Amended 6/1/06
JUDICIARY
May 11, 2006
Minutes
Members Present: Tina Weatherwax-Grant, Dianne Holman, Deb Nolan, Rebecca Bahar-Cook, Randy Schafer, Steve Dougan and Board Chairperson Victor Celentino
Members Absent: None
Others Present: John Neilsen, Nervy Oliver and Janeil Valentine
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Weatherwax-Grant at 7:34 p.m. in the Personnel Conference Room of the Human Services Building, 5303 S. Cedar, Lansing.
Approval of the April 27, 2006 Minutes
MOVED BY COMM. BAHAR-COOK, SUPPORTED BY COMM. NOLAN, TO APPROVE THE APRIL 27 MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Additions to the Agenda
3. Substitute Resolution
6. Resolution Honoring Jeffrey A. Venn
7. Resolution Honoring Gail Moore
Limited Public Comment: None
MOVED BY COMM. SCHAFER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. NOLAN, TO APPROVE A CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
3. Purchasing Department – Resolution Authorizing Entering into a Contract with AVI Systems for Upgrades and/or Purchase for Court Recording Equipment
6. Resolution Honoring Jeffrey A. Venn
7. Resolution Honoring Gail Moore
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOVED BY COMM. SCHAFER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. NOLAN, TO APPROVE THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Circuit Court/Family Division – Resolution Authorizing the County Controller to Procure Property for the Circuit Court’s Continuum of Care Facility
DISCLOSURE: Comm. Dougan informed the Committee that a number of his clients are employees of Coldwell Banker/Hubbell and Tomie Raines real estate companies and their affiliates.
Comm. Dougan asked if RFP’s were issued in this matter. Ms. Valentine indicated she didn’t know if RFP’s were issued. Mr. Neilsen explained the County has had previous business with the realtor.
Comm. Bahar-Cook expressed her concern that things may be moving too fast. She stated she represents the district where the School is located. Residents of the surrounding neighborhood should have some input on this issue. She then stated she would like to know the City’s plans for revitalizing the area. The next neighborhood meeting is scheduled for May 17, 2006.
Mr. Neilsen explained the Lansing School District has already accepted proposals for the three schools that are currently on the market. The County may not be able to submit a proposal because others have been accepted. Mr. Neilsen further explained the Court needs a resolution from the Board of Commissioners authorizing the consideration of the property. The Court would be happy to attend the neighborhood meeting to presents its plans and to address questions or concerns of the residents. A final proposal for the property must be approved by the Board of Commissioners before it is submitted to the District.
Comm. Schafer explained he will support the resolution at this time. If he learns of concerns on behalf of the affected residents, he will withdraw his support.
Comm. Nolan asked about the asbestos issue. Mr. Neilsen stated the School was built in the 1920’s. The facility does not have an elevator, an air conditioner and it has asbestos. Any proposal to purchase the property would include all the necessary actions to thoroughly inspect the property.
Comm. Holman stated she still has concerns regarding the Court’s concept, i.e. their plan to start small programs and to build them over time. A proposal should specifically state the County is not making a promise to purchase the property.
Comm. Dougan stated the Lansing City Council should be informed of this matter. He also stated there may be some zoning issues. Chairperson Celentino stated when the Court made its presentation to this Committee, it was understood that the programs would start small. He then agreed with Comm. Bahar-Cook that all involved parties should be involved in the process. The Board of Commissioners should learn of the neighborhood’s position on this proposal early in this process.
Comm. Bahar-Cook asked if the Court had looked for property in the out-County areas. Mr. Oliver explained the Court has not looked into those areas due to the timing issues of the current situation with Verlinden School. Verlinden has some advantages that other large sites would not provide. The School appears to be suitable for the youth the Court wants to serve.
Mr. Oliver explained the Purchasing Department informed him today the School District has received another proposal for the School. The Court wants to explore Verlinden’s potential for meeting the Court’s needs. Mr. Oliver then stated he supports having a discussion with the affected residents.
Chairperson Weatherwax-Grant explained the Resolution enables the Court to have a dialogue regarding the School property.
Comm. Dougan asked if the School has a fixed price or if the School District is accepting sealed bids. Mr. Oliver stated the asking price for the property is $390,000. Comm. Dougan then asked if the District is working with governmental entities to allow them to have the first option. Mr. Oliver explained the District slowed the process when it learned of the County’s interest. He then explained the Court will not stop looking for other properties. Involvement with the Verlinden School property has not allowed the Court time to look for other options.
Comm. Schafer stated the Board of Commissioners has dealt with the relocation of a half-way house. The process was not pleasant; however, this Board is different. Perhaps the Court and Mr. Neilsen can send the City Council a letter informing them of our interest in the property. Notification is important while moving ahead with the process. The Board must move forward with its process which began in 2002. Comm. Schafer suggested this Committee agree to not politicize this issue. He then stated his thought that school property would be acceptable because the surrounding neighborhoods are already used to having children in the area.
Comm. Bahar-Cook stated her main concern is the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED paragraph in the Resolution. The language indicates the Controller is authorized to negotiate for the property before her neighborhood has had a chance to hear the Court’s plans. Mr. Neilsen explained the Resolution would be submitted to the Finance Committee on May 17 and then to the full Board on May 23. Mr. Meyer could conduct an analysis of the property to determine if the property is acceptable for the County’s needs. Any offer on the property would be contingent on the approval of the Board of Commissioners. The County will do due diligence. The District needs to know of the County’s interest as soon as possible.
Comm. Holman expressed her concern that only one facility is being considered. The Resolution language should be softened to indicate the County is also looking at other properties. The best location should be one that includes adequate transportation for the youth being served by the facility. Comm. Holman stated she would like to hear the specifics regarding the property.
Chairperson Weatherwax-Grant explained a negotiation with the seller means the Court will have a dialogue with the seller.
Comm. Nolan suggested the last BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED paragraph of the Resolution be clarified to indicate parallel activity will be taking place to procure an alternate facility. She then asked if the proposed $1.2 million renovation cost is still anticipated.
Mr. Oliver stated Mr. Hudgins, Purchasing Department, walked through the School. The renovation number is not firm. The actual cost will hopefully be less. A more concrete number would be made after an actual review of the property.
Comm. Nolan agreed with Comm. Holman that the process should be data driven. Two to three year’s data should be reviewed to determine where the youth are located within the County. She then stated her real estate philosophy that if a property is meant to be, it will be available when we are ready.
Mr. Neilsen explained this matter was brought to this Committee’s attention because the property won’t be available later. He then agreed there will be other properties to consider.
MOVED BY COMM. NOLAN, SUPPORTED BY COMM. SCHAFER, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY CONTROLLER TO PROCURE PROPERTY FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT’S CONTNUUM OF CARE FACILITY.
MOVED BY COMM. SCHAFER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. DOUGAN TO AMEND THE THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED PARAGRAPH TO READ: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEREBY AUTHORIZES THE COUNTY CONTROLLER TO ENGAGE IN A DIALOGUE WITH THE SELLER FOR THE POTENTIAL PURCHASE OF THE VERLINDEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY AT A COST MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE COUNTY. AND:
TO AMEND THE LAST BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TO STATE: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZES THE COUNTY CONTROLLER IN COOPERATION WITH CB RICHARD ELLIS TO CONTINUE TO EVALUATE OTHER PROPERTY SITES COMPATIBLE WITH THE COURT’S NEEDS.
Comm. Schafer stated the County has worked with Wigen, Tincknell, Meyer & Associates on other properties. This firm is very thorough and it will listen to the concerns of the Board of Commissioners.
Chairperson Weatherwax-Grant stated her commitment to look elsewhere if large groups of people are opposed to the County’s proposal.
MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Comm. Holman requested clarification regarding a final decision on the property. Mr. Oliver explained the Board of Commissioners will make the ultimate decision. The Court will be a part of the discussions with the architect, and it would also communicate with the Controller. Ms. Valentine stated the Facilities Department, the Purchasing Department, the Court and the Controller’s Office will be involved with the evaluation of the property. They will also work together on the terms and conditions of an agreement before it is submitted for approval by the Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Neilsen explained the programming issues will be worked out with the Court and its community partners. If the County receives reasonable assurance to obtain a conditional offer, the Court would proceed while the offer is presented to the Board.
Comm. Holman expressed her desire that there be a lot of communication between the Court and others regarding programming.
Chairperson Weatherwax-Grant stated the Lansing School District reached out to the Court regarding its interest in the property. This may be why the District is willing to slow the process for the County.
Comm. Schafer stated there are many parties with the same goals working together on this process. The Board should step back and let them move forward. Mr. Oliver stated he would step up and inform the Board if he believes a property would not meet our criteria. If the Verlinden property isn’t right, another property will be available for consideration.
Comm. Nolan suggested the process proceed while keeping mind Comm. Holman’s suggestion of determining where the youth to be served currently live. Mr. Oliver stated the City of Lansing is the predominant area where these youth live. He then explained this is a very mobile population to be served.
Chairperson Weatherwax-Grant stated the Court has discussed this issue. A facility needs to be convenient for the youth, the service providers and be accessible to a bus line. She then stated approximately 70% of adult offenders live in the Baker/Donora area.
Mr. Oliver stated the Court understands the issue of transportation. The Court currently provides transportation for youth to their appointments.
Comm. Holman stated she just wants to ensure that a final decision will be made by the Board of Commissioners.
MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. Judiciary Committee – Resolution to Submit to the Electorate a Juvenile Millage Authorization
MOVED BY COMM. NOLAN, SUPPORTED BY COMM. SCHAFER, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO SUBMIT TO THE ELECTORATE A JUVENILE MILLAGE AUTHORIZATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Neilsen explained the Resolution authorizes standard renewal language. This Resolution would authorize placing the Juvenile Millage Authorization Question on the August 8, 2006 ballot.
Chairperson Celentino suggested the renewal language be included in the title of the ballot so that voters will understand the question and realize the question was approved in a previous year. Mr. Neilsen stated he would contact Mr. Stoker regarding this issue prior to the Finance Committee meeting.
1. County Services Committee – Communication form the County Services Committee Regarding Review of Process for Making Appointments to Boards, Committees and Commissions
Comm. Holman stated the liaison Committee’s should receive a list of boards and commissions they are responsible for making appointments to for use in this discussion. The County Services Committee should wait to see what the other Committee’s suggest as possible changes to the current appointment process before making any changes.
Comm. Schafer stated the Law Enforcement Committee did forward a few ideas to the County Services Committee. He then stated the appointment process should not be cumbersome, but the Commissioners should be comfortable with the process.
5. Controller’s Office – Discussion – 2007 Update on Fees: Draft – Resolution Updating Various fees for County Services
Mr. Neilsen stated the Judiciary Committee department fees are mainly set by the Courts. He then explained the annual review of the Fees has been completed and they have been submitted to the liaison Committees for review. A Resolution approving the Fees will be submitted to the Committees for their approval during the next round of meetings.
Announcements: None
Public Comment: None
The meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra Neff