+43/addl $430+43/addl

Drain Comm. 9 month duration (5) $210.00 $220.00 $220.00 $60Drain Comm. 6 month duration (5) $180.00 $190.00 $190.00 $1,060

Drain Comm.Commercial Minor Disturbance Soil Erosion - Permit/Review/Inspection $270.00 $290.00 $290.00 $360

Drain Comm.Residential Minor Disturbance Soil Erosion -Permit/Review/Inspection $40.00 $45.00 $45.00 $145

Drain Comm. Violation and Cease&Desist Order $270.00 $280.00 $280.00 $60

EqualizationPre-2005 Paper Maps/Aerial photos (blueprints) $10.00 $11.00 $11.00 $3,000

EqualizationDigitally Produced Paper Maps- Parcel Layer $0

Equalization 11" x 17" (6) $10.50 $11.00 $11.00 $0Equalization 17" x 22" (6) $15.50 $16.00 $16.00 $0Equalization 22" x 34" (6) $21.00 $22.00 $22.00 $0Equalization 28" x 40" (6) $26.00 $27.00 $27.00 $0

Equalization 34" x 44" (6) $31.00 $33.00 $33.00 $0

EqualizationDigitally Produced Paper Maps - Parcel layer w/2005 Digital Photo Layer $0

Equalization 8.5" x 11" (6) $10.50 $11.00 $11.00 $0Equalization 11" x 17" (6) $21.00 $22.00 $22.00 $0Equalization 17" x 22" (6) $31.00 $33.00 $33.00 $0Equalization 22" x 34" (6) $42.00 $44.00 $44.00 $0Equalization 28" x 40" (6) $52.00 $55.00 $55.00 $0Equalization 34" x 44" (6) $63.00 $65.00 $65.00 $0Equalization Custom Maps (11) $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $3,000

Judiciary CommitteeLocation

of Fee 2009 Department Controller AdditionalService Description Fee Recommend. Recommend. Revenue

District Court Pre-Sentence Reports $0.00 $100.00 $100.00 $48,000Family Division Delinquency Costs $155.00 $150.00 $150.00 ($8,625)Family Division Tether $10.00 $15.00 $15.00 $13,125

$0Family Division Traffic (3) $80.00 ticket fee sch ticket fee schFamily Division Traffic - Fail to Appear $23.00 $24.00 $24.00 $355FOC FOC Bench Warrants $200.00 $225.00 $225.00 $30,000

Law Enforcement CommitteeLocation

of Fee 2009 Department Controller AdditionalService Description Fee Recommend. Recommend. Revenue

Animal Control Enforcement/Dog License-Sterilized $12.00 $12.00 $14.00 $33,662Animal Control Enforcement/Dog License -Sterilized-Delinquent $28.00 $28.00 $35.00 $15,709Animal Control Enforcement/Dog License-Sterilized-3 year Lic (5) $32.00 $32.00 $33.00 $0Animal Control Enforcement/Dog License-Un-Sterilized (5) $45.00 $45.00 $46.00 $5,610Animal Control Enforcement/Dog License-Un-Sterilized - Delinquent ( $90.00 $90.00 $92.00 $0Animal Control Boarding Fee for Dangerous Animal $11.00 $22.00 $22.00 $0Animal Control Adoption - Dogs(under six years of age) (1) $70.00 $70.00 $71.00 $655Animal Control Adoption - Puppies(age-four months or less) (1) $105.00 $105.00 $106.00 $187Animal Control Adoption - Cats(under six years of age) (1) $60.00 $60.00 $61.00 $655Animal Control Adoption - Kittens(age-four months or less) (1) $48.00 $48.00 $49.00 $187Animal Control Animal Redemption - 2nd offense $48.00 $49.00 $49.00 $177Animal Control Animal Redemption - 3rd offense $90.00 $94.00 $94.00 $106Animal Control Animal Redemption - after 3rd offense $144.00 $147.00 $147.00 $0Animal Control Euthanasia Fee $54.00 $55.00 $55.00 $200Animal Control Ten Dog Kennel Inspection Fee $100.00 $125.00 $125.00 $250Animal Control Over Ten Dog Kennel Inspection Fee $120.00 $135.00 $135.00 $75Pros Atty Diversion - Initial Interview $30.00 $33.00 $33.00 $1,350Pros Atty Diversion - Misdemeanor Offender $400.00 $420.00 $420.00 $0Pros Atty Diversion - Felony Offender $710.00 $730.00 $730.00 $0Pros Atty Costs-eligible convictions - Guilty Plea $90.00 $100.00 $100.00 $6,000Pros Atty Costs for eligible convictions - Trial $130.00 $150.00 $150.00 $220Sheriff Costs for Command (2) 51.00 $55.00 $55.00 $0Sheriff Costs for Deputy (2) 51.00 $55.00 $55.00 $0Sheriff Pistol Entry database verification (7) $1.00 $1.00

Human Services CommitteeLocation

of Fee 2009 Department Controller AdditionalService Description Fee Recommend. Recommend. Revenue

Comm. Health INS Vaccination Verif Form I-693 (8) $30.00 $31.00 $31.00 $300Comm. Health MIHP Tran. Bus/Van (5) $27.85 $29.72 $29.72 $93Comm. Health MIHP - Trans Taxi (5) $25.81 $27.18 $27.18 $7Comm. Health MIHP Trans. Volunteer (5) $0.28 $0.29 $0.29 $0Comm. Health Compreh Envir Investigation (5) $240.00 $255.00 $255.00 $165Comm. Health Assessment of Home (5) $100.00 $105.00 $105.00 $25Comm. Health Immigration Physical Exams (8) $160.00 $165.00 $165.00 $50Imm. Clinic Internat'l Travel Consult $37.00 $39.00 $39.00 $0Imm. Clinic Influenza (including Admin) (9) $32.00 $34.00 $34.00 $8,000Med Examiner Cremation Permits $20.00 $22.00 $22.00 $0Med Examiner Autopsy Report Copies (family) $13.00 $14.00 $14.00 $50Med Examiner Autopsy Report Copies (others) $33.00 $37.00 $37.00 $140Env. Health Fixed Food Svc Estab-Nonprofit $225.00 $250.00 $250.00 $1,075Env. Health Fixed Food Svc Estab - Profit $0Env. Health Initial License incl. 2 hours Plan Rev $1,100.00 $1,150.00 $1,150.00 $24,000Env. Health Initial Restricted License $550.00 $590.00 $590.00 $4,120Env. Health Initial License (Mobile) $390.00 $415.00 $415.00 $1,715Env. Health Multiple facility renewal license $170.00 $180.00 $180.00 $343Env. Health Renewal License-At least $750,000 (1) $900.00 $950.00 $950.00 $8,600

Env. Health Renewal License-At least $500,000,less than $750,000 (1) $740.00 $800.00 $800.00 $2,220

Env. HealthRenewal License- At least $250,000,less than $500,000 (1) $570.00 $620.00 $620.00 $1,250

Env. Health Renewal License-Less than $250,000 (1) $405.00 $425.00 $425.00 $240Env. Health FSE Seasonal Renewal Gross sales exc. $750,000 $550.00 $590.00 $590.00 $1,160

Env. Health FSE Seasnl renewal at least $500,000,less $750,000 $450.00 $480.00 $480.00 $210

Env. HealthjFSE Seasnl Renewal at least $250,000,less $500,000 $350.00 $370.00 $370.00 $100

Env. Health FSE Seasonal renewal less than $250,000 $250.00 $265.00 $265.00 $30Env. Health FSE Seasonal Renewal - Non-profit $85.00 $92.00 $92.00 $35Env. Health FSE - DOE Schools Program - Production Kitchen $425.00 $450.00 $450.00 $500Env. Health FSE - DOE Schools Program - Satellite Kitchen $270.00 $300.00 $300.00 $2,370Env. Health Change of Ownership of FSE $320.00 $350.00 $350.00 $0Env. Health Fixed FSE - Initial License, Nonprofit $220.00 $250.00 $250.00 $150Env. Health Initl Lic Fee Exmpt(plan revw only) Govt $185.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0Env. Health FSE indegent - late renewal - additional $115.00 $120.00 $120.00 $140Env. Health Public Pool Inspection $185.00 $200.00 $200.00 $2,670Env. Health Each add'l pool at same location $95.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0Env. Health Pool Reinspection (after violation) $95.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0Env. Health Child&Adult Care Fac Ins-Full $185.00 $190.00 $190.00 $0Env. Health Child&Adult Care Fac Ins.-W&S $115.00 $125.00 $125.00 $0

Env. HealthChild & Adult Care Fac non-compl W&S (10) $95.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0

Env. Health Child & Adult Care Plan Review $335.00 $350.00 $350.00 $0

Env. Health Initial STFU license Incl. Plan Review $295.00 $320.00 $320.00 $1,175Env. Health STFU late inspection request (10) $190.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0

Env. HealthSpecial food svc estab surchrg 2nd step of formal hearing (10) $210.00 $220.00 $220.00 $0

Env. HealthSpecial food svc estab surchrg 3rd step of formal hearing (10) $420.00 $450.00 $450.00 $0

Env. Health STFU in season inspection (13) $105.00 $110.00 $110.00 $0Env. Health STFU Renewal $105.00 $110.00 $110.00 $0Env. Health Tattooing Business Initial License (10) $730.00 $750.00 $750.00 $240Env. Health Tattooing Lic-late renewal-additional $115.00 $120.00 $120.00 $0

Env. HealthTattooing w/o initial license/reinstatement of revoked (10) $475.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0

Env. HealthTattooing non-compliant with inspection (10) $95.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0

Env. Health Temp FSE - Non-Profit (2) $100.00 $120.00 $120.00 $1,240Env. Health Temp Nonprf FSE-Ops Beg Bef Licg (double) $180.00 $190.00 $190.00 $0Env. Health Temp FSE- Preparation Type (2) $190.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0Env. Health Temp FSE-Ops Began Before Licg (double) $370.00 $400.00 $400.00 $0Env. Health Temp FSE-each add'l lic.after 2 at 1 loc $63.00 $66.00 $66.00 $0Env. Health VendingEnv. Health 1-3 Licensable Mach. in Same Loc. $70.00 $74.00 $74.00 $164Env. Health 4-6 Licensable Mach. in Same Loc. $90.00 $95.00 $95.00 $0Env. Health 7-10 Licensable Mach. in Same Loc. $120.00 $130.00 $130.00 $400Env. Health Larger Location (First 10 machines) $120.00 $125.00 $125.00 $0Env. Health Sewage Only (new) $470.00 $500.00 $500.00 $7,500Env. Health Well Only (new) $470.00 $500.00 $500.00 $9,000Env. Health Vacant Land Evaluation $465.00 $500.00 $500.00 $5,075Env. Health On-Site Sewage repair/replace $450.00 $480.00 $480.00 $7,200Env. Health Repair - Well $170.00 $180.00 $180.00 $0Env. Health Altern On-site Sewage Syst Plan Revw (4) $355.00 $380.00 $380.00 $2,500Env. Health Appeals Board Fee $35.00 $36.00 $36.00 $0Env. Health Hourly Rate Over Standard Service $95.00 $102.00 $102.00 $0Env. Health Subdivision Evaluation of Preliminary Plat $185.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0Env. Health Bathing Area Operational Permit $185.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0Env. Health Reinstmt of bathing area permit $95.00 $102.00 $102.00 $0Env. Health Sanitary Surv for Prop. Bathg Beach $365.00 $400.00 $400.00 $0Env. Health Loan Evaluation-Residential Premises $255.00 $275.00 $275.00 $0Env. Health Munic Requ Eval. of Well/Septic $95.00 $102.00 $102.00 $0

Env. HealthSeptic or Well ownershp trsfr,not installed at time of transfer (10) $160.00 $170.00 $170.00 $0

Env. HealthSeptic tank repair or replacement inspection fee (10) $240.00 $260.00 $260.00 $0

Env. Health Campground Inspection 0-99 Sites $125.00 $135.00 $135.00 $0Env. Health Campground Inspection 100-199 Sites $190.00 $205.00 $205.00 $0Env. Health Campground Inspection 200+ Sites $250.00 $270.00 $270.00 $0

Env. HealthCollection of water samples for Type II Non-Community Water Sampling per hr (10) $95.00 $102.00 $102.00 $0

Env. Health Type II Non Community - Sanitary Survey $380.00 $400.00 $400.00 $0Env. Health Board of Health appeal fee (10) $105.00 $115.00 $115.00 $0Env. Health Reinstatemt of Susp FSE $470.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0Env. Health Surchrge-Fail submit plans/chg own $470.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0Env. Health Surcharge-Fail of applic - vending $160.00 $170.00 $170.00 $0Env. Health Critical Follow-up Inspection fee $110.00 $120.00 $120.00 $0Env. Health Reinstmt of Susp Tattooing License $175.00 $190.00 $190.00 $0Env. Health Point of Sale- appl processing fee (7) $165.00 $175.00 $175.00 $0

Env. HealthPoint of Sale- on site evaluation well & waste treatment system by ICHD(7) $325.00 $350.00 $350.00 $0

Env. HealthWaste Treatment Inspection by ICHD (excludes pumping fees) $190.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0

Env. HealthWell Inspection by ICHD (includes water samples for bacteria and partial chemicals) (7) $140.00 $145.00 $145.00 $0

Env. Health Point of Sale- follow up/hr.- septic only (7) $90.00 $95.00 $95.00 $0Env. Health Point of Sale- follow up/hr.- well only (7) $90.00 $95.00 $95.00 $0Env. Health Point of Sale- Annl Inspector renwl fee (7) $110.00 $115.00 $115.00 $0

Health Ed.License- Tobacco Sales- 1yr.- Retailer (11) $270.00 $280.00 $280.00 $0

Health Ed.License- Tobacco Sales- 1yr.- Vend. Mach. (11) $270.00 $280.00 $280.00 $0

Health Ed. Temporary Sampling Permit Fee (11) $105.00 $110.00 $110.00 $0OYC Consultation Request (per hr.) $58.00 $61.00 $61.00 $18OYC Agency Training Request- Base, 1.5 hr. $170.00 $180.00 $180.00 $60OYC Agency Training Request- Base, 2.5 hr. $280.00 $300.00 $300.00 $100OYC Agency Training Request- Base, 3.0 hr. $340.00 $370.00 $370.00 $240OYC Agency Training Request- Base, 5.0 hr. $560.00 $620.00 $620.00 $300

OYCAgency Train. Request- Base, 1.5 hr, each add. $12.00 $13.00 $13.00 $0

OYCAgency Train. Request- Base, 2.5 hr, each add. $17.00 $18.00 $18.00 $0

OYCOYC-Advertised Train.- 1.5 hr./per person (min. 15 attending) $23.00 $24.00 $24.00 $75

OYCOYC-Advertised Train.- 2.5 hr./per person (min. 15 attending) $29.00 $30.00 $30.00 $300

OYCOYC-Advertised Train.- 5.0 hrs./per person (min. 15 attending). $58.00 $61.00 $61.00 $270

OYCOYC - Advanced Training - 10 hrs./per person $85.00 $93.00 $93.00 $280

OYCOYC - Administrator Training - 16 hrs./per person $155.00 $170.00 $170.00 $375

Vet. Affairs County User Fee $17.37 $20.52 $20.52 $5,771

ATTACHMENT B2010 County Fees Analysis FEES PROPOSED TO INCREASE ARE IN BOLDCounty Services Committee

Location 2010 2010 2010 Units of Fee 2009 Cost 2010 Target 2009 Calc. Initial Per Department Controller Additional

Service Description Cost Increase Cost Percent Fee Fee Prop. Fee Study Recommend. Recomm. RevenueFactor

Clerk Certified Copy - 1st Copy (10) $17.00 1.09% $17.19 100.0% $17.00 $17.19 $17.00 10,500 $17.00 $17.00 $0Clerk Certified Copy - Add'l Copies (1) $8.51 1.09% $8.60 100.0% $8.00 $8.60 $8.00 24,500 $8.00 $8.00 $0Clerk Marriage Solemnize (2) $26.30 1.09% $26.58 100.0% $25.00 $26.58 $26.00 $25.00 $26.00 $0Controller FOIA Request Copies $0.15 1.92% $0.16 100.0% $0.16 $0.16 $0.16 $0.16 $0.16 $0Controller FOIA Request Envelopes n/a 1.92% n/a 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aDrain Comm. Photograpy (3) $267.51 0.20% $268.05 100.0% $260.00 $268.05 $265.00 3 $265.00 $265.00 $15Drain Comm. Topography (3) $535.01 0.20% $536.09 100.0% $525.00 $536.09 $530.00 3 $530.00 $530.00 $15Drain Comm. Floodplain/wetland (3) $107.00 0.20% $107.22 100.0% $105.00 $107.22 $105.00 0 $105.00 $105.00 $0Drain Comm. Preliminary Comm. Site Plan Review $1,235.41 0.20% $1,237.90 75.0% $610.00 $928.43 $650.00 20 $650.00 $650.00 $800Drain Comm. Preliminary Plat Review $1,587.31 0.20% $1,590.51 75.0% $610.00 $1,192.89 $650.00 3 $650.00 $650.00 $120Drain Comm. Plat and Commercial Drainage Review $0

First acre $640.62 0.20% $641.91 100.0% $610.00 $641.91 $650.00 20 $650.00 $650.00 $800 Additional acre $74.90 0.20% $75.05 100.0% $70.00 $75.05 $75.00 16 $75.00 $75.00 $80 Re-submission Admin fee (7) $214.01 0.20% $214.44 100.0% $210.00 $214.44 $210.00 0 $210.00 $210.00 $0

Drain Comm. Plat Drain Administration Fee $6,657.88 0.20% $6,671.32 75.0% $1,875.00 $5,003.49 $1,950.00 3 $1,950.00 $1,950.00 $225Drain Comm. Drain Crossing Permits, Review (Commercial) $469.01 0.20% $469.96 100.0% $450.00 $469.96 $460.00 45 $460.00 $460.00 $450Drain Comm. Drain Crossing Permit- (Residential) (5) $123.63 0.20% $123.88 100.0% $120.00 $123.88 $120.00 1 $120.00 $120.00 $0Drain Comm. Tap in Permit - Residential $131.97 0.20% $132.23 75.0% $95.00 $99.17 $95.00 1 $95.00 $95.00 $0Drain Comm. Tap-in Permit - Commercial $515.15 0.20% $516.19 75.0% $375.00 $387.14 $385.00 18 $385.00 $385.00 $180

Drain Comm.Soil Erosion Permit - Commercial - 12 mo. Duration (12) $570+57/addl $570+57/addl

Drain Comm.Soil Erosion Permit - Commercial - 9 mo. Duration (12) $500+50/addl $500+50/addl

Drain Comm.Soil Erosion Permit - Commercial - 6 mo. Duration (12) $430+43/addl $430+43/addl Transfer (4) $90.95 0.20% $91.14 100.0% $90.00 $91.14 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $0 Renewal (4) 0.20% 100.0% 1/2 of orig fee 1/2 of orig fee 1/2 of orig fee 0 1/2 of orig fee 1/2 of orig fee 1/2 of orig fee Escrow account - 1/2 acre or less (4) $535.01 0.20% $536.09 100.0% $500.00 $536.09 $530.00 38 $500.00 $500.00 $0 Escrow account - 1/2 to 1 acre (4) $1,605.04 0.20% $1,608.28 100.0% $1,500.00 $1,608.28 $1,600.00 18 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $0 Escrow account - 1 to 5 acres (4) $3,210.08 0.20% $3,216.56 100.0% $3,000.00 $3,216.56 $3,200.00 27 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $0 Escrow account - 5 to 10 acres (4) $5,350.13 0.20% $5,360.93 100.0% $5,000.00 $5,360.93 $5,300.00 6 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0 Escrow account - each add'l 10 acres (4) $2,675.06 0.20% $2,680.46 100.0% $2,500.00 $2,680.46 $2,600.00 6 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0

Drain Comm. Soil Erosion Permit-Residential-12 mo. $329.68 0.20% $330.34 75.0% $240.00 $247.76 $240.00 2 $240.00 $240.00 $0Drain Comm. 9 month duration (5) $317.67 0.20% $318.31 75.0% $210.00 $238.73 $220.00 6 $220.00 $220.00 $60Drain Comm. 6 month duration (5) $257.57 0.20% $258.09 75.0% $180.00 $193.56 $190.00 106 $190.00 $190.00 $1,060Drain Comm. Renewal 1/2 of orig fee 1/2 of orig fee 1/2 of orig fee 47 1/2 of orig fee 1/2 of orig fee 1/2 of orig feeDrain Comm. Renewal 0.20% 75.0% 1/2 of orig fee 1/2 of orig fee 1/2 of orig fee 1 1/2 of orig fee 1/2 of orig fee 1/2 of orig fee

Drain Comm.Commercial Minor Disturbance Soil Erosion - Permit/Review/Inspection $386.96 3.50% $400.49 75.0% $270.00 $290.22 $290.00 18 $290.00 $290.00 $360

Drain Comm.Residential Minor Disturbance Soil Erosion - Permit/Review/Inspection $60.10 0.20% $60.22 75.0% $40.00 $45.17 $45.00 29 $45.00 $45.00 $145

Drain Comm. Violation and Cease&Desist Order $280.97 0.20% $281.54 100.0% $270.00 $281.54 $280.00 6 $280.00 $280.00 $60Drain Comm. Title Search - Drain Assessments $5.10 0.20% $5.11 100.0% $5.00 $5.11 $5.00 1,694 $5.00 $5.00 $0

EqualizationPre-2005 Paper Maps/Aerial photos (blueprints) $10.75 4.31% $11.22 100.0% $10.00 $11.22 $11.00 3,000 $11.00 $11.00 $3,000

EqualizationDigitally Produced Paper Maps- Parcel Layer $0

Equalization 8.5" x 11" (6) $5.32 4.31% $5.55 100.0% $5.25 $5.55 $5.50 $5.00 $5.00 $0Equalization 11" x 17" (6) $10.64 4.31% $11.09 100.0% $10.50 $11.09 $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 $0Equalization 17" x 22" (6) $15.95 4.31% $16.64 100.0% $15.50 $16.64 $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 $0Equalization 22" x 34" (6) $21.27 4.31% $22.19 100.0% $21.00 $22.19 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $0Equalization 28" x 40" (6) $26.59 4.31% $27.74 100.0% $26.00 $27.74 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 $0Equalization 34" x 44" (6) $31.91 4.31% $33.28 100.0% $31.00 $33.28 $33.00 $33.00 $33.00 $0

EqualizationDigitally Produced Paper Maps - Parcel layer w/2005 Digital Photo Layer $0

Equalization 8.5" x 11" (6) $10.64 4.31% $11.09 100.0% $10.50 $11.09 $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 $0Equalization 11" x 17" (6) $21.27 4.31% $22.19 100.0% $21.00 $22.19 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $0Equalization 17" x 22" (6) $31.91 4.31% $33.28 100.0% $31.00 $33.28 $33.00 $33.00 $33.00 $0Equalization 22" x 34" (6) $42.55 4.31% $44.38 100.0% $42.00 $44.38 $44.00 $44.00 $44.00 $0Equalization 28" x 40" (6) $53.18 4.31% $55.47 100.0% $52.00 $55.47 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $0Equalization 34" x 44" (6) $63.82 4.31% $66.57 100.0% $63.00 $66.57 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $0Equalization Custom Maps (11) $60.00 4.31% $62.58 100.0% $60.00 $62.58 $60.00 50 $60.00 $60.00 $0

Plat Board Plat Administration Fee $100.00 -0.81% $99.19 100.0% $100.00 $99.19 $100.00 10 $100.00 $100.00 $0Treasurer NSF Checks (8) $30.00 2.33% $30.70 100.0% $30.00 $30.70 $30.00 75 $30.00 $30.00 $0Treasurer Tax service fee (9) $3.00 2.33% $3.07 100.0% $3.00 $3.07 $3.00 100 $3.00 $3.00 $0

TOTALS $10,370(1) Per MCL 333.2891, local clerks cannot charge more than the State fees of $26 for the first copy and $12 for the second.(2) This fee was established per Resolution 06-276 and increased by Resolution 07-020.(3) These fees were established by Resolution 06-277.(4) These fees were established per Resolution 06-316.(5) 2006 fee set by Resolution 05-336.(6) 2006 fee established per Resolution 05-241 (7) This fee was established in 2007 through the annual fee review process.

(12) Rather than having one fee for Commercial Soil Erosion permits, the Drain Office is adding these separate fees based on duration.

(9) The Treasurer's office charges this fee for tax information emailed, mailed, or faxed as customers can do searches on-line or come into the office for no charge up to a certain amount.

(8) The Clerk's Office charges $30 because of a check recovery service and the Treasurer would like to have uniformity and recommends the 2009 increase to $30.

(10) Effective March 2, 2009, Fee changed from $15 to $17 per Resolution 09-028(11) This fee was established by Resolution 05-241.

EqualizationPre-2005 Paper Maps/Aerial photos (blueprints) $10.75 4.31% $11.22 100.0% $10.00 $11.22 $11.00 3,000 $11.00 $11.00 $3,000

EqualizationDigitally Produced Paper Maps- Parcel Layer $0

Equalization 8.5" x 11" (6) $5.32 4.31% $5.55 100.0% $5.25 $5.55 $5.50 $5.00 $5.00 $0Equalization 11" x 17" (6) $10.64 4.31% $11.09 100.0% $10.50 $11.09 $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 $0Equalization 17" x 22" (6) $15.95 4.31% $16.64 100.0% $15.50 $16.64 $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 $0Equalization 22" x 34" (6) $21.27 4.31% $22.19 100.0% $21.00 $22.19 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $0Equalization 28" x 40" (6) $26.59 4.31% $27.74 100.0% $26.00 $27.74 $27.00 $27.00 $27.00 $0Equalization 34" x 44" (6) $31.91 4.31% $33.28 100.0% $31.00 $33.28 $33.00 $33.00 $33.00 $0

EqualizationDigitally Produced Paper Maps - Parcel layer w/2005 Digital Photo Layer $0

Equalization 8.5" x 11" (6) $10.64 4.31% $11.09 100.0% $10.50 $11.09 $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 $0Equalization 11" x 17" (6) $21.27 4.31% $22.19 100.0% $21.00 $22.19 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $0Equalization 17" x 22" (6) $31.91 4.31% $33.28 100.0% $31.00 $33.28 $33.00 $33.00 $33.00 $0Equalization 22" x 34" (6) $42.55 4.31% $44.38 100.0% $42.00 $44.38 $44.00 $44.00 $44.00 $0Equalization 28" x 40" (6) $53.18 4.31% $55.47 100.0% $52.00 $55.47 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $0Equalization 34" x 44" (6) $63.82 4.31% $66.57 100.0% $63.00 $66.57 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $0Equalization Custom Maps (11) $60.00 4.31% $62.58 100.0% $60.00 $62.58 $60.00 50 $60.00 $60.00 $0Plat Board Plat Administration Fee $100.00 -0.81% $99.19 100.0% $100.00 $99.19 $100.00 10 $100.00 $100.00 $0Treasurer NSF Checks (8) $30.00 2.33% $30.70 100.0% $30.00 $30.70 $30.00 75 $30.00 $30.00 $0Treasurer Tax service fee (9) $3.00 2.33% $3.07 100.0% $3.00 $3.07 $3.00 100 $3.00 $3.00 $0

TOTALS $10,370(1) Per MCL 333.2891, local clerks cannot charge more than the State fees of $26 for the first copy and $12 for the second.(2) This fee was established per Resolution 06-276 and increased by Resolution 07-020.(3) These fees were established by Resolution 06-277.(4) These fees were established per Resolution 06-316.(5) 2006 fee set by Resolution 05-336.(6) 2006 fee established per Resolution 05-241 (7) This fee was established in 2007 through the annual fee review process.

(12) Rather than having one fee for Commercial Soil Erosion permits, the Drain Office is adding these separate fees based on duration.

(9) The Treasurer's office charges this fee for tax information emailed, mailed, or faxed as customers can do searches on-line or come into the office for no charge up to a certain amount.

(8) The Clerk's Office charges $30 because of a check recovery service and the Treasurer would like to have uniformity and recommends the 2009 increase to $30.

(10) Effective March 2, 2009, Fee changed from $15 to $17 per Resolution 09-028(11) This fee was established by Resolution 05-241.

2010 County Fees Analysis FEES PROPOSED TO INCREASE ARE IN BOLDJudiciary Committee

Location 2010 Cost 2010 2010 Units of Fee 2009 Increase 2010 Target 2009 Calc. Initial Per Department Controller Additional

Service Description Cost Factor Cost Percent Fee Fee Prop. Fee Study Recommend. Recommend. RevenueAll Courts Work Release (1) $24.40 -0.39% $24.31 100.0% $24.00 $24.31 $24.00 5,250 $24.00 $24.00 $0

$0District Court Civil $94.74 7.09% $101.45 50.0% Varies $50.73 Varies 5,210 Varies VariesDistrict Court Community Service $10.85 7.09% $11.62 100.0% $0.00 $11.62 $11.00 600 $0.00 $0.00 $0District Court Felonies $152.76 7.09% $163.59 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 684 $0.00 $0.00 $0District Court Pre-Sentence Reports $183.69 7.09% $196.71 100.0% $0.00 $196.71 $190.00 480 $100.00 $100.00 $48,000District Court Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) $5.42 7.09% $5.80 100.0% $0.00 $5.80 $5.00 1,750 $0.00 $0.00 $0District Court Probation Oversight $96.73 7.09% $103.59 100.0% $45.00 $103.59 $55.00 5,220 $45.00 $45.00 $0

/Month /Month /Month /Month /Month /Month /MonthDistrict Court Traffic/Criminal Varies 7.09% Varies 100.0% Varies Varies Varies 25,615 Varies VariesDistrict Court Traffic $215.13 7.09% $230.38 50.0% Varies $115.19 Varies 1,775 Varies VariesCircuit Court Copies (2) $4.00 5.71% $4.23 25.0% $1.00 $1.06 $1.00 2,000 $1.00 $1.00 $0Circuit Court Criminal Histories $9.09 5.71% $9.61 100.0% $9.00 $9.61 $9.00 2,000 $9.00 $9.00 $0Circuit Court Felony Case Costs $609.24 5.71% $644.05 100.0% $575.00 $644.05 $600.00 684 $575.00 $575.00 $0Circuit Court Show Cause - Probation $384.15 5.71% $406.10 100.0% $75.00 $406.10 $100.00 377 $75.00 $75.00 $0Family Division Delinquency Costs $358.77 2.73% $368.57 100.0% $155.00 $368.57 $165.00 1,725 $150.00 $150.00 ($8,625)Family Division In-Home Detention $35.07 2.73% $36.03 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 7,000 $0.00 $0.00 $0Family Division Intensive Probation $829.52 2.73% $852.18 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 970 $0.00 $0.00 $0Family Division Regular Probation $137.42 2.73% $141.18 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5,292 $0.00 $0.00 $0Family Division Tether $120.71 2.73% $124.00 25.0% $10.00 $31.00 $15.00 2,625 $15.00 $15.00 $13,125

$0Family Division Traffic (3) $196.56 2.73% $201.93 50.0% $80.00 $100.96 $100.00 1,775 ticket fee sch ticket fee schFamily Division Traffic - Fail to Appear $94.03 2.73% $96.60 25.0% $23.00 $24.15 $24.00 355 $24.00 $24.00 $355FOC FOC Bench Warrants $439.22 15.88% $508.96 100.0% $200.00 $508.96 $250.00 1,200 $225.00 $225.00 $30,000TOTALS $82,855(1) Courts ordering work release are encouraged to recognize that the cost of administering work release at the jail has been calculated at $24.00 per day.

(2) As recommended by Maximus and the Board of Commissioners, the Circuit Court planned to set copy costs at $5.00 for the first ten pages and $0.50 for each additional page. The Circuit Court submitted an Administrative Order to the State Court Administ

(3) Although this was set at a flat rate in previous years, Family Court has always used this fee schedule.

2010 County Fees Analysis FEES PROPOSED TO INCREASE ARE IN BOLDLaw Enforcement Committee

Location 2010 Cost 2010 2010 Units of Fee 2009 Increase 2010 Target 2009 Calc. Initial Per Department Controller Additional

Service Description Cost Factor Cost Percent Fee Fee Prop. Fee Study Recommend. Recommend. RevenueAnimal Control Enforcement/Dog License Fees

Sterilized $55.16 2.27% $56.41 25.0% $12.00 $14.10 $14.00 16,831 $12.00 $14.00 $33,662 Sterilized - Delinquent $183.85 2.27% $188.02 25.0% $28.00 $47.01 $35.00 / 2,244 $28.00 $35.00 $15,709 Sterilized - 3 year License (5) $130.01 2.27% $132.95 25.0% $32.00 $33.24 $33.00 $32.00 $33.00 $0 Un-Sterilized (5) $180.00 2.27% $184.08 25.0% $45.00 $46.02 $46.00 5,610 $45.00 $46.00 $5,610 Un-Sterilized - Delinquent (5) $360.00 2.27% $368.16 25.0% $90.00 $92.04 $92.00 $90.00 $92.00 $0 Un-Sterilized - 3 year License (5) $433.35 2.27% $443.18 25.0% $110.00 $110.80 $110.00 $110.00 $110.00 $0

Animal Control Boarding Fee for Dangerous Animal 100 $22.00 $22.00 $0Animal Control Boarding Fee per day-others (4) $43.34 2.27% $44.32 25.0% $11.00 $11.08 $11.00 3,667 $11.00 $11.00 $0Animal Control Adoption Fee 2.27% 1,870 $0

Dogs(under six years of age) (1) $92.87 2.27% $94.97 75.0% $70.00 $71.23 $71.00 655 $70.00 $71.00 $655 Dogs(six years or older) (1) $24.00 2.27% $24.54 75.0% $18.00 $18.41 $18.00 94 $18.00 $18.00 $0 Puppies(age-four months or less) (1) $139.30 2.27% $142.46 75.0% $105.00 $106.84 $106.00 187 $105.00 $106.00 $187 Cats(under six years of age) (1) $80.00 2.27% $81.81 75.0% $60.00 $61.36 $61.00 655 $60.00 $61.00 $655 Cats(six years or older) (1) $32.00 2.27% $32.73 75.0% $24.00 $24.54 $24.00 94 $24.00 $24.00 $0 Kittens(age-four months or less) (1) $64.00 2.27% $65.45 75.0% $48.00 $49.09 $49.00 187 $48.00 $49.00 $187

Animal Control Animal Redemption - 1st offense $40.00 2.27% $40.91 75.0% $30.00 $30.68 $30.00 682 $30.00 $30.00 $0 2nd offense $48.00 2.27% $49.09 100.0% $48.00 $49.09 $49.00 177 $49.00 $49.00 $177 3rd offense $91.93 2.27% $94.01 100.0% $90.00 $94.01 $94.00 27 $94.00 $94.00 $106 after 3rd offense $144.00 2.27% $147.27 100.0% $144.00 $147.27 $147.00 0 $147.00 $147.00 $0

Animal Control Euthanasia Fee $54.00 2.27% $55.22 100.0% $54.00 $55.22 $55.00 200 $55.00 $55.00 $200Animal Control Ten Dog Kennel Inspection Fee $124.10 2.27% $126.92 100.0% $100.00 $126.92 $125.00 10 $125.00 $125.00 $250Animal Control Over Ten Dog Kennel Inspection Fee $135.59 2.27% $138.67 100.0% $120.00 $138.67 $135.00 5 $135.00 $135.00 $75Animal Control Owner Surrender $33.32 2.27% $34.08 75.0% $25.00 $25.56 $25.00 850 $25.00 $25.00 $0Animal Control On-Call Fee for redeemed Animals $30.00 2.27% $30.68 100.0% $30.00 $30.68 $30.00 156 $30.00 $30.00 $0Animal Control Owner Pick-up Fee $20.00 2.27% $20.45 100.0% $20.00 $20.45 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $0Animal Control RABIES DECAP $30.00 2.27% $30.68 100.0% $30.00 $30.68 $30.00 16 $30.00 $30.00 $0Animal Control TRANQ. AT-LARGE FEE $15.00 2.27% $15.34 100.0% $15.00 $15.34 $15.00 39 $15.00 $15.00 $0Pros Atty Diversion - Initial Interview $63.94 5.10% $67.20 50.0% $30.00 $33.60 $33.00 450 $33.00 $33.00 $1,350Pros Atty Diversion - Service Fee 274 $0

Misdemeanor Offender $835.39 5.10% $878.02 50.0% $400.00 $439.01 $420.00 $420.00 $420.00 $0 Felony Offender $1,503.71 5.10% $1,580.44 50.0% $710.00 $790.22 $730.00 $730.00 $730.00 $0

Pros Atty Costs-eligible convictions - Guilty Plea $132.17 5.10% $138.91 75.0% $90.00 $104.18 $100.00 600 $100.00 $100.00 $6,000Pros Atty Costs for eligible convictions - Trial $2,114.93 5.10% $2,222.85 10.0% $130.00 $222.29 $150.00 11 $150.00 $150.00 $220

Jail Day Rate (3) $52.64 -0.39% $52.44 100.0% $50.00 $52.44 $50.00 224,475 $50.00 $50.00 $0Sheriff Accident/Incident Report $5.09 -0.39% $5.07 100.0% * $5.07 * 2,384 * *Sheriff Fingerprinting $15.94 -0.39% $15.87 100.0% $16.00 $15.87 $16.00 621 $16.00 $16.00 $0Sheriff Public Notary Fee for gun permits (6) $10.00 -0.39% $9.96 100.0% $10.00 $9.96 $10.00 1,354 $10.00 $10.00 $0Sheriff Costs for Command (2) $64.59 -0.39% $64.33 100.0% 51.00 $64.33 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $0

per hour per hour per hour per hour per hourSheriff Costs for Deputy (2) $56.09 -0.39% $55.87 100.0% 51.00 $55.87 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $0

per hour per hour per hour per hour per hourSheriff Pistol Entry database verification (7) $1.00 $1.00TOTALS $65,042

** - A set fee for all OWI convictions based on two year avg. of $292.92 & 281.41

(1) These fees were set by Resolution 05-033

(2) These fees were set by Resolution 03-161.

(5) These fees were established per Resolution 06-336.

(7) As stated in MCL 28.422a, a local police or sheriff may charge up to $1.00 for the cost of providing, to the owner, a copy of information that was entered in the pistol entry database.

(6) As stated in MCL 55.285, the fee charged for performing a notarial act shall not be more than $10.00 for an individual trasaction or notarial act.

* - $5.00 per page for first two pages, $1.00 per additional page after the first two pages.

(3) The Prisoner Reimbursement to the County Act was increased from a maximum of $30 per day, to $60 per day, as currently set forth in MCL 801.83. The reimbursement rate for the contracted beds with the Michigan Department of Corrections is currently se(4) The Boarding Fee was not part of the Maximus study, but the average around the state is $7-$15 per day. This fee is set slightly less than the median around the state.

2010 County Fee Analysis FEES PROPOSED TO INCREASE ARE IN BOLDHuman Services Committee

Location 2010 Cost 2010 2010 Units of Fee 2009 Increase 2010 Target 2009 Calc. Initial Per Department Controller Additional

Service Description Cost Factor Cost Percent Fee Fee Prop. Fee Study Recommend. Recommend. RevenueCoop. Ext. Soil Box Analysis (6) $16.25 3.14% $16.76 80.0% $12.00 $13.40 $13.00 300 $12.00 $12.00 $0

Comm. Health GC Prob Tech (3) $16.55 6.73% $17.66 100.0% COST COST COST 1,000 COST COSTComm. Health Conting Ed. Fee Diseased Control/Imm. (4) $11.95 6.73% $12.76 100.0% $12.00 $12.76 $12.00 354 $12.00 $12.00 $0Comm. Health INS Vaccination Verif Form I-693 (8) $29.88 6.73% $31.89 100.0% $30.00 $31.89 $31.00 300 $31.00 $31.00 $300Comm. Health Immuniz Record Copying Fee (4) $3.59 6.73% $3.83 100.0% $3.00 $3.83 $3.00 750 $3.00 $3.00 $0Comm. Health MIHP Tran. Bus/Van (5) $27.85 6.73% $29.72 100.0% $27.85 $29.72 $29.72 50 $29.72 $29.72 $93

(max) (max) (max) (max) (max) (max) (max)Comm. Health MIHP - Trans Taxi (5) $25.47 6.73% $27.18 100.0% $25.81 $27.18 $27.18 5 $27.18 $27.18 $7

(max) (max) (max) (max) (max) (max) (max)Comm. Health MIHP Trans. Volunteer (5) $0.27 6.73% $0.29 100.0% $0.28 $0.29 $0.29 5 $0.29 $0.29 $0

per mile per mile per mile per mile per mile per mile per mileComm. Health Compreh Envir Investigation (5) $239.03 6.73% $255.12 100.0% $240.00 $255.12 $255.00 11 $255.00 $255.00 $165Comm. Health Assessment of Home (5) $101.59 6.73% $108.42 100.0% $100.00 $108.42 $105.00 5 $105.00 $105.00 $25Comm. Health Immigration Physical Exams (8) $158.02 6.73% $168.65 100.0% $160.00 $168.65 $165.00 10 $165.00 $165.00 $50Imm. Clinic Internat'l Travel Consult $49.21 6.73% $52.53 75.0% $37.00 $39.39 $39.00 $39.00 $39.00 $0Imm. Clinic Influenza (including Admin) (9) $42.69 6.73% $45.56 75.0% $32.00 $34.17 $34.00 4,000 $34.00 $34.00 $8,000Med Examiner Cremation Permits $20.70 7.48% $22.25 100.0% $20.00 $22.25 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $0Med Examiner Autopsy Report Copies (family) $13.80 7.48% $14.83 100.0% $13.00 $14.83 $14.00 50 $14.00 $14.00 $50Med Examiner Autopsy Report Copies (others) $34.51 7.48% $37.09 100.0% $33.00 $37.09 $37.00 35 $37.00 $37.00 $140Env. Health Fixed Food Svc Estab-Nonprofit $1,210.35 6.73% $1,291.81 25.0% $225.00 $322.95 $250.00 43 $250.00 $250.00 $1,075Env. Health Fixed Food Svc Estab - Profit 686 $0Env. Health Initial License incl. 2 hours Plan Rev $2,228.49 6.73% $2,378.46 50.0% $1,100.00 $1,189.23 $1,150.00 480 $1,150.00 $1,150.00 $24,000Env. Health Initial Restricted License $1,107.32 6.73% $1,181.84 50.0% $550.00 $590.92 $590.00 103 $590.00 $590.00 $4,120Env. Health Initial License (Mobile) $784.35 6.73% $837.14 50.0% $390.00 $418.57 $415.00 69 $415.00 $415.00 $1,715Env. Health Multiple facility renewal license $346.04 6.73% $369.33 50.0% $170.00 $184.66 $180.00 34 $180.00 $180.00 $343Env. Health Renewal License $0.00 6.73% $0.00 245 $0Env. Health At least $750,000 (1) $1,845.54 6.73% $1,969.74 50.0% $900.00 $984.87 $950.00 172 $950.00 $950.00 $8,600Env. Health At least $500,000,less than $750,000 (1) $1,511.03 6.73% $1,612.72 50.0% $740.00 $806.36 $800.00 37 $800.00 $800.00 $2,220Env. Health At least $250,000,less than $500,000 (1) $1,165.00 6.73% $1,243.40 50.0% $570.00 $621.70 $620.00 25 $620.00 $620.00 $1,250Env. Health Less than $250,000 (1) $830.49 6.73% $886.38 50.0% $405.00 $443.19 $425.00 12 $425.00 $425.00 $240Env. Health Seasonal Renewal License, FSE 49 $0Env. Health Seasonal Gross sales exc. $750,000 $1,107.32 6.73% $1,181.84 50.0% $550.00 $590.92 $590.00 29 $590.00 $590.00 $1,160Env. Health Seasnl at least $500,000,less $750,000 $906.62 6.73% $967.63 50.0% $450.00 $483.82 $480.00 7 $480.00 $480.00 $210Env. Health Seasnl at least $250,000,less $500,000 $699.00 6.73% $746.04 50.0% $350.00 $373.02 $370.00 5 $370.00 $370.00 $100Env. Health Seasonal less than $250,000 $498.30 6.73% $531.83 50.0% $250.00 $265.91 $265.00 2 $265.00 $265.00 $30Env. Health Non-profit $173.02 6.73% $184.66 50.0% $85.00 $92.33 $92.00 5 $92.00 $92.00 $35

Env. HealthFSE - DOE Schools Program - Production Kitchen $891.29 6.73% $951.27 50.0% $425.00 $475.64 $450.00 20 $450.00 $450.00 $500

Env. Health FSE - DOE Schools Program - Satellite Kitchen $562.46 6.73% $600.32 50.0% $270.00 $300.16 $300.00 79 $300.00 $300.00 $2,370

Env. Health Change of Ownership of FSE $659.78 6.73% $704.18 50.0% $320.00 $352.09 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $0Env. Health Fixed FSE - Initial License, Nonprofit $1,210.35 6.73% $1,291.81 50.0% $220.00 $645.90 $250.00 5 $250.00 $250.00 $150

Env. HealthInitl Lic Fee Exmpt(plan revw only) Govt $382.95 6.73% $408.72 50.0% $185.00 $204.36 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0

Env. Health FSE - Indigent 128 $0Env. Health late renewal - additional $230.69 6.73% $246.22 50.0% $115.00 $123.11 $120.00 28 $120.00 $120.00 $140Env. Health Public Pool Inspection $191.47 6.73% $204.36 100.0% $185.00 $204.36 $200.00 178 $200.00 $200.00 $2,670Env. Health Each add'l pool at same location $95.74 6.73% $102.18 100.0% $95.00 $102.18 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0Env. Health Pool Reinspection (after violation) $95.74 6.73% $102.18 100.0% $95.00 $102.18 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0Env. Health Child&Adult Care Fac Ins-Full $186.86 6.73% $199.44 100.0% $185.00 $199.44 $190.00 $190.00 $190.00 $0Env. Health Child&Adult Care Fac Ins.-W&S $117.65 6.73% $125.57 100.0% $115.00 $125.57 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $0

Env. HealthChild & Adult Care Fac non-compl W&S (10) $94.99 6.73% $101.38 100.0% $95.00 $101.38 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0

Env. Health Child & Adult Care Plan Review $346.04 6.73% $369.33 100.0% $335.00 $369.33 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $0Env. Health Initial STFU license Incl. Plan Review $599.80 6.73% $640.17 50.0% $295.00 $320.08 $320.00 47 $320.00 $320.00 $1,175Env. Health STFU late inspection request (10) $384.23 6.73% $410.08 50.0% $190.00 $205.04 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0

Env. HealthSpecial food svc estab surchrg 2nd step of formal hearing (10) $426.92 6.73% $455.65 50.0% $210.00 $227.82 $220.00 $220.00 $220.00 $0

Env. HealthSpecial food svc estab surchrg 3rd step of formal hearing (10) $853.84 6.73% $911.30 50.0% $420.00 $455.65 $450.00 $450.00 $450.00 $0

Env. Health STFU in season inspection (13) $207.62 6.73% $221.60 50.0% $105.00 $110.80 $110.00 $110.00 $110.00 $0Env. Health STFU Renewal $216.85 6.73% $231.44 50.0% $105.00 $115.72 $110.00 $110.00 $110.00 $0Env. Health Tattooing Business Initial License (10) $1,530.50 6.73% $1,633.50 50.0% $730.00 $816.75 $750.00 12 $750.00 $750.00 $240Env. Health Tattooing Lic-late renewal-additional $230.69 6.73% $246.22 50.0% $115.00 $123.11 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 $0

Env. HealthTattooing w/o initial license/reinstatement of revoked (10) $960.57 6.73% $1,025.21 50.0% $475.00 $512.61 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0

Env. HealthTattooing non-compliant with inspection (10) $189.98 6.73% $202.76 50.0% $95.00 $101.38 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0

per hour per hour per hour per hour per hour per hour per hourEnv. Health Temp. Food Svc Establmnt- Fee-Exempt $0.00 6.73% $0.00 50.0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 305 $0.00 $0.00 $0Env. Health Temp FSE - Non-Profit (2) $242.49 6.73% $258.81 50.0% $100.00 $129.40 $120.00 62 $120.00 $120.00 $1,240Env. Health Temp Nonprf FSE-Ops Beg Bef Licg (double) $369.11 6.73% $393.95 50.0% $180.00 $196.97 $190.00 $190.00 $190.00 $0Env. Health Temp FSE- Preparation Type (2) $385.95 6.73% $411.92 50.0% $190.00 $205.96 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0Env. Health Temp FSE-Ops Began Before Licg (double) $768.33 6.73% $820.03 50.0% $370.00 $410.02 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $0Env. Health Temp FSE-each add'l lic.after 2 at 1 loc $124.57 6.73% $132.96 50.0% $63.00 $66.48 $66.00 $66.00 $66.00 $0Env. Health VendingEnv. Health 1-3 Licensable Mach. in Same Loc. $139.29 6.73% $148.67 50.0% $70.00 $74.33 $74.00 41 $74.00 $74.00 $164Env. Health 4-6 Licensable Mach. in Same Loc. $185.43 6.73% $197.91 50.0% $90.00 $98.96 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $0Env. Health 7-10 Licensable Mach. in Same Loc. $244.51 6.73% $260.97 50.0% $120.00 $130.48 $130.00 40 $130.00 $130.00 $400Env. Health Larger Location (First 10 machines) $242.23 6.73% $258.53 50.0% $120.00 $129.26 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $0Env. Health Larger Loc (Add'l Machine > 10) $12.26 6.73% $13.08 50.0% $6.00 $6.54 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00Env. Health Sewage Only (new) $490.22 6.73% $523.21 100.0% $470.00 $523.21 $500.00 250 $500.00 $500.00 $7,500Env. Health Well Only (new) $490.22 6.73% $523.21 100.0% $470.00 $523.21 $500.00 300 $500.00 $500.00 $9,000Env. Health Vacant Land Evaluation $472.09 6.73% $503.86 100.0% $465.00 $503.86 $500.00 145 $500.00 $500.00 $5,075Env. Health On-Site Sewage repair/replace $467.15 6.73% $498.59 100.0% $450.00 $498.59 $480.00 240 $480.00 $480.00 $7,200Env. Health Repair - Well $173.02 6.73% $184.66 100.0% $170.00 $184.66 $180.00 $180.00 $180.00 $0Env. Health Altern On-site Sewage Syst Plan Revw (4) $358.55 6.73% $382.68 100.0% $355.00 $382.68 $380.00 100 $380.00 $380.00 $2,500Env. Health Appeals Board Fee $34.60 6.73% $36.93 100.0% $35.00 $36.93 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 $0Env. Health Hourly Rate Over Standard Service $95.74 6.73% $102.18 100.0% $95.00 $102.18 $102.00 $102.00 $102.00 $0Env. Health Subdivision Evaluation of Preliminary Plat $191.47 6.73% $204.36 100.0% $185.00 $204.36 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0

Env. Health Bathing Area Operational Permit $191.47 6.73% $204.36 100.0% $185.00 $204.36 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0Env. Health Reinstmt of bathing area permit $95.74 6.73% $102.18 100.0% $95.00 $102.18 $102.00 $102.00 $102.00 $0Env. Health Sanitary Surv for Prop. Bathg Beach $382.95 6.73% $408.72 100.0% $365.00 $408.72 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $0Env. Health Loan Evaluation-Residential Premises $259.53 6.73% $276.99 100.0% $255.00 $276.99 $275.00 $275.00 $275.00 $0Env. Health Munic Requ Eval. of Well/Septic $95.74 6.73% $102.18 100.0% $95.00 $102.18 $102.00 $102.00 $102.00 $0

Env. HealthSeptic or Well ownershp trsfr,not installed at time of transfer (10) $160.09 6.73% $170.87 100.0% $160.00 $170.87 $170.00 $170.00 $170.00 $0

Env. HealthSeptic tank repair or replacement inspection fee (10) $245.48 6.73% $262.00 100.0% $240.00 $262.00 $260.00 $260.00 $260.00 $0

Env. Health Campground Inspection 0-99 Sites $129.80 6.73% $138.53 100.0% $125.00 $138.53 $135.00 $135.00 $135.00 $0

Env. Health Campground Inspection 100-199 Sites $194.70 6.73% $207.80 100.0% $190.00 $207.80 $205.00 $205.00 $205.00 $0Env. Health Campground Inspection 200+ Sites $259.60 6.73% $277.07 100.0% $250.00 $277.07 $270.00 $270.00 $270.00 $0

Env. Health

Collection of water samples for Type II Non-Community Water Sampling per hr (10) $97.02 6.73% $103.55 100.0% $95.00 $103.55 $102.00 $102.00 $102.00 $0

Env. HealthType II Non Community - Sanitary Survey $380.00 6.73% $405.57 100.0% $380.00 $405.57 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $0

6.73% flat rate flat rate flat rate flat rate flat rateEnv. Health Board of Health appeal fee (10) $108.17 6.73% $115.45 100.0% $105.00 $115.45 $115.00 $115.00 $115.00 $0Env. Health Reinstatemt of Susp FSE $495.65 6.73% $529.01 100.0% $470.00 $529.01 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0Env. Health Surchrge-Fail submit plans/chg own $489.07 6.73% $521.98 100.0% $470.00 $521.98 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0Env. Health Surcharge-Fail of applic - vending $161.48 6.73% $172.35 100.0% $160.00 $172.35 $170.00 $170.00 $170.00 $0Env. Health Critical Follow-up Inspection fee $116.50 6.73% $124.34 100.0% $110.00 $124.34 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 $0Env. Health Reinstmt of Susp Tattooing License $179.66 6.73% $191.75 100.0% $175.00 $191.75 $190.00 $190.00 $190.00 $0Env. Health Point of Sale- appl processing fee (7) $168.43 6.73% $179.76 100.0% $165.00 $179.76 $175.00 $175.00 $175.00 $0

Env. HealthPoint of Sale- on site evaluation well & waste treatment system by ICHD(7) $336.86 6.73% $359.53 100.0% $325.00 $359.53 $350.00 $350.00 $350.00 $0

Env. HealthWaste Treatment Inspection by ICHD (excludes pumping fees) $196.50 6.73% $209.73 100.0% $190.00 $209.73 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0

Env. Healthsamples for bacteria and partial chemicals) (7) $140.36 6.73% $149.80 100.0% $140.00 $149.80 $145.00 $145.00 $145.00 $0

Env. HealthPoint of Sale- follow up/hr.- septic only (7) $93.20 6.73% $99.47 100.0% $90.00 $99.47 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $0

Env. HealthPoint of Sale- follow up/hr.- well only (7) $93.20 6.73% $99.47 100.0% $90.00 $99.47 $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 $0

Env. HealthPoint of Sale- Annl Inspector renwl fee (7) $112.29 6.73% $119.84 100.0% $110.00 $119.84 $115.00 $115.00 $115.00 $0

Health Ed.License- Tobacco Sales- 1yr.- Retailer (11) $266.82 6.73% $284.78 100.0% $270.00 $284.78 $280.00 $280.00 $280.00 $0

Health Ed.License- Tobacco Sales- 1yr.- Vend. Mach. (11) $266.82 6.73% $284.78 100.0% $270.00 $284.78 $280.00 $280.00 $280.00 $0

Health Ed. Temporary Sampling Permit Fee (11) $106.73 6.73% $113.91 100.0% $105.00 $113.91 $110.00 $110.00 $110.00 $0

OYC Consultation Request (per hr.) $57.67 6.73% $61.55 100.0% $58.00 $61.55 $61.00 6 $61.00 $61.00 $18

OYC Agency Training Request- Base, 1.5 hr. $173.02 6.73% $184.67 100.0% $170.00 $184.67 $180.00 6 $180.00 $180.00 $60

OYC Agency Training Request- Base, 2.5 hr. $288.36 6.73% $307.77 100.0% $280.00 $307.77 $300.00 5 $300.00 $300.00 $100

OYC Agency Training Request- Base, 3.0 hr. $350.70 6.73% $374.30 100.0% $340.00 $374.30 $370.00 8 $370.00 $370.00 $240

OYC Agency Training Request- Base, 5.0 hr. $584.49 6.73% $623.82 100.0% $560.00 $623.82 $620.00 5 $620.00 $620.00 $300

OYCAgency Train. Request- Base, 1.5 hr, each add. $12.35 6.73% $13.18 100.0% $12.00 $13.18 $13.00 $13.00 $13.00 $0

OYCAgency Train. Request- Base, 2.5 hr, each add. $17.30 6.73% $18.47 100.0% $17.00 $18.47 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $0

OYCOYC-Advertised Train.- 1.5 hr./per person (min. 15 attending) $23.06 6.73% $24.62 100.0% $23.00 $24.62 $24.00 75 $24.00 $24.00 $75

OYCOYC-Advertised Train.- 2.5 hr./per person (min. 15 attending) $28.84 6.73% $30.78 100.0% $29.00 $30.78 $30.00 300 $30.00 $30.00 $300

OYCOYC-Advertised Train.- 5.0 hrs./per person (min. 15 attending). $57.67 6.73% $61.55 100.0% $58.00 $61.55 $61.00 90 $61.00 $61.00 $270

OYCOYC - Advanced Training - 10 hrs./per person $87.61 6.73% $93.51 100.0% $85.00 $93.51 $93.00 35 $93.00 $93.00 $280

OYCOYC - Administrator Training - 16 hrs./per person $160.09 6.73% $170.86 100.0% $155.00 $170.86 $170.00 25 $170.00 $170.00 $375

Vet. Affairs County User Fee $18.52 10.79% $20.52 100.0% $17.37 $20.52 $20.52 1,832 $20.52 $20.52 $5,771102,041

(1) 2004 Fee set by R03-190.(2) 2004 Fee set by R03-209.

Current Charge is $13.50.(4) 2004 Fee set by R03-190.

(8) 2005 Fee set by R05-242.(9) 2008 Fee set by R07-241(10) 2008 Fee set by R07-177(11) 2008 Fee set by R07-176(12) 2008 Fee set by R07-298(13) State Regulated Fee

fees are charged to Health Department clients on a sliding schedule based on income. An increase in fees will not necessarily result

(5) 2004 Fee set by R03-114.

(3) This fee is only to reimburse the Health Department for the cost of the test (the Health Department pays the State of Michigan).

NOTE: For the Health Department, in many cases, a fee increase is proposed with no additional revenue projected. In these cases,

(7) These fees were effective June 2006 per R06-110

in an increased cost to clients. The fees are proposed to increase in order to collect increased revenue from third party payers.

(6) Target Percentage reduced by R04-149.

Agenda Item 9b April 28, 2009 TO: County Services Committee FROM: John L. Neilsen, Deputy Controller RE: Notification of Overnight Travel – Annual Spring MACAO Conference This communication is to notify the County Services Committee of an overnight travel. The Michigan Association of County Administrative Officers will host their 2009 Annual Spring Conference from May 20 – 22 at Crystal Mountain, Thompsonville, Michigan. The MACAO Conference focuses on professional development, legislative updates, and training for County Administrators and staff.

Agenda Item 10a Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS AND PROMISES AND FULLY AND

UNCONDITIONALLY RESTORE STATE REVENUE SHARING FOR ALL MICHIGAN’S 83 COUNTIES

WHEREAS, the Michigan Association of Counties represents all 83 counties in the State of Michigan; and WHEREAS, the counties of Michigan work on behalf of the State of Michigan to provide numerous state mandated services; and WHEREAS, counties depend heavily upon state revenue sharing to provide numerous essential public health, safety and welfare services; and WHEREAS, the residents of the State of Michigan demand an efficient, professional level of public service; and WHEREAS, in 2005 State Revenue Sharing payments were discontinued to counties, relieving the State Budget of $183 million in annual State Revenue Sharing payments to counties, with the promise and agreement that these payments would be restored when each of the individual counties Revenue Sharing Reserve Fund were exhausted. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ingham County does hereby support and urge the State of Michigan to fulfill its obligations and promises and fully and unconditionally restore State Revenue Sharing for all Michigan’s 83 counties. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Clerk shall send copies of this resolution to Governor Jennifer Granholm, the Ingham County state legislative delegation, and the Michigan Association of Counties for their consideration and action.

Agenda Item 10b Introduced by the County Services Committee of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION HONORING DAVID HENLEY WHEREAS, David Henley is a graduate of Holt High School and is currently attending Lansing Community College, majoring in computer programming/animation; and WHEREAS, David began his scouting career as a Cub Scout in 1997 where he earned all Cub Scout ranks and achieved the Arrow of Light; and WHEREAS, David joined the Boy Scouts in 2001 and is a Vigil Honor member of the Order of the Arrow, Scouting’s Honor Society and held numerous leadership positions in his troop; and WHEREAS, in addition to his Boy Scout Troop activities, David has gone backpacking at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico, canoeing at Boundary Waters in Canada and participated in Arrowcorps5, a national service project with the U.S. Forest Service; and WHEREAS, to achieve the Eagle rank, a scout must demonstrate leadership and citizenship, while earning 21 merit badges before reaching the age of 18 and must also complete a service project for the benefit of his community, school or religious institution; and WHEREAS, David’s service project entailed developing the trail system at Valhalla Park in Holt; and WHEREAS, with 36 merit badges, David has earned the rank of Eagle Scout. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ingham County Board of Commissioners hereby honors David Henley for achieving the Eagle Scout rank and serving as a positive role model for the youth in our community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board wishes him continued success in his future endeavors.