LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS EXECUTIVE …€¦ · A Power Point presentation which outlined their performance outcomes and some things that are on deck is on the County

LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING – Tuesday, March 13, 2018 Approved 05/15/2018 Proceedings of the meeting are being recorded and are not the official record of the meeting; the formally approved/accepted written copy of the minutes will be the official record of the meeting. Meeting called to order by Chairman William J. Bunek at 9:00 a.m. Today’s meeting is being held at the Government Center, 8527 Government Center Drive, Suttons Bay, Michigan. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of American was led by Chairman Bunek, followed by a moment of silence. Roll Call: District #1 Tony Ansorge PRESENT #2 Debra L. Rushton PRESENT #3 William J. Bunek PRESENT #4 Ty Wessell ABSENT (prior notice)

#5 Patricia Soutas-Little PRESENT #6 Casey Noonan PRESENT #7 Melinda C. Lautner ABSENT (prior notice) Administrator Update: • County Administrator Chet Janik was present and displayed a PowerPoint for the Commissioners. Janik referenced the floating piece of ice that people gather on every year in the Leland River. Janik updated Commissioners on staff changes. Molly Steck has taken a position in the Planning Department. There is also a new Inspector in the Construction Codes Authority, Charles (Charlie) Sessoms. Sessoms was present and gave a brief history of his background - licensed contractor for 30 years, Inspector for 15 years with the last four years here. Sessoms is involved with and plays music in his spare time. Interviews will be held next week for the Senior Planning position. Emergency Management/911 Director Matt Ansorge was present. Ansorge updated Commissioners on the Omena Tower site. He stated that they were able to place a power amplifier at the site and the paging solution is working very well. There are a few residences that some of the Northport personnel get spotty reception at, but it is far and above what they had before. Director Ansorge was just there (at Leelanau Township) to update the pager programming and he had zero complaints about how the tower is operating. So they are very happy with their paging coverage right now and it has been a huge success. Commissioner Rushton questioned if it is a short-term or long-term fix? Director Ansorge responded that it can turn into a long term fix with the way it is operating and if they can sustain the equipment. In order to eliminate some of the jockeying back and forth on their pagers, he said “we” can pursue a long-term fix. Rushton questioned the

Leelanau County Board of Commissioners Executive Board Meeting – Tuesday, March 13, 2018

2

cost to the County and Ansorge said it would be quite substantial and he has not yet received a ballpark quote back for turning that into a complete tower site, which is why he doesn’t have a problem with the power amplifier being a permanent fix. Commissioner Rushton further questioned how long the short-term fix is available? Director Ansorge responded the change was implemented so as long as “we” keep up the equipment, it can be kept in place. It would be the local responsibility as opposed to the State responsibility on the upkeep. Ansorge responded to further questions that yes, firefighters are being dispatched from Northport. Administrator Janik added information about all of the meetings that Director Ansorge has been attending as well as the fire chief, Township Supervisor and other officials. They have been meeting to keep them up-to-date on this. Both Janik and Director Ansorge commented that they are pleased with what is in place. Janik indicated that it is March and as done in past years, he offered the following: Leelanau County Top Ten Points of Pride for 2017-18: ●Financial stability and a positive bond credit rating. The County received a “clean” audit and was recently recognized as a being rated 9th (out of 83) counties in Michigan in overall fiscal health. (Map displayed and funding levels discussed.) ●The County has been aggressive in dealing with the long-term liability issues (retirement costs) and was recently recognized as being one of only 20 counties that has positively managed its retirement costs. ●A partnership has been formed with the Leelanau County Historical Preservation Society to save and renovate the historic “Poor Barn” located at the Myles Kimmerly Park at no cost to the taxpayers. ●The County’s millage rate of 3.53 mills is the lowest county rate in Michigan. ●A Substance Abuse Coalition was formed to take a proactive approach to the major challenge of opiate/drug and alcohol abuse that is impacting all segments of society. The County entered into a federal lawsuit against the manufacturers of some of the opiates − Administrator Janik updated Commissioners on the progress being made and the interest in the County’s proactive approach. Close to 50 people are interested in participating. They will be meeting to state goals and objectives and to also work on obtaining available Federal Grant funding available. ●The number of construction permits has been on the increase the past five years and a quality assessment of the department is being performed in an effort to streamline and enhance the process for contractors and homeowners – Administrator Janik updated Commissioners on the survey process.


3

●The Law Enforcement Centers’ heating, cooling, and ventilation system had a major upgrade and the project was completed on time and on budget – Administrator Janik offered a few additional comments. ●The Senior Services Department serves approximately 2,500 people on an annual basis, ranging from in-home health care assistance, unmet financial needs and social activities. There is a special meeting coming up on this (March 20) as their millage will expire this year. ●The former Courthouse property and the townhouses in Leland were sold to local residents and the properties are back on the tax rolls. ●All six labor contracts were mutually and peacefully settled in December 2017 for two years and for the sixth year in a row, the County has no pending lawsuits and no employment labor issues. • BATA Agency Update: BATA Executive Director Kelly Dunham along with Director of Communication and Development Eric Lingaur were present today to present an update to Commissioners and to share their points of pride. A Power Point presentation which outlined their performance outcomes and some things that are on deck is on the County website – https://www.leelanau.cc/downloads/leelanau_county_board_of_comm_march2018_final_2.pdf Dunham shared their points of pride. The BATA Board works very well together and over the last two years they have worked diligently and thoughtfully to make sure that BATA remains a sustainable service for this community as it grows and ages. This began with identifying the necessary millage rate for last spring’s election. It was determined that BATA was not funded at a sustainable level with its millage rate and the BATA Board worked very thoughtfully to determine what the millage rate should be for BATA to continue its services. Dunham said that this also put a focus on financial oversight, which led to a financial oversight team, which is comprised of two members of the Board of Directors and staff. They meet regularly to discuss financial issues in-depth, including remaining 100% funded in the MERS program, as well as the need to have a funded capital plan, which was established for the first time ever at BATA to ensure sustainability of capital needs. They also created an operating reserve fund, as they did not have a fund or a policy and were basically living paycheck to paycheck, which is very vulnerable position to be in as an Agency. Dunham continued; the Board established a conservative goal of maintaining a 10% operating reserve fund and has begun funding that and is currently funded at 6%. Dunham said that those accomplishments have really brought BATA forward. BATA is continually growing and building its performance based model applying business sector mindset and principals to their public sector management, which is evident in this financial health. This is what allows them to deliver great services and be positioned for growth. Dunham thanked

https://www.leelanau.cc/downloads/leelanau_county_board_of_comm_march2018_final_2.pdf�

https://www.leelanau.cc/downloads/leelanau_county_board_of_comm_march2018_final_2.pdf�


4

the BATA Board of Directors and Commissioner Rushton; they have been very grateful for her contributions. Lingaur gave highlights over the last year from a Power Point (on file in the County Clerk’s office) and explained services expressly for Leelanau County — Fixed routes: Village Loop Routes 10 & 11 – Route 10 with Services to Suttons Bay, Omena, Peshawbestown, and Northport is the largest, with 15,391 passenger trips in 2017; Route 11, which has services to Maple City, Glen Arbor, Empire, and Sleeping Bear Dunes, had 10,756 passenger trips; Demand Response (Dial-a-Ride): Link; Leelanau Wellness: Door to Destination – door to door services, two days a week for Leelanau County in partnership with Leelanau County Senior Services and a grant from the Grand Traverse Band, they began a pilot program, which has continued on and had 289 passenger trips from April – December 2017. The trips are targeted towards seniors for health and wellness errands. Lingaur reviewed “what’s on-deck for 2018” – “Hello, Lake Leelanau” will be added to fixed Route 10 and Cedar will be added to fixed Route 11; Senior Ride Days – two education days on “how-to ride BATA”; Community Outreach: Leelanau County Senior Services; the Homestead; Leelanau Montessori; Empire Clinic; Grand Traverse Band; Cherry Republic/Anderson’s Market; Hop Lot; Cedar Polka Fest. 2017 Millage Results — 52.28% Yes Votes; Services Offerings – Bike-n-Ride with ridership increasing each year; increasing technology for a User-Friendly system; a leaner fleet will be coming this spring and a “greener” fleet will also be coming this spring – they will be moving to propane vehicles and smaller vehicles; fare enhancements explained; easier connections in Traverse City every 12-15 minutes from 6:00 a.m. – 1:00 a.m. Commissioner Soutas-Little complimented Dunham and Lingaur, saying that they have some very innovative and exciting changes. Commissioner Ansorge asked if there had been an overall increase or decrease in the past year. Lingaur responded there was an overall increase of three to five percent, which is a positive in the area of public transportation. There a lot of metropolitan areas that are seeing declines, which can be due to gas prices, other offerings, etc. Chairman Bunek questioned why BATA chose to go with Propane-Powered buses for the leaner fleet than natural gas. Dunham responded that there is no distribution channel here and that it is required; it is quite expensive to get into that, so that lack of availability made it cost prohibitive at this time.


5

Administrator Janik asked Lingaur to comment on the family roots that he has in the County. • Information Technology Department Update: IT Director Ron Plamondon was present and introduced his part-time IT Assistant David Wurm. Plamondon updated Commissioners as to the activities within the department; as to infrastructure and servers, the County is pretty much up to date. Four new servers have been installed over the last few years and he explained those; he is going to be updating the 9-1-1 telephony [sic] to ESINET, which was last done in 2004 and to be followed by CAD later; the terminal services server will need to be updated within the next two to three years; they have currently updated workstation refresh to Windows 10 – the current work stations are running Windows 7 and those that are 7 are being updated to 10 and placed in low service areas; he referenced the Meltdown & Spectre bug that has the potential to infect processors since 1995, and he explained the process to fix the Spectre bug and virus updates. Plamondon and Wurm are going around to every workstation to make sure that they are all updated; comments continued on Cloud resources utilized for web and offsite backup and what is and isn’t on the Cloud. Plamondon continued that the Telephone system is pretty much up-to-date; they still have a few non IP phones, but for the most part all are up on IP phones, using AT&T as the carrier and is the IPFlex carrier – there is not a lot of opportunity to have a platform to switch off, due to this piece of property we are located on. They did the jail security upgrade and removed all of the obsolete equipment and it seems to be working fairly well, the video component will probably be next. Wireless infrastructure will be looked after that, as the current wireless was installed in 2008 when the building in constructed - which works some days, but not as secure as it needs to be. Plamondon continued with his update talking about getting a new fiber cable run up here; currently using wireless connection between here and Grand Traverse County – it is an expensive technology, but working well and it is used for the Court, docket imaging, and LEIN; we do collaborate with Grand Traverse County, but since Sheehan has left it has been a little stagnant. Plamondon would like to get back into seeing what further collaboration can be done with Grand Traverse County; however, Grand Traverse County does not want to collaborate with Leelanau for 9-1-1, as they are looking to CCE - Charlevoix Cheboygan Emmett. Plamondon commented that the oldest technology current is the financial software and it is successfully running on Windows 10 and with the new SQL service, that probably bought us another five years with the current financial software. That will be a large ticket item to replace and may eventually need to be placed in the CIP. Commissioner Soutas-Little questioned the enhanced security and the difficulty of accessing the Wi-Fi. Plamondon indicated that it is on the schedule, they have to go out for RFP’s and it will be towards the end of the year. He continued that part of the situation is that everyone likes to bring their phones to work and everyone likes to use someone else’s data plan. When there is a meeting downstairs, it chokes the system. If


6

you watch the internet usage when people come into the building it shoots up. The County is on a 20 megabit which in the old days was good and now that is barely enough for a family. They are going to have to look at at least a 100 megabit solution. Approval of Agenda / Late Additions or Deletions: Chairman Bunek commented that he has received no late additions; however, he would like to move Action Items #7a −Approval of New Recycling Agreement with American Waste – and #7b – New Recycling Site (Leelanau Township) Request for Funds – to the top of the agenda. MOTION BY NOONAN TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. SECONDED BY RUSHTON AND SOUTAS-LITTLE. Discussion – none. AYES – 5 (Noonan, Rushton, Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) MOTION CARRIED. Public Comment: ● Nick Fleezanis of Leland Township and also President of the Lake Leelanau Lake Association. Fleezanis was present to speak in support of Action Item #2b the Parks and Recreation Commission – Grants Proposal. Actions Items — Solid Waste Council – Approval of New Recycling Agreement with American Waste: Planning and Community Development Director Trudy Galla was present with Solid Waste Council Member David McCulloch. MOTION BY SOUTAS-LITTLE TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT FOR RECYCLING SERVICES BETWEEN LEELANAU COUNTY AND AMERICAN WASTE, AND AUTHORIZE SIGNATURE OF THE AGREEMENT BY THE BOARD CHAIRMAN. SECONDED BY NOONAN. Discussion. AYES – 5 (Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek, Noonan, Rushton) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Solid Waste Council – New Recycling Site (Leelanau Township) Request for Funds: Galla and McCulloch were present. Galla said that Leelanau Township has requested funds for moving the recycling site in Northport. There was an agreement with the Village of Northport and the Village will not host the site after July 18, as it is very close to the trail and they are working to improve the trail, so the site needs to be moved. The Solid Waste Council was notified a year and a half ago and they have been researching public and private sites. Leelanau Township came forward and said that they would like the site by the Fire Station. There was a community group that worked to raise funds and they are raising about a quarter of the cost from the Community from the businesses and private citizens. They would like a quarter from the County and then the remaining half would be from the Northport Community Foundation. They


7

have been out for about 30 days to raise that quarter from the Community and they are almost there. They are taking pledges right now, until this all comes together. Pursuant to policy, Leelanau Township did accept bids for the work as required. They received three bids from $48,000.00 to $75,000.00. Their goal is to get the work done for $60,000.00 or less. They are asking for not to exceed $16,500.00 to go towards this site and the Solid Waste Council last week voted 8-0 to approve it. McCulloch added that if the bid comes in for less than $60,000.00, the County’s portion would go down proportionately. Commissioner Rushton asked who owns the property and is the Township putting in any funds. Galla responded that the Township owns the property and they will be taking care of the maintenance. Galla continued that if this moves forward, a new agreement will be prepared between the County and the Township, as the current agreement is with the Village. The new agreement would be brought back before the Commissioners for approval and the agreement lists the responsibilities of the site host. Rushton questioned if the Township was improving the property and McCulloch responded that the Township is providing the property, which has value, as they cannot find any other place to do it and offered other comments. Chairman Bunek commented that he read the information and Leelanau Township is asking for the five years (of monthly fees) in advance and they will use that fee to assist with fixing it up. Every site is paid $1,200.00/year and they will put that into the site, plus they will maintain it. Galla responded that Township Supervisor Doug Scripps had that in his the letter, but Scripps said that he is not asking for that at this time. Discussion on potential language for the agreement that has yet to be approved. The motion from the Solid Waste Council did not include the advance of the monthly/yearly fee. Commissioner Rushton asked when the contract expires and is the cart before the horse by moving forward with the improvements and not having that contract in place? She is questioning why it is not being done at the same time. Galla responded that she can get it started; she has already notified the Township that should this move forward, a new agreement will need to be done by the Attorneys. They are waiting to make sure all of the funds come together. They wanted to move this forward, as spring is coming and there are open windows for contractors. The farther they get into the summer, everything gets too busy and there won’t be a location. Rushton went back to the situation with Elmwood Township and it has left a “bad taste” in her mouth. She continued that Elmwood Township was put in a position where they had to bear the bulk of the responsibility for upgrading that site because Commissioners at that time took a firm position of $10,000.00 and ever since then it seems that every other recycle site keeps getting more and more money.


8

Galla responded that they cannot undo what happened with Elmwood Township and that is what was negotiated at that time between the County Commission and the Township and it was $11,000.00. Commissioner Rushton expressed concerns about not having a contract in front of her. Galla indicated that the agreement has been sent to the County’s Attorneys for several of the sites that will be coming up for renewal and there is something drafted, but it is not ready to bring to Commissioners yet. Administrator Janik said that as an option this could be passed contingent on the Contract Approval between the County and the Township. Commissioner Ansorge asked why this should be approved when Elmwood Township was turned down. Administrator Janik responded that he negotiated with Elmwood Township. Janik continued that he and Chairman Bunek also attended a meeting with Elmwood Township, and the request that was approved, came from the Supervisor. The amount approved came from the Township Supervisor and the County also received a very nice letter later, thanking the County their cooperation in approving their request and somehow it has been lost in that when it came to Solon Township. When they met with Elmwood Township, the amount was what was requested by Elmwood Township. Commissioner Ansorge stated that that request was not for what was put in Elmwood Township and in actuality what had to be done down there to fix the problem resulted in $70,000.00 worth of additional costs to fix the problem with the pad, the drainage, and everything else. What was originally requested was not what had to be done and when Elmwood Township had to come back and say, “Why can’t we get more to fix this problem?” – the answer was no, this is how much we pay, bottom line. After that everybody else gets additional money. There is no standardization between the sites as to what is going to be paid for and what is not. Elmwood Township had to put up their own little link fence to keep the “crap” from blowing around – others receive a nice wooden fence. Where is the standardization? Ansorge continued that Elmwood Township is by far the highest-used site and they received the lowest amount of money. Where is the fairness? Galla responded that that was the first site that was negotiated; Solid Waste makes recommendations, and it is the Board of Commissioners that makes the final determination on funding. Commissioner Ansorge commented that the Commissioners decided at that time that was how much was negotiated. Discussion followed on Glen Arbor Township, whom like Leelanau Township, pulled together the community to make it a community effort to make it a community site.


9

Chairman Bunek commented that as indicated earlier, he did speak with the Elmwood Township Supervisor and the Township Clerk. He also believes that Commissioner Jean Watkoski was present. It was a great discussion and it was settled. As he remembers, the idea was that the County would pay for graveling and all. It was $70,000.00 to do paving, so Elmwood Township agreed to that and once they started into it, Elmwood Township decided that they wanted to pave and he doesn’t recall them coming back and asking for any more from the Solid Waste once the $11,000.00 was agreed on. Elmwood Township decided on their own to the other upgrades, the curbs, etc., because that is what they wanted for their township. Bunek continued that he does not recall this being brought back to this Board once the $11,000.00 was approved. Administrator Janik wanted to clarify this further that it was two years after the fact, when the Cedar (Solon Township) site came up, that Elmwood Township originally came back asking for money. Janik and Bunek met with the new Supervisor, who withdrew the request, and the County was also advised that they cannot go back and change the original contract to contribute more money. A new agreement would be needed. Janik said it was two years after the fact – the new Supervisor also withdrew the request. Commissioner Soutas-Little stated that she understands the feelings over Elmwood Township. As stated by Galla, we cannot undo. The Board of Commissioners did the best that they could at the time with the information that they had. Soutas-Little, referencing Leelanau Township, said that it is impressive that they have a community that is willing to put in $45.000.00 of a $60,000.00 expense. Glen Arbor Township did it, although she doesn’t know to what degree – but they also had community spirit with their site. Soutas-Little continued that she thinks that this is something that should definitely be supported; she believes the contract will follow and believes that it is important to have a site first to know what you are building your contract around. MOTION BY SOUTAS-LITTLE TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE SOLID WASTE COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURES OF 25% OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR A NEW RECYCLING SITE, WITH A NOT-TO-EXCEED COUNTY COST OF $16,500.00. FUNDS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS TO COME FROM RECYCLING FUND #230. A NEW SITE HOST AGREEMENT WILL BE DRAFTED BETWEEN LEELANAU COUNTY AND LEELANAU TOWNSHIP FOR THIS SITE. THIS IS CONTINGENT UPON CONTRACT APPROVAL. SECONDED BY NOONAN. Discussion – Commissioner Ansorge stated that he will not support this until there is standardization among the sites and all services are being provided equally. Commissioner Rushton questioned which funds would be paying for this and Galla responded that is from Fund #230 PA 69 funds (Recycling Fund).


10

AYES – 3 (Soutas-Little, Bunek, Noonan) NO – 2 (Ansorge & Rushton) ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION FAILS. Commissioner Soutas-Little commented that it was about carrying this forward for discussion. She appreciates Commissioner’s Ansorge position and they should be moving toward some consistency. In the meantime, we have a jurisdiction that did a lot of work, the community has stepped forward, unlike Cedar, where there was no support and $25,000.00 out, and at least it should be carried forward for discussion. If it is a no-go next week, it is a no-go. Commissioner Ansorge said his objections are the same as they were two years ago and nothing has been standardized. He questioned when do you think it will happen, maybe when things don’t get approved. Commissioner Rushton commented that this can be re-added to the agenda in the future, so there is always that option that it can be added next week. She wished that there would have been a contract to go with the request. Rushton does understand that maybe the Solid Waste Council needs to look at some sort of consolidation. The Commissioners recognize that each site is different and has different needs. Galla responded that she would welcome the input of what standardization means that could be offered to the SWC, as not every site needs or wants a fence and she would be happy to share that with them for future requests. Rushton commented on her thoughts and Galla said that there is policy in place and Leelanau Township did follow the policy. That policy was adopted by the SWC and the Board of Commissioners and it has been updated yearly for the past five years. Brief discussion ensued. Commissioners Soutas-Little asked if Galla could provide the information in the event this is on the agenda for next week. Soutas-Little said that she is sure it is not Commissioner Ansorge’s intent to be punitive towards Leelanau Township, but it is sort of like you are holding them hostage until you get what you want from the SWC. Let’s not hold them hostage as they have the site and community support. Then talk with the SWC about what is wanted. Chairman Bunek indicated that it can be added to next’s week’s agenda with a majority vote as a late addition.


11

Sheriff’s Office – Increased Hours Request for Existing Part-time Secretary: Sheriff Mike Borkovich was present regarding a secretarial position. The part-time secretary is currently working 16 hours per week and he would like to have this position increased to 20 hours per week. Commissioner Ansorge questioned the Sheriff as to what are the costs involved and where are the funds coming from. After further discussion, County Clerk was asked about funding options: current budget, Contingency or General Fund, Fund Balance. Sheriff Borkovich said that he does not have the funds within his current budget to cover the costs. Commissioner Soutas-Little asked if the increase in the fingerprint fees, could that potentially cover the cost? Discussion on fingerprints. Chairman Bunek asked if it affected other benefits. Janik and Crocker responded. Commissioner Rushton asked if this was a temporary or permanent employee. Response was permanent, part-time. Commissioners moved on to the next topic while some rough figures are obtained. Sheriff’s Office – Termination of Inmate Phone Services Agreement with Michigan Paytel: Sheriff Borkovich was present with Jail Lt. Todd Roush. Roush stated that they request permission to terminate the agreement with Michigan Paytel, as they have not received their 50% commission as stated in the agreement since June of 2017. Discussion and comments regarding the terminating of the contract and the amount of funds that are received from the commission. Corporate Counsel has been involved with the drafting of the documents for termination, if approved. MOTION BY RUSHTON TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE THE TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH MICHIGAN PAYTEL FOR INMATE PHONE SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZE THE BOARD CHAIRMAN TO SIGN. SECONDED BY NOONAN. Discussion – none. AYES – 5 (Rushton, Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek, Noonan) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES.


12

Continuation of: Sheriff’s Office – Increase Hours Request for Existing Part-time Secretary: Administrator Janik stated that on the pay scale, the increase $3,142.88 plus some for unemployment, other payroll related items so $3,500.00 would be an approximate amount. MOTION BY RUSHTON TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO INCREASE THE ALLOTTED SCHEDULED WORK WEEK FOR THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE PART-TIME CLERICAL PERSON TO 20 SCHEDULED HOURS PER WEEK. SECONDED BY NOONAN. Discussion – Commissioner Ansorge again asking where is the money coming from. Commissioner Soutas-Little asked if the increase in fingerprint fees would be sufficient. Motion and Support withdrawn at this time. The Sheriff will bring this forward at the April Executive Board meeting. Sheriff’s Office – Approval of Five-Year Agreement for Inmate Phone Services with Stellar Services, LLC: Lt. Roush indicated that this is the vendor for inmate banking software and commissary sales since October 2017. Stellar has provided an outstanding product and customer service for commissary and inmate banking services. He would propose a five year agreement with Stellar Services, LLC. for inmate phone services pending review by Corporate Counsel. MOTION BY RUSHTON TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE THE 5 YEAR AGREEMENT WITH STELLAR SERVICES FOR INMATE PHONE SERVICE, PENDING REVIEW OF THE AGREEMENT BY CORPORATE COUNSEL. SECONDED BY NOONAN. Discussion – Question asked if this is basically the same as the other. Roush confirmed, 50% commission, and a slightly different agreement. Services were reviewed. Chairman Bunek questioned the length and Roush responded it was the length that Stellar proposed and it could be due to the installation/investment by Stellar. Borkovich commented on the 17 inmates he has agreed to board from Grand Traverse County, as Leelanau’s numbers are fairly small. About half of the inmates are from Grand Traverse County as they are in a bind down there. They have too small of a facility, it is run down and not enough employees. Borkovich said that he would take five more females and ten more males, which will also increase phone service use. He is giving them a reduced rate of $30.00 per day and that is because of the geographical location to Leelanau County and the low risk inmates that they receive. Commissioner Soutas-Little asked how many phone calls are made during a week by inmates. Roush responded that it is hard to know, but they make a lot. With this system it will allow inmates to transfer funds between commissaries to the phone. Comments continued.


13

Sheriff responded to questions and commented on the minimum risk of the inmates that they are housing from Grand Traverse County. He also offered comments on the individuals in general that they hold – Veterans, PTSD, addicts, the difference with how juveniles are held, keeping the females separate, and the difficulty in housing female vs. males. They will take more females as long as they are low to medium risk, as one female can be more of a problem than 10 males, which is a fact. AYES – 5 (Rushton, Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek, Noonan) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Chairman Bunek called for a brief recess at 10:32 a.m. Chairman Bunek called the meeting back to order at 10:40 a.m. Chairman Bunek indicated that there are two topics next and reminded Commissioners that the Public Hearing on the grant request will be next week and it is also on the agenda, only for the purpose of moving it forward to next week’s agenda. Parks and Recreation Commission – Timber Sales Approval: MOTION BY ANSORGE TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE A CONTRACT BETWEEN LEELANAU COUNTY AND THE PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA (PCA), FOR THE HARVEST OF TIMBER AT MYLES KIMMERLY PARK, PENDING CORPORATE COUNSEL REVIEW. SECONDED BY NOONAN. Discussion – Commissioner Noonan questioned where PCA is from and Christensen responded Michigan. Christensen also stated that Forestry Consultant Daniel Schillinger and Forester Kama Ross both speak very highly of this company. Commissioner Ansorge added that they do a lot of timber work in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Questions raised on if the cutting would be mechanical or hand cutting. It is believed that it will be mechanical. AYES – 5 (Ansorge, Bunek, Noonan, Rushton, Soutas-Little) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Commissioner Rushton questioned if once the trees are harvested, will funds be received and if so who will receive the funds? Christensen explained that a percentage will go to the harvesters and the balance to the County General Fund, unless the Commissioners decide something different. Parks and Recreation Commission – Grants Proposal: Commissioner Ansorge for clarification, asked if this is to be moved forward today with no discussion. Chairman Bunek would rather do that as the Public Hearing should be held before Commissioners discuss this. Administrator Janik said that you could have a general discussion, but not the pros and cons. By the terms of the Grant, the Public Hearing must be held prior to a decision by the Board of Commissioners.


14

MOTION BY RUSHTON TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO MOVE THE REQUEST FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE MICHIGAN NATURAL RESOURCES TRUST FUND GRANT TO NEXT WEEK’S AGENDA. SECONDED BY ANSORGE. Discussion – Commissioner Ansorge would request for next week’s meeting he would like to see information as to what is in the budget, what is not in the budget, how much is being asked to fund and where the funds will come from. AYES – 5 (Rushton, Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek, Noonan) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Administrator Janik commented that he doesn’t want any complaints that proper procedure was not followed regarding the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Grant. Information Technology – Approval of Sonicwall Service Agreement Extension: MOTION BY NOONAN TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE THE RENEWAL OF THE SONICWALL FIREWALL CONTENT FILTERING AND ANTI-VIRUS/ANTI-SPYWARE FILTER SUBSCRIPTION FROM SONICWALL FOR $2,854.00, WITH FUNDS TO COME FROM FUND #636 – DATA PROCESSING. SECONDED BY SOUTAS-LITTLE & RUSHTON. Discussion – none. AYES – 5 (Noonan, Rushton, Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Equalization – Review of 2018 Tentative Equalization Ratios and Estimated CEV Multipliers: Equalization Director Laurie Spencer read from a prepared Statement – Leelanau County 2017 Equalization Study distributed to Commissioners. This is not an action item; however it is information for the County Equalization for April 2018. It is a three tiered process in Leelanau County (the document in its entirety is located on the web – https://www.leelanau.cc/downloads/recap_of_the_l4018s_leelanau17_03132018.pdf ) Slide 1 — Spencer began that the law requires the Equalization Department to do a study in every class, in every unit, every year. This year’s studies were required to be submitted to the State Tax Commission on January 3, 2018, because of the Holidays. This was done in a timely manner. They reviewed the studies both with the assessors and the Property Services Division of the STC prior to submittal. Spencer requested the opportunity to discuss the studies with the County Board as well, prior to County Equalization in April. The complete study is available in the Equalization Department office for review by anyone who wishes to see it. The Equalization process is vital to guaranteeing that properties are assessed at 50% of market value as required by Article IX, Section 3, of the Michigan Constitution of 1963.

https://www.leelanau.cc/downloads/recap_of_the_l4018s_leelanau17_03132018.pdf�


15

County Equalization serves as a check on assessments determined at the local level, ensuring they are fair and equitable across the County. Taxable value is simply a mathematical equation based on that assessment. The responsibilities of County Equalization rest primarily with each County’s Board of Commissioners. Recognizing the technical and difficult nature of equalization duties, the State, through the General Property Tax Act, requires each County to employ a certified Equalization Director to assist and advise the Board in fulfilling their duties. In addition to the general purpose of ensuring fair and equitable assessments, statutory requirements of County Equalization include the collection and analysis of sales data, providing assessment assistance to local units, and providing the State Tax Commission with annual reports. What Spencer has prepared for today is a visual representation of the L-4018s, both numerically and graphically, and will share that information with the audience through a PowerPoint. Slide 2 — This sampling is the foundation on which the ratio study is built. Statistics calculated in the ratio study are used to draw conclusions (or inferences), based on information contained in a sample, about a population of properties. Spencer continued that this is how “we” project value in a unit. There are formulas for sample size. The Equalization Department does not look at every parcel in the County to project value, but the assessor must. Slide 3 — To do this properly, it is important for her Department to keep their fingers on the pulse of the market and evaluate land and neighborhoods where properties are situated, considering locations and trends or changes that influence value so that we appropriately project values in the local unit for County Equalization. Slide 4 — Spencer said she monitors published real estate trends. One she looks at every year is from the Urban Land Institute. They state “Demographics, labor force characteristics, location preferences, and motivations discerned by observed behaviors and the interpretation of real estate professionals are among the most reliable indicators of trends”. They listed 10 trends. Slide 5 through Slide 14 were the trends: Context: A Kinder, Gentler Real Estate Cycle? ●The disruption wrought by the global financial crisis violently upended financial markets around the world and hammered real estate markets in the US. In a real sense, the reverberations continue. ●Real estate transaction volume across the country rebounded, but development remains below historical norms for most property types.


16

2. Optionality. ●Both on the investor side and the user side of the market, optionality − not just one use, not just one user, not just one user profile-may be gaining favor as a way to navigate the cross-currents of volatile markets. On the slide it showed a loft on the left configured as an apartment and on the right, it showed the same unit arranged as an office. The rent is the same regardless of the use.

3.Transformation through location choice. A new breed of CEOs has been turning a widespread economic development approach on its head, transforming some cities in the process. Instead of negotiating for the most generous package of public incentives possible, these business leaders take the tack that private employers can catalyze civic revivals and, in benefiting communities, can benefit their enterprise as well. Under the Quicken Loans picture it states: In addition, Quicken Loans and its Family of Companies has taken on the revitalization of downtown Detroit and the city’s neighborhoods — a company mission it views as important as its business goals. 4. Recognizing the role of the new entrepreneurial developer. “These smaller firms are capable of addressing a range of current needs: affordability for users across the property types, infill in older neighborhoods, and attention to smaller markets of lesser interest to the larger firms”.“The enormous number of firms composed of 20, 50, and 100 employees provides the industry with an ideal laboratory for entrepreneurial innovation.” 5. Labor Scarcity in Construction Costs. The crossover point where more baby boomers are retiring than millennials entering the labor force is upon us. The driving factors are age demographics and the labor force participation rate, and the two are related.

6. Housing Affordability: Local Governments Step Up. Local governments are not waiting on the sidelines; they are moving more aggressively than at any time in memory to incentivize-or compel-the private sector to meet worsening housing affordability need with development impact fees, rent controls, and inclusionary zoning among others. 7. Gaining Entry Beyond the Velvet Rope. ●At a time when a number of markets are struggling with a shortage of affordable housing, opposition to potential solutions may be on the rise. ●And it may seem that there has rarely been a time when divisions have been more in evidence. 8. The Connectedness of Cities. ●But the evidence suggests that a market’s trend toward technological advantage is correlated with superior real estate performance.


17

●Cities with highest internet adoption rates correlate with advanced educational attainment. 9. Ready for Augmented Reality? ●Brokers have been able to use virtual tours for quite some time now, but AR brings the quality to a much higher level. Prospective purchasers or tenants can customize the experience by visual “what if” alterations. As a marketing tool it is a definite enhancement. 10. Block chain for 21st Century Real Estate. Block chain is the record-keeping technology functioning as the encrypted register of digital data, a record that is extremely difficult to alter once a transaction has been logged. Slide 15 — Spencer continued that it is no secret what drives Leelanau County real estate market. This picture says it all. 86% of Leelanau County is water with 100 miles of shoreline. Slide 16 — The importance of the many small (but very valuable) pieces of property in Leelanau County only becomes evident when you look at the taxable value by acreage in 3D. Waterfront property is only 9.3% of the County's total acreage, but constitutes 53.7% of the total taxable value. Slide 17 — Reflected all of the private waterfront sales for Equalizations’ study timeframe. It does not include shared waterfront sales. Slide 18 — Showed some trends continue − North Lake Leelanau, Glen Lake, Lake Michigan and similar lakefront properties in Leelanau County, are experiencing a trend of tearing down older obsolete “cottages” and construction of a new contemporary dwelling. (picture to illustrate) Slide 19 — The construction of a new contemporary dwelling is larger, as this 37,699 sq. ft. home indicates. (picture to illustrate.) Slide 20 — Old general−purpose barns and boat houses continue to cause some “heartburn” for assessors. (picture to illustrate.) Slide 21 — Leelanau County Per Capita Income based on the 2010 Census Data is second only to Oakland County. Slide 22 — This slide pictured the Leelanau Enterprise article November 30, 2017, where it states “Home Sales Well Above Record Pace”, “October price tops $300,000” and “Shortage of homes on both ends of the spectrum.


18

Slide 23 — This slide shows the number of days a home is on the market and it is tracked by Zip Code. ●Days on market (DOM) is a measurement of the age of a real estate listing. Generally, properties with a large DOM value will command lower prices than properties with few DOM because a perception exists that the property may be overpriced or less desirable. They can then measure average days on the market. Here Equalization did it by Zip Code with the shortest time on market in 49654 (Leland) at 150 days, followed by 49621 (Cedar at 158 days), third 49670 (Northport) at 183, and last is Empire (49630 at 280 days). Slide 24 — This slide shows the average sales price by Zip Codes. Forbes annually publishes the most expensive zip codes in the US. We have studied Leelanau’s Zip Codes. There are 10 Zip Codes in Leelanau County. #1 Leland (49654) – Average Sales Price - $480,752; #2 Glen Arbor (49636) – Average Sales Price - $390,923; #3 Lake Leelanau (49653) – Average Sales Price - $366,821; #10 Cedar (49621) – Average Sales Price - $184,777. Slide 25 — Spencer stated that Leland had the shortest time on market and also the average sales price was highest. What else can the Zip Code tell us? There are over 123 million households in the US, and no two of them are identical. Our GIS software vendor ESRI has developed a market segmentation software. Market segmentation is based on the concept that households with similar demographic characteristics, brand preferences, and economic positions will tend to live in neighborhoods with others who share this trait. This software is called ESRI Tapestry Segmentation. It is a proprietary software and is expensive, but they offers a glimpse of it with a free Zip Code lookup that tells them more about the Leland Zip Code. A Zip Code analysis of Leland indicates that it is 95.9% Silver and Gold and 4.1% Rural Resort Dwellers. Silver and Gold is described as “We are the second-oldest market in the US and we’re affluent. Many of us have retired to sunnier climates with exclusive communities and vacation homes. We have the free time, stamina, and resources to enjoy the good life. http://www.esri.com/data/tapestry/zip-lookup Slide 26 through Slide 37. The next 12 slides show Equalization’s sampling in the various units in the County. Each map indicates the parcels studied by class i.e., Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial and Residential. The following numbers of parcels were studied by Equalization: Bingham Township, 155 parcels; Centerville Township, 95 parcels; Cleveland Township, 84 parcels; Elmwood Township, 315 parcels; Empire Township, 120 parcels; Glen Arbor Township, 163 parcels; Kasson Township, 109 parcels;Leelanau Township, 203 parcels; Leland Township, 142 parcels; Solon Township, 72 parcels; In Suttons Bay Township, 150 parcels; and Traverse City, 29 parcels for a total number of 1,634 parcels studied by staff in this study period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate�

http://www.esri.com/data/tapestry/zip-lookup�


19

Slide 38 — Our Department field’s reviews sales used for land values or Economic Condition Factors (ECF’s). We go out and interview the owner and appraise. Slide 39 and Slide 40. Spencer indicated that they take pictures, do measurements and sketch the buildings. Slide 41 — Tax maps and land value maps are required under the General Property Tax Act 211.10e. It is also checked during the Audit of Minimum Assessing Requirements or the AMAR review. We help the local units with these requirements. This is a map of the classed Agricultural sales in the County. There were 23 AG sales during our sales time-frame. Slide 42 — A map of our commercial sales. You can see they are clustered around our urban areas. There were 17 sales within our sales time-frame with a raw ratio of 41.81%. Slide 43 — This is a map of all private waterfront sales – vacant and improved. Waterfront properties continue to represent the backbone of the Leelanau County real estate market. There were 264 sales within our sales time-frame with a raw ratio of 46.60. Slide 44 — We had 48 residential sales over $1 million – 14 of them in Glen Arbor Township and 17 of them in Leland Township. All were waterfront properties (although two were shared waterfront). $2,700,000 was the largest of the residential sales in the County. 009-124-009-30 at 6427 N Omigisi Beach Rd, Leland Township. Slide 45 — The taxable value of a parcel cannot go up more than the rate of inflation or 5%, whichever is less. The formula, except for transfers of ownership, is Previous Taxable Value minus losses x the CPI (Consumer Price Index) plus additions. Examples of losses are property destroyed or removed, property assessed last year but exempt this year. Examples of additions are new construction, previously exempt property, omitted real or personal property. New construction is a very positive item which is one of the reasons building permits are monitored and reported so closely. This year’s inflation rate, as expressed as a multiplier, is 1.021. The taxable value is capped unless there is a transfer of ownership. This is important to know. And will appear on assessment change notices coming out shortly. Slide 46 — If you look at the recap of the L-4018s the first class is the Agricultural class. It shows a decrease of 2.14%. It went from an increase in Solon Township of 11.69% to a decrease of 9.07% in Centerville Township. Leelanau has the largest Ag class in the County, followed by Centerville Township. Ag is 4.84% of the County’s assessed value. The first page shows the numbers and the second page graphs the numbers.


20

Slide 47 — The commercial class is projected to be a 2.26% increase overall with a percent of change going from an increase of 6.51% in Leelanau Twp. to a decrease of 4.72% in Cleveland Township. Commercial is about 4.92% of the total assessed value. Slide 48 — The Industrial class is projected to be a 1.38% increase going from an increase of 12.66% in Empire Township to a decrease of 3.03% in Leelanau Township. The Industrial class represents .31% of the total assessed value in the County. Slide 49 — The Residential class is projected to be a .92% increase. The Residential class is 88.53% of the total assessed value in the County. This ranges from a decrease of 2.63 % in Cleveland Township to an increase of 4.68% in Empire Township. We do not have a Timber Cutover or Developmental Class in Leelanau County. Slide 50 — Personal Property is estimated at 50% through record verification. The personal property class is 1.40% of the total assessed value in the County. Slide 51 — The total real increase is .84%, ranging from 2.82% decrease in Cleveland Township to a 4.32% increase in Empire Township. Slide 52 — Total real and personal property increase is .83%. Slide 53 — This slide allows you to see the breakdown of the .83% increase by class of property instead of by unit as in the previous slide. A 2.26% increase in Commercial to a 2.14% decrease in the Ag class. Slide 54 — The L-4018R is a required report for the State showing total assessed in a unit and the sample size and result. Slide 55 — The L-4018P is also a required report to the state on the personal property studied. Slide 56 — Spencer continued that this slide is the 2018 Leelanau County Tentative Equalization Ratios and estimated County equalized value multipliers. The equalization director of each county is required to publish the same in a newspaper of general circulation within the county on or before the third Monday in February each year and furnish a copy to each assessor, to each of the boards of review in the county and to the State Tax Commission. This has been done. (This ad cost was $281.99 in 2018). Slide 57 — Spencer stated the most important aspect of equalization from her perspective is that public acceptance of property taxes depends in large measure on a perception that the taxes are fair. A perception of fairness is reinforced when data are accurate, valuations appear accurate and uniform, and all taxpayers are treated without prejudice or favoritism.


21

Spencer asked Commissioners is they had any questions about the Study submitted to the State? Or any other questions? Spencer thanked the Commissioners very much for the time allowed for this report and we will see you again in April for County Equalization. Commissioner Soutas-Little asked Spencer what criteria dictates. Spencer responded that there are statistical analyses that determine which properties. Explanation continued. Spencer responded to further questions from Commissioners. Commissioner Ansorge commented that this is one of his favorite reports – this is just the facts and he has received no complaints. Comments about historical battles wherein local units had perceptions about fairness and equity. You cannot always achieve the same perspective and people don’t like property takes, but if they think it is fair, it help. Discussion about a time where the County had three different Equailization Directors in three years and that can produce problems. Chairman Bunek had questions about solar panels and windmills and Spencer responded that they just did a change on Solar Panels. Wind towers by law are to be industrial; then there is something different for home owners. Commissioner Rushton commented on the Agriculture change only in Solon. Spencer responded that if a parcel is not reviewed in a while, a lot can happen and you find thinks. Rushton also questioned why Northport isn’t on here and Spencer responded it is part of Leelanau Township. Commissioners thanked Spencer for the report. Senior Services – Acceptance of BASA (Bay Area Senior Advocates) Contribution: Leelanau County Senior Services Director April Missias was present. MOTION BY NOONAN TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS GIVEN TO LEELANAU COUNTY SENIOR SERVICES FROM BAY AREA SENIOR ADVOCATES FOR SENIOR SUPPORT TOTALING $2,000.00 AND PLACED INTO LEELANAU COUNTY SENIOR SERVICES’ UNMET NEEDS ACCOUNT #281-000.000-678.000. SECONDED BY SOUTAS-LITTLE. Discussion – none. AYES – 5 (Noonan, Rushton, Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Commissioner Rushton questioned if contributions are received every year from BASA. Missias responded historically, yes. Chairman Bunek questioned if it is increasing and Missias responded that once a year they do a BASA cares award, which is $1,000.00, which is given to any non-profit or government agency that works with BASA and apply and they have done that every year and received an award. The last few years LCSS


22

have received $4,000.00. There has been discussion about increasing the award to Leelanau County. The last 1.5 years the awards have been smaller. Senior Services – Acceptance of Contribution from the Mead Foundation: MOTION BY ANSORGE TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS GIVEN TO LEELANAU COUNTY SENIOR SERVICES FROM THE MEAD FOUNDATION TOTALING $5,000.00 AND THAT FUNDS BE PLACED INTO LEELANAU COUNTY SENIOR SERVICES’ CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIVATE SOURCES REVENUE ACCOUNTS #281-000.000-675.000. SECONDED BY SOUTAS-LITTLE. APPROVAL Discussion – none. AYES – 5 (Ansorge, Bunek, Noonan, Rushton, Soutas-Little) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Planning Commission – Approval of Agreement with LIAA (Land Information Access Association): MOTION BY NOONAN TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL OF THE CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF LEELANAU AND LAND INFORMATION ACCESS ASSOCIATION (LIAA) FOR A COUNTY-WIDE SURVEY AND THAT THE CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT. SECONDED SOUTAS-LITTLE. Discussion – none. AYES – 5 (Noonan, Rushton, Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Administration – Potential Study on Government Center Heating/Cooling Systems: Administrator Janik Nothing to report at this time – it will be on next month’s agenda. Administrator – Manatron Contract Clarification: Administrator Janik commented that this was a follow-up to questions from the February Regular Session regarding payment to Manatron. IT Director Ron Plamondon had previously appeared before the Board of Commissioners in August 2017 to request purchase of a new server for Register of Deeds and the associated licenses. The actual contract for the professional services to migrate the records application was omitted. There is no increase in the budget request. This will allow for the payment of the professional services. MOTION BY ANSORGE TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH MANATRON AND THE PAYMENT OF $2,700.00 TO MANATRON INC FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO MIGRATE THE RECORDS APPLICATION, RE-CONFIGURE THE PUBLIC ACCESS APPLICATION TO THE NEW SERVER AND UPDATE THE RECORDER IMAGE POINTERS PER CONTRACT.


23

Discussion – Clerk requested to insert correct amount and language. AYES – 5 (Ansorge, Bunek, Noonan, Rushton, Soutas-Little) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Administrator – Retired Vehicle Transfers – Construction Codes Authority: Administrator Janik gave an update on surplus vehicles due to changeover, two of which are the SUVs and one is a Crown Victoria. MOTION BY RUSHTON TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE THE TRANSFER BY PURCHASE OF THE 2013 FORD EXPLORER POLICE INTERCEPTOR, VIN #1FM5K8AR5DGC01743, TO THE CONSTRUCTION CODES AUTHORITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,000.00; FUNDS TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE MOTOR POOL FUND #661. SECONDED BY NOONAN AND SOUTAS-LITTLE. Discussion – Commissioner Ansorge questioned the funding of the vehicle and if it was in the budget. County Clerk Crocker responded that funds will be transferred from the Construction Codes Authority Fund Balance and then transferred to the General Fund (Motor Pool Fund). AYES – 5 (Rushton, Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek, Noonan) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Retired Vehicle Transfers – Conservation District: MOTION BY RUSHTON TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE THE SALE OF THE 2013 FORD EXPLORER POLICE INTERCEPTOR, VIN #1FM5K8AR5DGA09136, TO THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,000.00; FUNDS TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE MOTOR POOL FUND #661. SECONDED BY NOONAN. Discussion – This is a sale of the vehicle to the Conservation District and Administrator Janik commented that the purchase was approved by the Soil Conservation District Board last week. AYES – 5 (Rushton, Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek, Noonan) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Retired Vehicle Transfers – Emergency Management: MOTION BY RUSHTON TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF THE 2011 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTOR, VIN #2FABP7BV8BX137834 , TO THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. SECONDED BY NOONAN. APPROVAL. Discussion – This would be general transfer to Emergency Management. This vehicle has approximately 75,000 miles on it. The Emergency Management department would be responsible for all maintenance. The vehicle would be used to go to meetings and is not a take home vehicle. The County Clerk will respond to the amount spent on travel for the past two years. Commissioner Ansorge asked if there is money in the budget


24

and the response from Janik was that we are currently paying Director Ansorge to use his own vehicle. Questioned raised if the Sheriff’s Office cannot use this, why should Emergency management. This is a rear wheel drive and it was previously assigned to the former Sheriff and the current Sheriff does not want it. AYES – 4 (Rushton, Soutas-Little, Bunek, Noonan) NO – 1 (Ansorge) ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Remonumentation – Administrator Designation: Administrator Janik stated that as the Commissioners know, Mrs. Dorothy Miller has resigned her position as the Grant Administrator for Remonumentation. Janik is requesting that he be appointed. MOTION TO APPROVE SOUTAS-LITTLE TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL TO APPOINT CHET JANIK AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE LEELANAU COUNTY REMONUMENTATION GRANT PROGRAM, EFFECTIVE MARCH 20, 2018. SECONDED BY NOONAN. Discussion – Register Miller has accepted the grant application. Administrator Janik and Executive Assistant Laurel Evans will distribute the grants. Brief overview of the report. Miller has graciously said she will work with them to get the work done. Remonu-mentation has been an oncoming process since 1992 and is about 60% complete. AYES – 5 (Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek, Noonan, Rushton) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Remonumentation – Acceptance of Grant: MOTION BY NOONAN TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO ACCEPT THE 2018 REMONUMENTATION GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,256.40; FUNDS TO BE DEPOSITED IN GENERAL FUND REVENUE #101-000.000-575.002 (SURVEY AND REMONUMENTATION). SECONDED BY RUSHTON. Discussion – Commissioner Ansorge questioned what revenue these funds would be deposited in. Crocker will place the name next to the number in the recommendation. AYES – 5 (Noonan, Rushton, Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Review of Financials: Commissioner Rushton had two questions. The first was regarding postage stamps for a department and the other was regarding Housing Administration. County Clerk Crocker will follow-up and email the response to all of the Commissioners.


25

Special Reports by Staff, Commissioners, and Affiliated Agencies: Administrator Janik invited all of the Commissioners over to the Law Enforcement Center for lunch. Every year a local church provides lunch for the staff and there are several employees out of the building today, so there is more than an enough food. Public Comment: None. Commissioner Comments: None. APPROVAL OF FINANCIALS — Amendments and Transfers: None. Miscellaneous Fund Transfers and Amendments: None. Claims and Accounts: MOTION BY NOONAN TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,726.72. SECONDED BY RUSHTON. Discussion – none. AYES – 5 (Noonan, Rushton, Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Post Audit Claims and Accounts: MOTION BY NOONAN TO RECOMMEND TO THE LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL OF POST AUDIT CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,580,585.53. SECONDED BY RUSHTON. Discussion – none. AYES – 5 (Noonan, Rushton, Soutas-Little, Ansorge, Bunek) NO – 0 ABSENT – 2 (Lautner & Wessell) RECOMMENDATION PASSES. Adjourn: MOTION BY RUSHTON TO ADJOURN. Chairman Bunek adjourned the meeting at 11:44 a.m. ________________________________ ___________________________________ William J. Bunek, Chairman Michelle L. Crocker, Leelanau County Clerk Leelanau County Board of Commissioners Clerk-Leelanau County Board of Commissioners

Documents

LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS EXECUTIVE …€¦ · A Power Point presentation which outlined their performance outcomes and some things that are on deck is on the County