City Commission Agenda

Document Sample
City Commission Agenda Powered By Docstoc
					           CITY COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA                                                        Tuesday, August 29, 2006


8:10 a.m.         COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS* (Coms. Bliss, Schmidt, White), Conf. Room 901

1)      Resolution appointing a member to the Automobile Parking Commission

2)      Resolution appointing a member to the Grand Rapids Police Civilian Appeal Board

3)      Resolution appointing a regular member to the Housing Appeal Board

4)      Discussion of the Board/Commission Vacancy List


8:30 a.m.         FISCAL COMMITTEE* (Coms. Schmidt, Tormala, White), Conference Room 601

1)      Resolution approving recognition of a local civic organization for bingo/raffle license

2)      Resolution authorizing conditional approval of a tax exemption for the Heron Manor Enhanced
        Supportive Housing for Seniors Project

3)      Resolution authorizing an agreement with Charles Blockett & Associates for consulting
        services

4)      Resolution authorizing execution of a Second Amendment to Installment Purchase Contract with
        DP Fox Sports & Entertainment, LLC, and an Installment Purchase Contract with Wieland
        International

5)      Proposed Modification for FY2007 Budget Ordinance Amendment #6

6)      Bid List

7)      Comptroller’s Report
        A) Weekly Warrants
        B) Small Claims Report July 2006
        C) Travel Report July 2006

8)      Treasurer’s Report




*    City Parking Ramp tickets may be validated by the Recorder after the meeting or at the City Clerk's Office on the 2nd Floor.
8:30 a.m.         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE* (Coms. Bliss, Jendrasiak, Lumpkins),
                  Conference Room 901

1)      Resolution scheduling a public hearing to obtain public comment on housing and community
        development program performance and needs

2)      Resolution confirming Special Assessment Roll Number 8588 and Special Assessment
        Nuisance Roll Number 8626

3)      Resolution authorizing the sale of the City owned property at 629 Cass Ave., SE

4)      Resolution scheduling a public hearing to consider a zone change from GRTZ Grand Rapids
        Township Zoning to PUD Planned Unit Development for 2100 East Beltline, NE, and 3269 and
        3271 Knapp Street, NE

5)      Resolution scheduling a public hearing to consider a zone change from R-1A One Family
        Auxiliary Zone to PRD Planned Redevelopment District for 1001, 1003 and 1011 Bemis Street,
        SE

6)      Resolution setting the date to consider a zone change from I-1 Light Industrial Zone to C-3B City
        Center Service District (Height Limit Zone A) for 600 Seventh Street, NW

7)      Resolution setting the date to consider a major amendment to the PUD Planned Unit
        Development at 1870 Leonard Street, NE

8)      Resolution approving a Quit Claim Deed from the City to the Grand Rapids Housing
        Commission for the Adams Park site

9)      Resolution approving a Quit Claim Deed from the City to the Grand Rapids Housing
        Commission for the Creston Plaza sites

10) Resolution consenting to the vacation of a portion of Raymond Place

11) Resolution accepting easements and authorizing payments for streetscape improvements in
    Grandville Avenue from Clyde Park Avenue to Tulip Avenue

12) Resolution accepting an easement and authorizing payment in connection with 654 North Park
    Street, NE

13) Resolution approving an agreement for Eastside Sewer Improvements Program Separation
    Project Contract No. 2A

14) Resolution authorizing design engineering services for Contract Nos. 8-12 of the East Side CSO
    Control Program

15) Resolution approving an agreement and authorizing expenditures for improvements to the
    Northeast Corner of Division Avenue and 28th Street Intersection (Gateway Project)




*    City Parking Ramp tickets may be validated by the Recorder after the meeting or at the City Clerk's Office on the 2nd Floor.
8:30 a.m.            COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Continued

16) Resolution awarding a contract for curb replacement in Buckley Street, Lafayette Avenue,
    Prospect Avenue, and Jackson Street

17) Resolution accepting easements and authorizing payments for reconstruction of Indian Mill Creek
    Trunk Sewer

18) Resolution accepting an easement and approving an agreement for the construction of sanitary
    sewer and watermain to serve Huntington Ridge Condominiums - Phase IV


9:30 a.m.         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE*, Conference Room 601

1)      Resolution designating the “2006 Celebration on the Grand” as a special event

2)      Resolution designating the “2006 Grand Valley American Indian Lodge Pow Wow” as a
        special event

3)      Resolution approving the request from Amway Hotel Corporation to transfer all stock interest in
        the 2006 Class C licensed business with Dance-Entertainment Permit located at 245 Monroe
        NW, and the 2006 B-Hotel licensed business with Dance-Entertainment Permit located at 177-
        191-199 Monroe NW

4)      Resolution approving the request from Cottage Bar & Restaurant, Inc., for Temporary
        Authorization for a Temporary Outdoor Service Permit to be used in conjunction with their
        annual “Chili Cook-Off”

5)      Resolution authorizing the execution of a First Amendment to Restated Management
        Agreement between the City and DP Fox Sports & Entertainment, L.L.C., related to the
        management and operation of the Rosa Parks Circle Ice Rink

6)      Resolution approving an Industrial Facility Tax Exemption Certificate under P.A. 198 - Vi-Chem
        Corp.

7)      Resolution approving an Industrial Facility Tax Exemption Certificate under P.A. 198 - Swift
        Printing Company

8)      Resolution approving and authorizing execution of the Third Amendment to Purchase and
        Development Agreement related to the sale of the former Creston Branch Library

9)      Resolution approving a City Commission Policy which establishes guidelines to approve various
        Exemption Certificates for qualifying companies located within an existing Renaissance Zone

10) Resolutions (2) authorizing proceeding with a Request for Proposal process for property located
    at 201 Market


7:00 p.m.         CITY COMMISSION MEETING, Commission Chambers (agenda attached)



*    City Parking Ramp tickets may be validated by the Recorder after the meeting or at the City Clerk's Office on the 2nd Floor.
                                                         CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
                                                     CITY COMMISSION MEETING
                                                      TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2006
                                                                      7:00 p.m.

1.         Call to order
2.         Invocation/Reflection - Com. Bliss
3.         Pledge of Allegiance
4.         Roll Call
5.         Approval of Minutes of August 15, 2006
6.         Public Comments on Agenda Items
7.         Petitions and Communications
           1)        Communication from Scott Atchison re: downtown directions and information booth.
8.         Reports of City Officers
           1)        The City Clerk’s report from the Kent County Board of Canvassers certifying the results
                     of the Primary Election held August 8, 2006.
9.         Ordinances
10.        Consent Agenda - items noted by asterisk (*)
11.        Reports of Standing Committees:
           COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS
           COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
           FISCAL COMMITTEE
           COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
           PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
12.        Public Hearings
           1)        Hearing to consider an application for an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Exemption
                     Certificate for Stratus Properties LLC, located at 345 State St., SE.
           2)        Hearing to consider an application for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate for
                     Hansen-Balk Steel Treating Company, 1230 Monroe Ave., N.W.
           3)        The City Commission, sitting as a Board of Review, will consider appeals on Special
                     Assessment Downtown Improvement District Roll No. 8630.
13.        Public Comments
14.        Comments by Commissioners
15.        Adjournment



*    City Parking Ramp tickets may be validated by the Recorder after the meeting or at the City Clerk's Office on the 2nd Floor.
                                                         City of Grand Rapids

                                        Focus Teams and Special Committees

     Date                             Meeting                                                 Time and Location

Mon., Aug 28                ACSET                                                             8:30 a.m., County Bldg
                             Heartwell, Lumpkins, White

Tues., Aug 29               Legislative Committee                                             10:30 a.m., Room 601
                             Heartwell, Bliss, Schmidt

Wed., Aug 30                ITP Board                                                         4:00 pm, 300 Ellsworth
                             Heartwell, White

Thurs., Sept 7              GV Metro Council                                                  8:00 am, County Bldg
                             Lumpkins




*   City Parking Ramp tickets may be validated by the Recorder after the meeting or at the City Clerk's Office on the 2nd Floor.
DATE:         August 23, 2006


TO:          Mary Therese Hegarty, City Clerk


FROM:        Kathleen M. Black
             Administrative Analyst I


SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO THE AUTOMOBILE PARKING COMMISSION

Attached is a resolution to confirm Mayor Heartwell’s appointment of Kathy Clements
to the Automobile Parking Commission for the remainder of an unexpired term ending
the first Monday in January 2008. The appointment will fill the vacancy created when
Robert Sullivan resigned.

After this appointment, there are no vacancies on the Automobile Parking Commission
and the composition is as follows:


                                W1 - 1      WM - 5
                                W2 - 2      WF - 3
                                W3 - 1      BM - 1
                                OSC - 5
YOUR COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS recommends adoption of a resolution
confirming the Mayor's appointment of a member to the Automobile Parking
Commission.


                                             ____________________________________
         CORRECT IN FORM

   ________________________
      DEPARTMENT OF LAW
                                             ____________________________________



                                             ____________________________________
                                                     COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS


Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________,
moved to adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED that the Mayor's appointment of Kathy Clements to the Automobile
Parking Commission for the remainder of an unexpired term ending the first
Monday in January 2008, be confirmed.

Drafted by Kathleen Black for Mary Therese Hegarty, City Clerk




                                                                   Yeas                      Nays

                                                                   _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                   _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                   _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                   _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                   _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                   _____   White             _____

                                                                   _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                        Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                        Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
DATE:            August 23, 2006


TO:              Mary Therese Hegarty
                 City Clerk

FROM:            Kathleen M. Black
                 Administrative Analyst I


SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO THE GRAND RAPIDS POLICE CIVILIAN APPEAL
         BOARD

A resolution has been prepared to recognize Com. Lumpkins’ appointment of Edgar L. Davis to
the Grand Rapids Police Civilian Appeal Board for the remainder of an unexpired term ending
the first Monday of May 2008.

After this appointment, one vacancy remains on the Grand Rapids Police Civilian Appeal
Board and the composition is as follows:

                        W1 - 2        WM - 4
                        W2 - 3        HM - 1
                        W3 - 3        BF - 2
                                      BM - 1




Attachment
YOUR COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS recommends adoption of a resolution
recognizing Com. Lumpkins’ appointment of a member to the Grand Rapids Police
Civilian Appeal Board.


                                                 ____________________________________

   CORRECT IN FORM

 _________________                               _____________________________________
  DEPARTMENT OF LAW



                                                 ____________________________________
                                                    COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS


Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________,
moved to adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED that Com. Lumpkins’ appointment of Edgar L. Davis to the Grand Rapids Police
Civilian Appeal Board for the remainder of an unexpired term ending the first Monday in May
2008, be recognized.


Drafted by Kathleen Black for Mary Therese Hegarty, City Clerk.




                                                                             Yeas                      Nays

                                                                             _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                             _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                             _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                             _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                             _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                             _____   White             _____

                                                                             _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                  Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                  Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
DATE:               August 23, 2006

TO:                 Mary Therese Hegarty
                    City Clerk

FROM:               Kathleen M. Black
                    Administrative Analyst I

SUBJECT:            APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING APPEAL BOARD


A resolution has been prepared to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Wesley Jones as a regular
member of the Housing Appeal Board. Mr. Jones’ appointment is for the remainder of an
unexpired term ending the first Monday of January 2009 and will fill the vacancy created when
Charlese Hardimann-Bartz moved from the City of Grand Rapids.

Attached is a copy of Wesley Jones’ Personal Information Form. After this appointment, two
vacancies remain on the Housing Appeal Board and the composition is as follows:


                                  W1 - 3       WM - 5 +2
                                  W2 - 1 + 3   WF - 1
                                  W3 - 3       BM - 1 +1
YOUR COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS recommends adoption of a resolution
confirming the Mayor's appointment of a regular member to the Housing Appeal Board.



                                                       ____________________________________

         CORRECT IN FORM

  _________________________
      DEPARTMENT OF LAW                                ____________________________________



                                                       ____________________________________
                                                          COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS


Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved
to adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED that the Mayor's appointment of Wesley Jones as a regular member of the
Housing Appeal Board for the remainder of an unexpired term ending the first Monday of
January 2009, be confirmed.

Drafted by Kathleen Black for Mary Therese Hegarty, City Clerk.




                                                                             Yeas                      Nays

                                                                             _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                             _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                             _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                             _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                             _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                             _____   White             _____

                                                                             _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                  Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                  Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
DATE:            August 23, 2006

TO:              Mary Therese Hegarty
                 City Clerk

FROM:            Kathleen M. Black
                 Administrative Analyst I

SUBJECT:         BOARD/COMMISSION VACANCY LIST


Attached is a listing of current Board/Commission vacancies for review by the
Committee on Appointments.


Attachment
                           CITIZEN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
                                 CURRENT VACANCY LIST
                                     August 29, 2006
                                                            COMPOSITION OF
                                                            CURRENT MEMBERS


BOARD OF ART AND MUSEUM COMMISSIONERS (7 members)           W1-1         WM - 4
City Commission Appointment                                 W2-1         WF - 1
    1) UNEXPIRED TERM ending 1/10/10                        W3-1         BM - 1
       (to replace Carol Greenburg)                         OSC - 3

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ( 7 members + 2 alternates)         W1-4         WM - 5 +1
City Commission Appointment                                 W2-3         WF - 2
    1) UNEXPIRED TERM ending 1/07/08                        W 3 - 2+1    BM - 1
       (to replace John Kriekaard - alternate member)                    HM - 1

GRAND RAPIDS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (13 members)             W1 - 3       WM - 4
Mayoral Appointment                                         W2 - 7       WF - 5
   1) UNEXPIRED TERM ending 1/05/09                         W3 - 1       BF - 1
       (to replace Daniel Patterson)                                     BM - 1
   2) UNEXPIRED TERM ending 1/07/08
       (to replace Laureen Kennedy)

GRAND RAPIDS POLICE CIVILIAN APPEAL BOARD (9 members)       W1- 2        WM - 4
   1) UNEXPIRED TERM ending 5/5/08                          W2- 3        HM - 1
      (to replace Milinda Ysasi)                            W3 -3        BF - 2
                                                                         BM - 1

HOUSING APPEAL BOARD (9 members + 3 alternates)             W1 - 3       WM - 5 + 2
Mayoral Appointment                                         W2 - 1 + 3   WF - 1
   1) UNEXPIRED TERM ending 1/01/07                         W3 - 3       BM - 1 +1
       (to replace LaDeidra Brown-Gais)
   2) UNEXPIRED TERM ending 1/01/07
       (to replace Elena Juarez)

LOCAL OFFICERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (7 members)          W1 -2        WM - 2
Mayoral Appointment                                         W2 - 1       WF - 2
   1) UNEXPIRED TERM ending                                 W3 -3        BM - 2
       (to replace Stephen Waterbury)

REHABILITATION APPEALS BOARD (7 members)                    W1-2         WM - 4
Mayoral Appointment                                         W2-0         BM - 1
   1) UNEXPIRED TERM ending 1/05/09                         W3-3
       (to replace John Gardner)
   2) UNEXPIRED TERM ending 1/05/09
       (to replace Kathryn Caliendo)

SMARTZONE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY (7 members)   W1 - 1       WM - 3
Mayoral Appointment                                         W2-1         WF - 2
   1) UNEXPIRED TERM ending 12/31/06                        W3-0         HM - 1
       (to replace Lynn Ferrell)                            OSC - 4
DATE:                                   August 22, 2006

TO:                                     Kurt F. Kimball
                                        City Manager

FROM:                                   Stanley Bakita
                                        Assistant City Attorney

SUBJECT:                                RECOGNITION OF GRAND RAPIDS ALUMNI KAPPA FOUNDATION AS
                                        A LOCAL CIVIC ORGANIZATION


Attached is a letter from Shawnta D. Robertson, Treasurer of the Grand Rapids Alumni Kappa
Foundation requesting the recognition of their organization as a local civic organization for
purposes of obtaining a license from the Bureau of State Lottery. The letter includes a brief
description of the nature of the organization and the work it conducts for the community.

The organization’s By-Laws and Tax Exemption Letter are also on file in our office if you
should desire to see them.

Attached is a resolution by which the City Commission can grant the requested recognition if it
so chooses.

Y:MARCIA/FC bingo-GR kappa foundation
      YOUR FISCAL COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following resolution
recognizing the Grand Rapids Kappa Foundation as a local civic organization pursuant to MCLA
§432.103(9).


                                                       ____________________________



                                                       ____________________________



                                                       ____________________________

                                                       FISCAL COMMITTEE

              Com.               , supported by Com.     , moved adoption of the following resolution:

       WHEREAS, the Grand Rapids Kappa Foundation, located at 2343 Gatetree Lane,
Kentwood, MI 49546, has applied to the Bureau of State lottery for a Bingo/Raffle License and,
as part of the required licensing procedure, has requested recognition as a local civic
organization from the City Commission pursuant to §432.103(9);

       NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Commission hereby finds that, to
the best of its knowledge, the Grand Rapids Kappa Foundation exists as a non-profit local civic
organization which conducts a major portion of its activities within the City of Grand Rapids and,
therefore, hereby officially recognizes the Grand Rapids Kappa Foundation as a local civic
organization pursuant to MCLA §432.103(9).

DRAFTED BY:stanley bakita
Y:FC-bingo-GR kappa foundation
                                               Gatetree Lane
                                               Kentwood, MI 49546



August 15, 2006




Mayor George Heartwell
City Hall
300 Monroe NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Dear Mayor Heartwell:

I am writing this letter to you on behalf of the Grand Rapids Alumni Kappa
Foundation. The Grand Rapids Alumni Kappa Foundation is asking to be
recognized as a nonprofit organization operating in the Grand Rapids community
for the purpose of obtaining a charitable gaming license in the State of Michigan.

The Grand Rapids Alumni Kappa Foundation is a nonprofit charitable organization
that was organized in February of 1999, to benefit high school students in the
Grand Rapids community by awarding college scholarships. During our existence
as an organization we have awarded over $10,000 in scholarships in the Grand
Rapids community.

Please complete the enclosed form and return it to me at your earliest
convenience at the return address above. If you have any further questions or
concerns you may contact me at 616-443-3505.

Sincerely,



Shawnta D. Robertson
Treasurer
Grand Rapids Alumni Kappa Foundation
Date:                       August 11, 2006

To:                         Greg A. Sundstrom
                            Chief Services Officer

From:                       Connie M. Bohatch
                            Community Development Director

Subject:                    Conditional Approval of a Tax Exemption Request for Heron Manor
                            Enhanced Supportive Housing for Seniors

Attached is a resolution that would provide conditional approval of a tax exemption for Heron
Manor Enhanced Supportive Housing for Seniors (“Heron Manor”), a 50-unit new construction
rental project to be developed as part of the Heron Highland Residential Planned Unit
Development (PUD) by Genesis Non-Profit Housing Corporation. The Planning Commission
approved a PUD for the project, and the City Commission adopted the PUD on February 7,
2006.

The State Housing Development Authority Act authorizes such exemptions for assisted
housing developments with a federally-aided mortgage, an Authority-aided mortgage, or an
advance or grant from such Authority. The City also has an ordinance (Article 5, Chapter 9 of
the City Code) which allows the City Commission to grant property tax exemptions and charge
a four percent (4%) service fee as payment in lieu of taxes.

Project Description
The proposed Heron Manor project is located at the Heron Highlands site at 2110 Leonard
Street NE, between Perkins and Maryland Avenues. It will be a mixed income senior housing
development that will offer both market rate and affordable rental apartments for seniors, along
with a continuum of enhanced resident supportive services. The project will provide an
alternative to a skilled nursing facility. It is anticipated the low-income seniors occupying the
assisted units will receive Section 8 assistance for the cost of the housing and Medicaid Home
and Community Based Waivers for supportive services.

A total of 25 of the 50 units will be rented under the rent and income restrictions of the Federal
or State-aided mortgage, advance or grant funding provided for the project. A summary of the
units follows:

Number of                Unit Type             Size              Rent (including utility allowances)
Units
12                       Efficiency            430 square feet   $ 522 low income
  8                      Efficiency            430 square feet   $1,600 market rate
13                       1-Bedroom             540 square feet   $ 557 low income
15                       1-Bedroom             540 square feet   $1,700 market rate
 2                       2-Bedroom             600 square feet   $1,800 market rate

7999epie06a.doc, (cmb, 08/23/06)
Financing and Tax Credits
The developer is seeking: (1) a $2 million Federally-aided mortgage (HUD Section 202), with a
40-year repayment term, (2) $4,600,000 in tax-exempt mortgage financing from the Michigan
State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA), with a 20-year repayment term, and (3) an
allocation of 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), with an affordability period of 30
years. The City previously approved $224,942 in HOME funding for the project, which will
require a 20 year period of affordability.

Recommendation

The approval of the PILOT would allow the developer to maintain 25 of the 50 units as
affordable units targeted to low-income seniors (less than 50% AMI) by enabling rental rates of
less than $600 per month compared to the $1,600-$1,800 per month market rate for the 25
market rate units.

The Community Development Department would recommend conditional approval of a tax
exemption and 4% service charge for the rent restricted units and their pro-rated share of land
and improvements. As project financing has not yet been solidified, the recommended tax
exemption would be the for the longest term of the Federal or State aided mortgage, advance
or grant provided for the project, not to exceed fifty years, the maximum term specified in the
State law and City ordinance. This recommendation is based on the information provided by
the developer, and substantive changes to the proposed development would require further
approval from the City Commission.

Please forward this item for consideration at the August 29, 2006 City Commission meeting.

ELP/TJS:tjs

Attachment




7999epie06a.doc, (cmb, 08/23/06)
       YOUR FISCAL COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following resolution authorizing
conditional approval of a tax exemption for the Heron Manor Enhanced Supportive Housing for
Seniors Project.


                                   _____________________________________

      CORRECT IN FORM

 _____________________             _____________________________________
    DEPARTMENT OF LAW



                                   _____________________________________
                                     FISCAL COMMITTEE



Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

       WHEREAS, the Grand Rapids City Commission hereby determines that the Heron
Manor Enhanced Supportive Housing for Seniors Project is qualified for, and should be
granted, the exemption from all property taxes attributable to the rent restricted units occupied
by low-income families, and their pro-rated share of land and improvements, as provided in the
State Housing Development Authority Act; conditional upon the Heron Manor Limited Dividend
Housing Association Limited Partnership obtaining a Federally-aided or State-aided mortgage,
advance, or grant; therefore

       RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 15(a) of the State Housing Development Authority
Act and Article 5, Chapter 9 of Title I of the Code of the City of Grand Rapids, the City
Commission hereby conditionally approves an exemption from all property taxes attributable to
the rent restricted units occupied by low-income families, and their pro-rated share of land and
improvements, for the Heron Manor Limited Dividend Housing Association Limited Partnership,
and its successors and assigns, for the following parcel of property:

         That part of the NE 1/4, Section 21, T7N, R11W, City of Grand Rapids, Kent County,
         Michigan, described as: Commencing at the N 1/4 corner of Section 21; thence
         N90º00’00”E 621.48 feet along the North line of said NE 1/4; thence S14º17’10”W
         287.12 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING of this description; thence S40º34’45”E
         185.00 feet; thence N49º25’15”E 67.50 feet; thence S40º34’45”E 67.50 feet; thence
         N49º25’15”E 240.00 feet; thence S00º24’45”E 391.00 feet along the West line of
         Gabrielle Addition Plats; thence S89º25’15”W 100.58 feet; thence N40º34’45”E 105.74
         feet; thence S49º25’15”W 159.00 feet; thence N40º34’45”W 380.90 feet; thence
         N49º25’15”E 180.75 feet to the place of beginning. This parcel contains 2.957 Acres.

for the longest term of a Federally aided or State-aided mortgage, advance or grant provided
for the Project, not to exceed 50 years, subject to the receipt of the “Notification to Local
Assessor of Exemption” from the Michigan State Housing Development Authority for said
parcel. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15(a)(5) of the State Housing Development

7999epie06a.doc, (cmb, 08/23/06)
Authority Act to the contrary, a contract to provide tax exemption and accept payment in lieu of
taxes, as previously described, between the City of Grand Rapids and the Heron Manor
Limited Dividend Housing Association Limited Partnership, with the Michigan State Housing
Development Authority as third party beneficiary under this contract, is effectuated by the
adoption of this resolution; and

       RESOLVED, that pursuant to Article 5, Chapter 9 of Title I of the Code of the City of
Grand Rapids, the project shall pay a service charge equal to four percent (4%) of the annual
shelter rental receipts for the rent restricted units occupied by low-income families, as provided
by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority Act.



Drafted by: Connie M. Bohatch, Community Development Director


                                                                           Yeas                      Nays

                                                                           _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                           _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                           _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                           _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                           _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                           _____   White             _____

                                                                           _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____




7999epie06a.doc, (cmb, 08/23/06)
1.



Date:                August 23, 2006

To:                  Kurt F. Kimball
                     City Manager

From:                Mari Beth Jelks
                     Director of Human Resources

Subject:             Resolution Approving An Agreement with Charles Blockett &
                     Associates for Recruitment and Selection Services

A Utility Director position was established in the adopted FY2007 budget to oversee the water
and sewer utility systems operated by the City of Grand Rapids. In addition to helping the City
achieve the integrated utility program, the individual serving in this key position will be
expected to provide leadership in the following areas: developing a comprehensive regional
utility program; establishing successful short and long-term operational goals; managing utility
funding and financial targets; and strengthening the City’s regional utility partnerships to deliver
critical infrastructure solutions for environmental, economic development, and capacity issues.

Over the past several years, the Human Resources Department has successfully utilized
Charles Blockett & Associates for consultant services related to a national search for the
recruitment, screening, and selection of certain executive level positions. This firm has been
used in circumstances that require expertise, time, and national resources beyond those
available in the Human Resources Department. In addition to the specialty knowledge about
civil service systems and an understanding of the operational functions of City departments,
this firm is knowledgeable about the City’s classification and compensation system. Thus, for
this particular executive search, it is recommended that Charles Blockett & Associates services
be used.

The attached resolution seeks City Commission approval to enter into a contract with Charles
Blockett & Associates in the amount of $12,500 plus actual expenses (as delineated on
Attachment A) for all consultant services related to the recruitment, performance assessment,
and selection of the City’s Utility Director. Approval of this resolution by the City Commission
would entail approval City Attorney for the actual contract terms.

Furthermore, in order to provide the Human Resources Department with the efficiency and
continuity of these consultant services through the next year, this resolution also seeks
approval by the City Commission to place Charles Blockett & Associates on retainer for future
recruitment activities that may occur in the next 12 months. The retainer fee would not exceed
$100. Expenses for future executive searches would be allocated to the approved department
or departments.

MBJ/saw
Attachments
       YOUR FISCAL COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following resolution authorizing
an agreement between the City of Grand Rapids and Charles Blockett & Associates for the
consulting services related to recruitment, assessment, and selection of a Utility Director and to
approve a retainer fee for the next 12 months on an as needed basis.


                                                _____________________________________

     CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                           _____________________________________
   DEPARTMENT OF LAW


                                                _____________________________________
                                                  FISCAL COMMITTEE


Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED;

1.    That an agreement with Charles Blockett & Associates for human resources consultant
      services related to the recruitment, assessment and selection of a Utilities Director for the
      sum of $12,500, plus actual expenses (see attachment A) is hereby authorized.

2.    That the agreement shall also include a provision for a retainer fee for future recruitment
      activities of Charles Blockett & Associates that may occur in the next 12 months. The
      retainer fee would not exceed $100. Expenses for future executive searches would be
      allocated to the approved department or departments.

3.    That upon approval by the City Attorney, the Mayor is authorized to execute the
      agreement on behalf of the City.

Drafted by: Mari Beth Jelks, Director of Human Resources
                                                                           Yeas                      Nays

                                                                           _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                           _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                           _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                           _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                           _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                           _____   White             _____

                                                                           _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
ATTACHMENT A

Professional Fee

CBA’s fee will be $12,500 for the services involved in conducting the Utilities Director search.

The City of Grand Rapids shall pay for the actual costs incurred for advertising, printing, and mailing of
the job announcement and for travel and lodging of the candidates
interviewed. The City of Grand Rapids shall conduct background investigations of the finalists.

Unless otherwise specified, the terms and conditions of the current contract for services related to the
City Engineer search shall apply.

CBA agrees to conduct another search for the City of Grand Rapids, at no additional professional fee, if
the appointee does not serve for 365 days in the position of Utilities Director. However, the City will
pay the other costs described above (e.g. advertising, printing, mailing, candidate travel, etc.)
DATE:             August 24, 2006
TO:               Fiscal Committee
FROM:             Scott Buhrer
                  Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:          Second Amendment to Installment Purchase Contract with DP Fox Sports
                  & Entertainment, L.L.C.

Attached is a resolution authorizing execution of an Installment Purchase Contract with
Wieland International and the Second Amendment to the Installment Purchase Contract with
DP Fox Sports & Entertainment, L.L.C.

The City issued Series 2002A Municipal Purchase Notes in the amount of $3,975,000 for a
variety of purposes, including the installation of a second sheet of ice at Belknap Ice Arena.
As part of the debt issuance, the City entered into an Installment Purchase Contract with DP
Fox Sports and Entertainment, L.L.C. on December 1, 2002. On August 9, 2005, the City
Commission approved the First Amendment to the Installment Purchase Contract in the
amount of $200,316. (Proceeding #74069). DP Fox is now seeking to pre-pay another portion
of this debt. However, the type of debt issued by the City is not eligible for early redemption.

Currently, the Motor Equipment Department has a need to issue debt for three snow control
trucks and one dump truck.

The execution of the Installment Purchase Contract with Wieland International and the Second
Amendment to Installment Purchase Contract with DP Fox will accomplish both objectives. A
portion of the debt will thereby be reallocated from the Belknap Ice Arena Fund to the Motor
Equipment System Fund.


cc: Stan Milanowski
    Albert Mooney
    Jana Wallace




SB


Attachments
      YOUR FISCAL COMMITTEE authorizes the adoption of the following resolution
approving and authorizing the execution of a Second Amendment to Installment Purchase
Contract with DP Fox Sports & Entertainment, L.L.C., and an Installment Purchase Contract
with Wieland International.




                                                          Fiscal Committee

        Com. _____________, supported by Com. ______________, moved the adoption of
the following resolution:

       WHEREAS. the City has previously issued its $3,975,000 City of Grand Rapids
Municipal Purchase Notes, Series 2002A (General Obligation Limited Tax) pursuant to the
provisions of Act 99 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1933, as amended, MCL 123.721, et
seq., to provide funding of certain real and personal property including certain real property
(the "Belknap Addition") identified in an Installment Purchase Contract dated as of December
1, 2002 (the "DP Fox Agreement"), between the City, DP Fox Sports & Entertainment, L.L.C.
("DP Fox"), and LaSalle Bank National Association (the "Trustee"); and

       WHEREAS, the City has determined to reduce the amount of the obligation under the
DP Fox Agreement by $397,902.15 by utilizing available operating revenues from the Belknap
Addition equal to such amount and to enter into a second amendment to the DP Fox
Agreement (the "DP Fox Second Amendment") in connection therewith; and

       WHEREAS, the City intends to use such amount to finance the cost of acquiring three
snow removal trucks and a dump truck (collectively, the "Equipment") and in connection
therewith enter into a separate installment purchase contract (the "Wieland Agreement") with
Wieland International ("Wieland") which agreement will require the City to make principal and
interest payments on the same date and equal to the amount of the corresponding reductions
in the amounts payable under the DP Fox Agreement; and

      WHEREAS, it is necessary to determine the useful life of the Equipment being financed.

       RESOLVED, that a DP Fox Second Amendment and a Wieland Agreement in forms
approved as to content by the Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Services and as to form by the
City Attorney or special counsel is approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized and
directed to execute such documents for and on behalf of the City.
       FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the useful life of the Equipment to be financed pursuant to
the Wieland Agreement is at least 12 years.

       FURTHER, RESOLVED, that all resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith
are rescinded.
            SECOND AMENDMENT TO INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT

        THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
made and executed as of June 1, 2006 (the "First Amendment"), by and between the CITY OF
GRAND RAPIDS, Kent County, Michigan, a Michigan municipal corporation (the "City"), DP
FOX SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, L.L.C., a Michigan limited liability company (the
"Seller") and LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association,
as trustee (the "Trustee"), pursuant to a Trust Indenture dated as of December 1, 2002, between
the City and the Trustee (the "Indenture").

                                        WITNESSETH:

        WHEREAS, the City, Seller and Trustee have entered into an Installment Purchase
Contract dated as of December 1, 2002 and a First Amendment to Installment Purchase Contract
dated June 1, 2005 (collectively, the "Agreement") for the acquisition by the City from the Seller
of certain Property (as defined in the Agreement); and

       WHEREAS, the City issued its $3,975,000 City of Grand Rapids Municipal Purchase
Notes, Series 2002A (General Obligation Limited Tax) (the "Series 2002A Notes") pursuant to
the Indenture to provide funding for the acquisition of the Property; and

       WHEREAS, attached as Exhibit B to, and incorporated as a part of the Agreement is a
principal and interest payment schedule requiring Seller to make certain annual principal and
semi-annual interest payments through June 1, 2017, in payment for the Property; and

       WHEREAS, the City has determined to reduce the amount of the obligation under the
Agreement by $397,902.15 by utilizing available operating revenues from the Property equal to
such amount; and

        WHEREAS, the City intends to use such amount to finance the cost of acquiring three
snow control trucks and a dump truck from Wieland International ("Wieland") and in connection
therewith intends to enter into a separate installment purchase agreement with Wieland and the
Trustee which agreement will require the City to make principal and interest payments on the
same dates and equal to the amount of the corresponding reductions in the amounts payable
under the Agreement and such amounts will be used to pay a portion of the principal of and
interest in the Series 2002A Notes; and

        WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the Agreement to reflect the reduction of the
obligation under the Agreement and the corresponding reduction of the Principal Payments and
Interest Payments payable pursuant to the Agreement.

       NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the respective representations and agreements
contained in the Agreement and this Second Amendment the parties agree as follows:



           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
             SECOND AMENDMENT TO INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                     Page 1
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169193
       Section 1. Amendment to Section 1 of Agreement. Section 1 of the Agreement,
"Definitions," is amended as follows:'

           a.         The definition of Interest Payment is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

                      "Interest Payment" means the payment of interest on the unpaid principal
                      balance of the Purchase Price (adjusted to reflect a $200,316 reduction in
                      the Purchase Price on June 1, 2005, and an additional adjustment of
                      $397,902.15 reduction in the Purchase Price on June 1, 2006) in
                      accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto.

           b.         The definition of Principal Payment is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

                      "Principal Payment" means the payment of the Purchase Price (adjusted to
                      reflect a $200,316 reduction in the Purchase Price on June 1, 2005, and an
                      additional adjustment of $397,902.15 reduction in the Purchase Price on
                      June 1, 2006) in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit B
                      attached hereto.

      Section 2. Amendment to Exhibit B to Agreement. Exhibit B to the Agreement is
amended in its entirety and replaced with the Exhibit B attached to this Amendment.

        Section 3. Definitions. All capitalized terms not defined in this Second Amendment
shall have such meanings as defined in the Agreement.

         Section 4. Ratification. Except as amended by this Second Amendment, the Agreement
is in all other respect ratified and confirmed.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City, Seller and Trustee have caused these presents to
be signed all as of the day and year first above written.

                                                    CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
                                                         "City"


                                                    By:
                                                              George K. Heartwell, Mayor

                                                    Attest:



                                                    Mary Therese Hegarty, City Clerk



           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
             SECOND AMENDMENT TO INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                     Page 2
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169193
                                     DP FOX SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT,
                                     L.L.C.
                                            "Seller"


                                     By:
                                           Its:


                                     LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


                                     By:
                                           R. Jason Fry
                                           Vice President-Trust Officer




           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
             SECOND AMENDMENT TO INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                     Page 3
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169193
                                                 EXHIBIT B

                                      INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS

  Payment Date               Principal Payment        Interest Payment   Total Payment

6/1/06                          $67,552.32               $18,424.84       $85,977.16

12/1/06                                                      9,766.27       9,766.27

6/1/07                           38,005.35                   9,766.27      47,771.62

12/1/07                                                      9,197.18       9,197.18

6/1/08                           39,164.05                   9,197.18      48,361.23

12/1/08                                                      8,537.44       8,537.44

6/1/09                           40,554.48                   8,537.44      49,091.92

12/1/09                                                      7,828.98       7,828.98

6/1/10                           41,713.18                   7,828.98      49,542.16

12/1/10                                                      7,100.27       7,100.27

6/1/11                           44,030.58                   7,100.27      51,130.85

12/1/11                                                      6,276.13       6,276.13

6/1/12                           46,347.98                   6,276.13      52,624.11

12/1/12                                                      5,408.63       5,408.63

6/1/13                           46,347.98                   5,408.63      51,756.61

12/1/13                                                      4,483.28       4,483.28

6/1/14                           48,665.38                   4,483.28      53,148.66

12/1/14                                                      3,511.68       3,511.68

6/1/15                           50,982.78                   3,511.68      54,494.46



           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
             SECOND AMENDMENT TO INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                    Page A-1
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169193v1
  Payment Date               Principal Payment   Interest Payment   Total Payment

12/1/15                                                2,392.01        2,392.01

6/1/16                           53,300.18             2,392.01       55,692.19

12/1/16                                                1,221.45        1,221.45

6/1/17                           55,617.59             1,221.45       56,839.04

TOTAL:                         $572,281.85         $149,871.48      $722,153.33




           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
             SECOND AMENDMENT TO INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                    Page A-2
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169193v1
                             INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT

       THIS INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT made and executed as of June 1,
2006 (the "Agreement"), by and between the CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, Kent County,
Michigan, a Michigan municipal corporation (the "City"), WIELAND INTERNATIONAL, Grand
Rapids, Michigan (the "Seller"), and LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, as trustee (the "Trustee") pursuant to a Trust Indenture dated as of December 1,
2002, between the City and the Trustee (the "Indenture").

                                         WITNESSETH:

        WHEREAS, the City on December 19, 2002 issued its $3,975,000 City of Grand Rapids
Municipal Purchase Notes, Series 2002A (General Obligation Limited Tax) (the "Series 2002A
Notes") to provide funding for the acquisition of certain real and personal property in accordance
with the Indenture and eight installment purchase agreements between the City, Trustee and
respectively an individual vendor as authorized by Act 99 of the Public Acts of Michigan of
1933, as amended; and

        WHEREAS, one of the installment purchase agreements related to the Series 2002A
Notes is an Installment Purchase Contract dated as of December 1, 2002, including a First
Amendment to Installment Purchase Contract dated as of June 1, 2005 (collectively, the "DP Fox
Agreement"), by and between the City, DP Fox Sports & Entertainment, L.L.C., as seller (the
"Seller"), and Trustee related to the acquisition of certain real property (the "Belknap Addition");
and

       WHEREAS, the City has determined to reduce the amount of the obligation under the
DP Fox Agreement by $397,902.15 by utilizing available operating revenues from the Belknap
Addition; and

       WHEREAS, the City intends to use such revenues to finance a portion of the costs of
acquiring the Equipment (as hereinafter defined) for use by the City for public purposes in
accordance with an installment purchase plan pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the
Indenture with the payments to be made hereunder in connection with the Series 2002A Notes to
be substituted for amounts by which similar payments were reduced in the DP Fox Agreement
pursuant to a Second Amendment to Installment Purchase Contract dated of even date hereof
between the City, Seller and Trustee.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the respective representations and agreements
herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

        Section 1. Definitions. Unless the context requires otherwise, words and terms defined in
the Indenture shall have the meanings given them in the Indenture and the following words and
terms, wherever used in this Agreement shall have the following meanings, unless the context shall
indicate another or different meaning:


           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
                        INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                     Page 1
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169195v1
           "Act" means Act 99 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1933, as amended.

       "Agreement" means this Installment Purchase Contract by and between the City, Seller and
Trustee.

       "City" means the City of Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan, a Michigan municipal
corporation.

        "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Reference to the Code shall
also include applicable regulations and proposed regulations thereunder and any successor
provisions thereof.

         "Contract Price" means the cost of acquiring the Equipment, excluding the payment of any
interest, in the amount of $397,902.15.

           "Equipment" means the property described in Exhibit A attached hereto.

      "Financed Purchase Price" means $397,902.15 provided pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement.

        "Installment Payments" mean the Principal Payments and Interest Payments identified in
Exhibit B attached hereto.

       "Interest Payment" means the payment of interest on the unpaid principal balance of the
Purchase Price in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto.

       "Interest Rate" means the interest rate on the Notes, computed on the basis of a 360-day year
comprised of twelve 30-day months.

        "Payment Date" means the date a Principal Payment and/or Interest Payment are due and
payable in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. The first Payment
Date shall be June 1, 2006, and subsequent Payment Dates shall be on each June 1, and December 1
thereafter to and including June 1, 2017.

       "Principal Payment" means the payment of a principal installment of the Purchase Price in
accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto.

        "Purchase Price" means the Contract Price of the Equipment in the amount of $397,902.15
plus the payment of interest.

           "Seller" means Wieland International.

           "State" means the State of Michigan.

           "Trustee" means LaSalle Bank National Association, Grand Rapids, Michigan.



           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
                        INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                     Page 2
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169195
        Section 2. Purchase of Equipment. The City agrees to purchase and the Seller agrees to
sell and provide the Equipment to the City for the Contract Price pursuant to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement. The City will pay, or cause to be paid, the Seller the Contract Price
for the Equipment upon receipt and acceptance by the City of the Equipment from the Seller
provided the City has not already paid the Seller such Contract Price.

         Section 3. Assignment of Seller's Interest. The Seller hereby irrevocably assigns its
interest in this Agreement, except for certain warranties, indemnifications, representations and other
obligations as hereinafter provided, to the Trustee for the equal and ratable benefit of the
Noteholders in consideration for the City's promise to pay the Seller the Financed Purchase Price of
the Equipment upon receipt and acceptance by the City of the Equipment. Such assignment shall
not, however, include any warranties, indemnifications, representations or other obligations of the
Seller referenced in Section 14 hereof, and Seller hereby acknowledges that all of said warranties,
indemnifications, representations and other obligations shall not be assigned and shall remain the
sole responsibility of the Seller. The City hereby consents to this assignment. The Trustee hereby
accepts this assignment.

         Section 4. Installment Payments. The City agrees to pay to the Trustee, as assignee of the
Seller, the Principal Payments and the Interest Payments on the Payment Dates in accordance with
the schedule set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto as payment for the Equipment on an installment
purchase plan in accordance with the Act. The City further agrees to make all payments required by
Section 16 of this Agreement.

       Section 5. Payments Unconditional. The City's obligation to the Trustee to pay the
Principal Payments and Interest Payments and any other amounts owed hereunder is absolute and
unconditional and shall remain in full force and effect until the amounts owed hereunder shall have
been paid by the City to the Trustee, and such obligation shall not be affected, modified or impaired
upon the happening from time to time of any event, including without limitation, any of the
following:

           (a)        any failure of title with respect to the Seller's interest in the Equipment;

           (b)        the invalidity, unenforceability or termination of this Agreement;

       (c)     the modification or amendment (whether material or otherwise) of any obligation,
covenant or agreement set forth in this Agreement;

        (d)     the voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution, sale or other disposition of all or
substantially all of the assets, marshalling of assets and liabilities, receivership, insolvency,
bankruptcy, assignment for the benefit of creditors, reorganization, arrangement, composition with
creditors or readjustment or other similar proceedings affecting the Seller or any of its assets or any
allocation or contest of the validity of this Agreement, or the disaffirmance of this Agreement in any
such proceeding;

        (e)     to the extent permitted by law, any event or action which would, in the absence of
this clause, result in release or discharge by operation of law of the Seller from the performance or
observation of any obligation, covenant or agreement contained in this Agreement;

           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
                        INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                     Page 3
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169195
        (f)   the default or failure of the Seller fully to perform any of its obligations set forth in
this Agreement or any other agreement; or

           (g)        any casualty or destruction of the Equipment.

        The City shall make payments when due and shall not withhold any such payments as a
result of any disputes arising between the City and the Seller or any other person, nor shall the City
assert any right of set-off or counterclaim against its obligation to make such payments or be entitled
to any abatement of such payments as a result of accident or unforeseen circumstances, or the
Equipment being unsuitable.

       Section 6. Prepayment. The Principal Payments due on and after June 1, 2013, may be
prepaid by the City in whole or in part on any date on or after June 1, 2012, in order that the Notes
may be redeemed prior to maturity in multiples of $5,000 at par.

      Section 7. Title to Equipment. Upon delivery to and acceptance by the City, title to the
Equipment shall vest in the City.

        Section 8. Useful Life of Equipment. The City represents that the useful life of the
Equipment is equal to or longer than the date of the final Principal Payment as set forth in Exhibit B
attached hereto.

        Section 9. Security for Payment - Limited Full Faith and Credit. The City agrees to
include in its budget for each fiscal year during the term hereof an amount sufficient to pay when
due the Installment Payments coming due under this Agreement during such fiscal year. In addition,
the City hereby pledges to levy in each fiscal year ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the
City in an amount which, together with other funds available for such purpose, shall be sufficient for
the payment of such Installment Payments in such fiscal year. Any such tax levy is, however,
subject to existing charter, statutory and constitutional tax limitations.

       Section 10. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall terminate on the final Payment
Date indicated on Exhibit B attached hereto.

           Section 11. Representations of the City. The City makes the following representations:

        (a)    The City is a public body corporate and politic duly organized and legally existing
under the constitution and laws of the State of Michigan.

        (b)     The City will do or cause to be done all things necessary to preserve and keep in full
force and effect its existence as a public body corporate and politic.

         (c)     The City is authorized under the constitution and laws of the State and under its
charter to enter into this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby and to perform all of
its obligations hereunder.



           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
                        INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                     Page 4
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169195
        (d)    This Agreement constitutes a legal, valid, binding and enforceable obligation of the
City in accordance with its terms, except to the extent limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency,
reorganization or other laws affecting creditors' rights generally.

        (e)     During the term of this Agreement, the Equipment will be used exclusively by the
City only for the purpose of performing one or more governmental public functions of the City
consistent with the permissible scope of the City's authority.

        (f)    There is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity,
before or by any court, public board or body, pending or threatened against or affecting the City, nor
to the best knowledge of the City is there any basis therefor, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling
or finding would materially adversely affect the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. All
actions, authorizations, consents and approvals of governmental bodies or agencies required in
connection with the execution and delivery by the City of this Agreement or in connection with the
carrying out by the City of its obligations hereunder have been obtained.

        (g)     Neither the payment of the Principal Payments and Interest Payments hereunder nor
any portion thereof is directly or indirectly (a) secured by any interest in (i) property used or to be
used for a private business use (within the meaning of Section 141(b) of the Code) or (ii) payments
in respect of such property or (b) to be derived from payments (whether or not from the City) in
respect of property, or borrowed money, used or to be used for a private business use (within the
meaning of Section 141(b) of the Code). No portion of the Equipment will be used for any private
business use (within the meaning of Section 141(b) of the Code).

         (h)    The entering into and performance of this Agreement or any other document or
agreement contemplated hereby to which the City is or is to be a party will not violate any judgment,
order, law or regulation applicable to the City.

        (i)   The resolution of October 26, 2004, expressing its intent to reimburse itself the cost
of the Equipment which was not adopted later than 60 days after the date the City purchased the
Equipment.

      (j)     The City has adopted a binding resolution determining the useful life of the
Equipment is equal to or longer than the date of final payment hereunder.

           Section 12. Representations of the Seller. The Seller makes the following representations:

        (a)    It has the legal capacity to execute this Agreement and to carry out its obligations
and undertakings hereunder and the person executing this Agreement on its behalf has been duly
authorized to do so.

        (b)     The Agreement is valid, binding and enforceable in accordance with its terms, except
as enforcement may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or other laws
affecting creditors' rights generally.

        Section 13. Tax Covenants. The City hereby agrees to comply with all applicable
provisions of the Code that must be satisfied at the time of delivery of or subsequent to delivery of

           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
                        INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                     Page 5
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169195
this Agreement in order that the Interest Payments be (or continue to be) excluded from gross
income for federal income tax purposes. The City further covenants and agrees that it will not take
or cause to be taken any action or fail to take any action with respect to the investment of the
proceeds (as that term is used in Section 148 of the Code) of the Series 2002A Notes which results in
this Agreement constituting "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of such term as used in Section
148 of the Code and that it will comply with any applicable rebate requirements of Section 148(f) of
the Code.

        Section 14. Seller's Representations, Warranties and Indemnification. The Seller
agrees to all of the instructions, terms and conditions as outlined in the City's invitation for bids and
acceptance thereof by the City or any other agreement between the City and the Seller to purchase
the Equipment. In the event of a conflict in terms between this Agreement and the above referenced
documents, the specific terms of this Agreement shall govern. Representations, warranties and
indemnification, if any, with respect to the Equipment shall not be assigned, but shall remain
enforceable by the City against the Seller. The City's sole remedy for the breach of any such
warranties, representations or indemnification shall be against the Seller. The City expressly
acknowledges that the Trustee makes, and has made, no representation of warranties whatsoever as
to the existence or availability or enforceability of such warranties of the Seller.

         Section 15. Disclaimer of Warranties by Trustee. The Trustee makes no warranty or
representation, either expressed or implied, as to the value, design, condition, merchantability or
fitness for particular purpose or fitness for use of the Equipment or warranty with respect thereto. In
no event shall the Trustee be liable for any incidental, indirect, special, or consequential damage in
connection with or arising out of this Agreement or the existence, furnishing, functioning or the
City's use of the Equipment.

        Section 16. Indemnification by City. To the extent permitted by the laws and the
constitution of the State, the City shall protect, hold harmless and indemnify the Trustee from and
against any and all liability, obligations, losses, claims and damages whatsoever, regardless of cause
thereto, and expenses in connection therewith, including without limitation, reasonable counsel fees
and expenses arising out of the acquisition, use, operation, condition, purchase, delivery, rejection,
storage or return of any Equipment or any accident in connection with the operation, use, condition,
possession, storage or return of any Equipment resulting in damage to property or injury or death to
any person. This indemnification shall continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the full
payment of all obligations under this Agreement or the termination of this Agreement for any
reason.

      Section 17. Events of Default. The following shall be an "Event of Default" under this
Agreement and the Indenture:

         (a)    Failure by the City to make the Principal Payments and Interest Payments to the
Trustee to enable the Trustee to pay the principal of and interest on the Notes when due as provided
in the Indenture; or

        (b)      Failure of the City to perform or observe any other covenant, condition or agreement
on its part to be performed or observed under the Indenture and such failure is not cured within thirty
(30) days after written notice thereof is given by the Trustee except as provided in the Indenture.

           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
                        INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                     Page 6
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169195
        Section 18. Remedies Upon Default. Whenever an Event of Default referred to in Section
17 hereof shall occur and be continuing, the Trustee and Noteholders shall have such remedies as set
forth in Article VI of the Indenture and in the event payment on the Notes is accelerated, all
payments due hereunder shall be immediately accelerated.

        Section 19. Notices. All notices, certificates or other communications hereunder shall be
sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when dispatched by registered or certified mail, return
receipt requested, postage prepaid, or by hand delivery, or by telegram and confirmed the same day
by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or prepaid overnight
delivery addressed as follows:

If to the City:

           City of Grand Rapids
           City Hall, 4th Floor
           300 Monroe Avenue, N.W.
           Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503
           Attention: Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Services

If to the Trustee:

           LaSalle Bank National Association
           77 Monroe Center, N.W.
           Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503

If to the Seller:

           Wieland International
           215 Hall Street, S.W.
           Grand Rapids, Michigan 49507

The parties hereto may, by notice given hereunder, designate any further or different address to
which subsequent notices, certificates or other communications may be sent.

       Section 20. Governing Law.              This Agreement shall be construed in all respects in
accordance with the laws of the State.

       Section 21. Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid
or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render
unenforceable any other provision hereof.

       Section 22. Binding Effect. The covenants herein contained shall bind, and the benefits
and advantages shall inure to, the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto.




           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
                        INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                     Page 7
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169195
       Section 23. Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several
counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the
same instrument.

       Section 24. Captions. The captions or headings in this Agreement are for convenience only
and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provisions or sections of this
Agreement.

        Section 25. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between
the parties, and there are no representations, warranties, promises, guarantees or agreements, oral or
written, express or implied, between the parties hereto with respect to this Agreement except the
provisions of the Indenture between the City and Trustee.

        Section 26. Amendments. This Agreement may not be effectively amended, changed,
modified, altered or terminated without the prior written consent of the City and Trustee. Any such
amendment, change, modification, alteration or termination shall be in accordance with Article IX of
the Indenture.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City, Trustee and Seller have caused these presents to be
signed all as of the day and year first above written.

                                               CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
                                               "City"

                                               By:
                                                         George K. Heartwell, Mayor

                                               Attest:


                                               Mary Therese Hegarty, City Clerk


                                               WIELAND INTERNATIONAL
                                               "Seller"


                                               By:

                                                         Its:




                                               LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
                                               "Trustee"


           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
                        INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                     Page 8
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169195
                                     By:
                                           R. Jason Fry
                                           Vice President-Trust Officer




           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
                        INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                     Page 9
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169195
                                        EXHIBIT A


                                LIST OF PROPERTY


 Description                 Quantity               Unit Price   Total Price
 Snow control truck             3               $103,919.66      $311,759.00
 Dump truck                     1                   $86,143.15    $86,143.15




           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
                        INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                    Page A-1
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169195
                                          EXHIBIT B


                               INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS

         Payment Date      Principal Payment     Interest Payment   Total Payment
              12/1/06                                 $7,729.73       $7,729.73
               6/1/07        $29,961.41                7,729.73       37,691.14
              12/1/07                                  7,279.32        7,279.32
               6/1/08         30,874.86                7,279.32       38,154.18
              12/1/08                                  6,757.15        6,757.15
               6/1/09         31,971.02                6,757.15       38,728.17
              12/1/09                                  6,196.42        6,196.42
               6/1/10         32,884.48                6,196.42       39,080.90
              12/1/10                                  5,619.67        5,619.67
               6/1/11         34,711.39                5,619.67       40,331.06
              12/1/11                                  4,967.39        4,967.39
               6/1/12         36,538.31                4,967.39       41,505.70
              12/1/12                                  4,280.78        4,280.78
               6/1/13         36,538.31                4,280.78       40,819.09
              12/1/13                                  3,548.40        3,548.40
               6/1/14         38,365.22                3,548.40       41,913.62
              12/1/14                                  2,779.39        2,779.39
               6/1/15         40,192.14                2,779.39       42,971.53
              12/1/15                                  1,893.21        1,893.21
               6/1/16         42,019.05                1,893.21       43,912.26
              12/1/16                                   966.75           966.75
               6/1/17         43,845.96                 966.75        44,812.71
                            $397,902.15           $104,036.42       $501,938.57




           CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS MUNICIPAL PURCHASE NOTES, SERIES 2002A
                        INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                    Page B-1
GRAPIDS 60854-146 169195
DATE:              August 23, 2006

TO:                Scott Buhrer
                   Chief Financial Officer

FROM:              Gail Warren
                   Budget Analyst

                   PROPOSED MODIFICATION FOR FY2007 BUDGET ORDINANCE
SUBJECT:           AMENDMENT # 6

1) Traffic Safety – Conduit for Underground Duct System
   The City of Grand Rapids had previously agreed to participate with Consumers Energy and
   Comcast in the joint construction and operation of an underground duct system in Michigan
   Street from Monroe Ave. NW to Lafayette Ave NE. The Traffic Safety Department is
   requesting a budget amendment to recognize $75,000 in revenue from the Smart Zone
   Authority towards funding the costs associated with the construction of a manhole and
   underground conduit, as well as placement of conduit on the bridge over BR 131 in
   connection to the above-mentioned project (See Attachment A).

   This would authorize an increase in the amount of $75,000 in the Estimated Revenues and
   Appropriations of the Capital Improvement Fund. There would be no effect on Fund
   Balance.

2) Streets & Sanitation – Street Capital Operating Transfers from FY2006 to FY2007
   Due to fiscal constraints in FY2006, the operating transfer from the Major Streets Fund to
   the Streets Capital Fund was not completed in its entirety. A portion of funding is now
   available in FY2007 and the remainder will be available as gas and weight tax revenue
   distributions received from the State, and a budget amendment is being requested to
   complete this transfer (See Attachment B).

   This would authorize an increase in the Appropriations and a decrease in the Fund Balance
   of the Major Streets Fund in the amount of $1,395,000. It would also authorize an increase
   in Estimated Revenues and in Fund Balance of the Streets Capital Fund in the amount of
   $1,395,000.

3) Engineering – Vacation of Raymond Place
   In a companion item on the Community Development Committee agenda, a resolution will
   be presented to the City Commission consenting to the vacation of Raymond Place. This
   budget amendment would recognize the revenue and establish the appropriation of a
   deposit from the developer for this project (See Attachment C).
   This would authorize an increase of $3,000 in the Estimated Revenue and Appropriations
   of the Capital Improvement Fund. There would be no effect on Fund Balance.

4) Engineering – Eastside CSO Control Program
   In a companion item on the Community Development Committee agenda, a resolution will
   be presented to the City Commission authorizing Black & Veatch Ltd. Of Michigan to
   provide design and engineering services for Contract Nos. 8-12 in connection with the
   above-mentioned project. This budget amendment will provide the funding necessary for
   the professional services to be paid from the Sewer Disposal System Fund Revenue Bonds
   (See Attachment D).

   This would authorize an increase of $1,505,000 in the Estimated Revenue and
   Appropriations of the Sewage Disposal System Fund. There would be no effect on Fund
   Balance.

5) Engineering – Improvements to the Northeast Corner of Division Ave. and 28th St.
   In a companion item on the Community Development Committee agenda, a resolution will
   be presented to the City Commission approving an agreement with the Michigan
   Department of Transportation and authorizing expenditures in connection with the above-
   mentioned project. This budget amendment will recognize the revenue and establish the
   appropriation for the funding provided by Neighborhood Ventures, Inc. for a portion of its
   share of the costs (See Attachment E).

   This would authorize an increase of $3,624 in the Estimated Revenue and Appropriations
   of the Streets Capital Fund. There would be no effect on Fund Balance.
                                      Attachment A




Date:       August 16, 2006

To:         Scott Buhrer
            Chief Financial Officer

From:       Patrick Bush
            Public Works Director

Subject:    Traffic Safety Budget Amendment: $75,000

The City has previously agreed to participate with Consumers Energy and Comcast in the joint
construction and operation of an underground duct system in Michigan Street from Monroe
Ave NW to Lafayette Ave NE. At the time of original construction, conduit was not placed on
the bridge over Division Ave. Reconstruction of the convention center and development along
the Michigan Street corridor has made it necessary to complete the missing link in the corridor.
The work involves the construction of a manhole and underground conduit, as well as
placement of conduit on the bridge over BR 131 (Division Ave).

Consumers Energy undertook the design, permitting and construction in 2005. Total project
cost was $324,101.55. The City’s share of the project is $108,033.85. The “Smart Zone”
authority agreed to contribute $75,000 towards the City’s share. That amount has been
transferred by the authority and recorded as revenue to the Street Lighting Divisions capital
project 19C444. The remainder will be funded by the Traffic Safety Capital Improvement
Program (Project 19C444 Conversion of Overhead Conductors to Underground).

On August 15, 2006, the City Commission approved a resolution authorizing the payment to
Consumer’s Energy. We are now requesting a budget amendment to recognize the $75,000 in
revenue from the Smart Zone Authority and to establish the appropriation for this expense.



PJB/jrc
                                            Attachment B




DATE:                  August 22, 2006

TO:                    Scott Buhrer
                       Chief Financial Officer

FROM:                  Patrick Bush
                       Public Works Director

SUBJECT:               Budget Amendment: Street Fund FY06 Reappropration to FY07

Due to fiscal constraints in FY06, the Street Fund was unable to complete the entire FY06 budgeted
operating transfer to the Street Capital fund, therefore, some capital projects were not fully funded.
However, all of FY06 Act 51 revenue has now been received and the remainder of the operating
transfer can occur so long as the expense is reappropriated to FY07. We are now requesting a budget
amendment to allow the remaining FY06 budgeted Street Capital operating transfer of $1,395,000 to be
reappropriated to FY07, and that the budget be adjusted accordingly (45102/999). This will ensure that
the Street Capital projects listed below receive the FY06 budgeted project funding from the Major Street
Fund:

                                                           TOTAL       FY06 STREET FUND
    CAPITAL PROJECT                                        BUDGET           PORTION
1) 213035-0101 (Division Avenue, Alger to Quigley)         $1,149,408        $ 665,000
2) 212005-B230 (East Side CSO Separation)                  $2,776,100        $ 720,000
3) 226506 (Various Locations: Concrete Street Repair)      $ 100,000         $ 10,000
                                                                  TOTAL:     $1,395,000

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.


PJB/jrc



cc:       Greg Sundstrom, Chief Services Officer
          Ruth Lueders, Deputy City Comptroller
          Gary Mortensen, Budget Analyst
          Jenni Corrigan, Public Works Financial Analyst
                                             Attachment C




DATE:                     August 23, 2006

TO:                       Scott Buhrer
                          Assistant City Manager, Fiscal Services

FROM:                     Rick DeVries, P.E.
                          Acting City Engineer

SUBJECT:                  Request for Capital Improvement Fund Budget Amendment –
                          Vacation of Raymond Place from approximately 262 feet South of
                          Cherry Street to Cherry Street

Periodically, the City receives deposits for street and alley vacations as a condition of approval.
On August 29, 2006, a resolution consenting to the vacation of Raymond Place in connection
with the above-captioned project will be presented to the City Commission for its consideration/
approval. The following budget amendment will establish the appropriation in the Capital
Improvement Fund recognizing a deposit from the developer in connection with this street
vacation. Please include this request in your next budget amendment.
                                                                              Amount
              Sources/Appropriations                Project Description      (From)/To
              Deposit from Non-City Source
              2260GCP401-675002                  Restricted Contributions    ($3,000)
              Capital Improvement Fund
              2260GCP401-986-227401              Vacation of Raymond Place    $3,000

If you have any questions, please advise. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

RDV/TLH/dv

cc:     Eric DeLong
        Gary Mortensen
        Nancy Recker
        Gail Warren
        Ruth Lueders
        Tracy Hover
t:\cd06\budget\FC Raymond Pl amdmt
082906
                                               Attachment D




DATE:                      August 23, 2006

TO:                        Scott Buhrer
                           Assistant City Manager, Fiscal Services

FROM:                      Rick DeVries, P.E.
                           Acting City Engineer

SUBJECT:                   Request for Sewer System Fund Budget Amendment –
                           Eastside CSO Control Program – Increase for Design Engineering
                           Services in connection with Eastside Combined Sewer Overflow
                           Contract Nos. 8 - 12

On August 29, 2006 a resolution authorizing Black & Veatch Ltd. of Michigan to provide design
engineering services for Contract Nos. 8 - 12 in connection with the above-captioned project will
be presented to the City Commission for its consideration/approval. Approval of the following
budget amendment will provide the funding necessary for the professional services. These costs
will be paid from Sewer System Fund Revenue Bonds. Please include this request in your next
budget amendment.
                                                                                     Amount
        Sources/Appropriations                         Project Description          (From)/To
Sewer System Fund Revenue Bonds                ESCSO Contracts 8-12 – Design Eng   ($1,505,000)
4490532-986-215902                             ESCSO Contracts 8-12 – Design Eng    $1,505,000

If you have any questions, please advise. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
TLH/dv

cc:      Eric DeLong
         Corky Overmyer
         Chuck Schroeder
         Linda Wagenmaker
         Gary Mortensen
         Nancy Recker
         Gail Warren
         Ruth Lueders
         Tracy Hover
t:\cd06\budget\FC ESCSO Contracts 8-12 amdmt
082906
#95067
                                                        Attachment E




DATE:                     August 23, 2006

TO:                       Scott Buhrer
                          Assistant City Manager, Fiscal Services

FROM:                     Rick DeVries, P.E.
                          Acting City Engineer

SUBJECT:                  Request for Street Fund Budget Amendment –
                          Improvements to the Northeast Corner of Division Avenue
                          and 28th Street (M-11) Intersection (Gateway Project)

On August 29, 2006 a resolution approving an agreement with the Michigan Department of
Transportation and authorizing expenditures in connection with the above-captioned project will b
presented to the City Commission for its consideration/approval. The following budget amendme
in the Street Fund recognizing revenue/expenditures reimbursement from Neighborhood Venture
Inc. for a portion of its share of costs for the above-captioned project is necessary. Please includ
this request in your next budget amendment.
                                                                                           Amount
                        Account                             Project Description           (From)/To
            Revenue Reimbursement
            2260405-675002                            Impr to NE Corner of Division Ave   ($3,624)
                                                      and 28th St Intersection
            Expenditure
            2260405-986-215560                        Impr to NE Corner of Division Ave    $3,624
                                                      and 28th St Intersection

If you have any questions, please advise. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
TLH/dv
cc:      Eric DeLong
         Pat Bush
         Darrell VanderKooi
         Ruth Lueders
         Gary Mortensen
         Nancy Recker
         Gail Warren
         Tracy Hover
t:\cd06\budget\FC NE Corner Division and 28th amdmt
082906
#05009
                                           FOR IMMEDIATE EFFECT

YOUR FISCAL COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following amendment to the Budget
Ordinance for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2007.



                                           _____________________________________

     CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                      _____________________________________
    DEPARTMENT OF LAW



                                           _____________________________________
                                                      FISCAL COMMITTEE


Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

                                      ORDINANCE NO. 2006 ________

                     THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS DO ORDAIN:

Section 1. That the following constitutes amended additions to the designated line items of Section 1 of
Ordinance 2006-38, the Budget of the City of Grand Rapids for Fiscal Year 2006-2007, as amended
previously.

Drafted by: Gail Warren, Budget Analyst.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
Resources:
     From (To) Fund Balance                                       78,000
Total Amended Resources                                        6,773,170


Appropriations:                                                   78,000
Total Amended Appropriations                                   6,773,170

SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM FUND
Resources:
     From (To) Fund Balance                                   1,505,000
Total Amended Resources                                      46,370,904


Appropriations:                                               1,505,000
Total Amended Appropriations                                 46,370,904

MAJOR STREETS FUND
Resources:
     From (To) Fund Balance                                   1,395,000
Total Amended Resources                                      15,036,398


Appropriations:                                               1,395,000
Total Amended Appropriations                                 15,036,398

STREETS CAPITAL FUND
Resources:
     Other                                                    1,395,000
     From (To) Fund Balance                                  (1,391,376)
Total Amended Resources                                       2,904,099


Appropriations:                                                    3,624
Total Amended Appropriations                                   2,904,099

                                          Yeas                       Nays

                                          _____   Bliss             _____

                                          _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                          _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                          _____   Schmidt           _____

                                          _____   Tormala           _____

                                          _____   White             _____

                                          _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                               Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                               Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
Your Fiscal Committee recommends the adoption of the following resolution authorizing
the Purchasing Agent to proceed with awards to the following bidders.


                                                   ______________________________________

                                                   ______________________________________

                                                   ______________________________________
                                                          Fiscal Committee


Com.________________________, supported by Com._______________________
moved adoption of the following resolution.

        WHEREAS, the Fiscal Committee has considered the attached bids.

     NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Purchasing Agent be authorized to
proceed with awards to the following bidders, that contracts be prepared between the City
and for the vendors noted (*) that the Mayor be authorized to sign the contracts on behalf
of the City in a form to be approved by the City Attorney.


Cohu Inc.                      (Video Camera’s & Repair)                             Various Prices
Michigan Police Equipment      (Various Police Equipment)                            Various Prices
Crosstown Communications        (Advertising, Transit Bus)                              $19,500.00
Voss Lighting                 (Electric Lamps, Light Bulbs)                          Various Prices
Traffic & Safety Control (Cashier Stations, Furnished & Installed)                   Various Prices
IPM Service                  (Pest Control, Interior/Exterior)                       Various Prices
Rose Pest Solutions



This resolution drafted by Scott Buhrer 08/29/06
                                                                         Yeas                      Nays

                                                                         _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                         _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                         _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                         _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                         _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                         _____   White             _____

                                                                         _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                              Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                              Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
                                      CITY COMMISSION MEETING

                                                  08/29/06

Following are brief reports relative to bids, which have been taken and evaluated by the Purchasing
Department. Award of the bids as listed is hereby recommended.



                                                Scott Buhrer
                                                Purchasing Agent


Cohu Inc.                                 (Video Camera’s & Repair)                           Various Prices
On 05/23/06, file #75013, the City Commission approved a one year “Term” with two, one year renewal
options for the purchase and repair of traffic control video cameras and cable for Traffic Safety from Cohu
Inc. for an annual of $26,000.00. At this time the department has identified a need to increase the annual
by $25,000.00 for additional cameras required by the State of Michigan for a new annual of $51,000.00.
There is no bid tab for this item. The Vendor’s Affirmative Action Plan has been approved.

Michigan Police Equipment              (Various Police Equipment)                         Various Prices
Low total bid is recommended for a one-year “Term” with two, one-year renewal options for the purchase of
various police equipment from Michigan Police Equipment for an annual of $57,777.00. The lower bids by
Argus Supply and Nye Uniform did not bid all items. The Vendor’s Affirmative Action Plan has been
approved.

Crosstown Communications                   (Advertising, Transit Bus)                           $19,500.00
A cooperative purchase is recommended through the Interurban Transit Partnership for the production,
installation, and removal of advertising on a “Rapid” bus for the Fire Department for one year from
Crosstown Communications for $19,500.00. The advertising will consist of a fire-engine theme with Fire
department logos and slogans promoting fire safety. There is no bid tab for this item. The award is pending
approval of the Vendor’s Affirmative Action Plan.

Voss Lighting                           (Electric Lamps, Light Bulbs)                          Various Prices
On 08/19/03, file #71508, the City Commission approved a one-year term with two, one-year renewal
options for a cooperative purchase with the State of Michigan for purchase of electric lamps and light bulbs
for Citywide use from Voss Lighting for an annual of $ 85,000.00. At this time, it is recommended to extend
the contract on a month by month basis until the project can be rebid. There is no bid tab for this item. The
Vendor’s Affirmative Action Plan has been approved.

Traffic & Safety Control           (Cashier Stations, Furnished & Installed)              Various Prices
O.E.M. (Original Equipment Manufacturer) is recommended for the purchase and installation of four auto
cashier stations for Parking Services from Traffic & Safety Control for $53,060.00. The Vendor’s
Affirmative Action Plan has been approved.

IPM Services
Rose Pest Solutions                     (Pest Control, Interior/Exterior)                Various Prices
Low bids are recommended for a one year “Term” with two, one-year renewal options for pest control
services for Facilities Management, Parks, WWTP, and Parking from IPM Services for sections I, II, III, IV,
& VI for an annual of $10,829.00 and for Neighborhood Improvement from Rose Pest Solutions for section
V for an annual of $396.00. The award for Rose Pest Solutions is pending approval of the Vendor’s
Affirmative Action Plan. The Affirmative Action Plan for IPM Services has been approved.
                                                            BID TAB                                                       page1 of 1

BID REF #680-12-14                        TOTAL         CASH   DISCOUNT: DISCOUNT: DISCOUNT:   DISCOUNT: DISCOUNT: DISCOUNT:
BID OPENING DATE: JUNE 13, 2006        ITEMS #1-23   DISCOUNTS
FOR: POLICE EQUIPMENT                    VARIOUS     INCENTIVE  2ND TIER   JOINT   WORKFORCE TARGETED       INCOME  GENERAL
# BIDDERS SOLICITED: 28                   POLICE     DISCOUNTS            VENTURE   DIVERSITY ACQUISITION     TAX    TARGET
BUYER: RALPH JOHNSON                   EQUIPMENT                                                          INCENTIVE   AREA
DEPT: POLICE                                $

                              YEAR 1

                              YEAR 2

                              YEAR 3

                                       $25,518.50*
   ARGUS SUPPLY
                                       $26,524.75*

                                       $27,579.00*

                                       $38,010.00*
   NYE UNIFORM CO
                                       $40,217.50*

                                       $42,875.00*

                                       $56,086.75
   MICHIGAN POLICE EQUIPMENT
                                       $56,917.50

                                       $57,777.00




*DID NOT BID ALL ITEMS SPECIFIED
 IN THE BID DOCUMENT
                                                      BID TAB                                                                   page1 of 1

BID REF #550-38-100                 ITEM 1        CASH     DISCOUNT:   DISCOUNT:   DISCOUNT:   DISCOUNT:    DISCOUNT:   DISCOUNT:
BID OPENING DATE: JUNE 30, 2006   LUMP SUM     DISCOUNTS
FOR: AUTOMATIC CASHIER STATIONS      AUTO      INCENTIVE   2ND TIER     JOINT      WORKFORCE TARGETED        INCOME     GENERAL
# BIDDERS SOLICITED: 1             CASHIER     DISCOUNTS               VENTURE      DIVERSITY ACQUISITION      TAX       TARGET
BUYER: AMIE MERREN                STATIONS                                                                  INCENTIVE     AREA
DEPT: PARKING                          $




   TRAFFIC & SAFETY CONTROL
                                  $53,060.00
                                                                          BID TAB                                  page1 of 2

BID REF #910-59-12                    SECTION I   SECTION II   SECTION III   SECTION IV   SECTION V   SECTION VI        CASH
BID OPENING DATE: 07/14/06              PEST        PEST         PEST           PEST         PEST     ADDITIONAL     DISCOUNTS
FOR: Pest Control                     CONTROL     CONTROL      CONTROL        CONTROL     CONTROL      SERVICES      INCENTIVE
# BIDDERS SOLICITED: 14                  FAC       PARKS        PARKING        WWTP          NEIGH                   DISCOUNTS
BUYER: AM                              MGMT                                                IMPROVE
DEPT: VARIOUS                           $/YR        $/YR          $/YR         $/YR           $/YR       $/HR

                             YEAR 1

                             YEAR 2

                             YEAR 3

                                      $3,504.00   $2,552.00     $324.00       $804.00      $420.00      $45.00
   IPM SERVICES
                                      $3,504.00   $2,552.00     $324.00       $804.00      $420.00      $45.00

                                      $3,504.00   $2,552.00     $324.00       $804.00      $420.00      $45.00

                                      $5,736.00   $4,584.00     $504.00       $888.00      $396.00      $80.00
   ROSE PEST CONTROL
                                      $5,736.00   $4,584.00     $504.00       $888.00      $396.00      $80.00

                                      $5,736.00   $4,584.00     $504.00       $888.00      $396.00      $80.00
                                                                      BID TAB                                  page2 of 2

BID REF #910-59-12                    DISCOUNT:   DISCOUNT:   DISCOUNT:   DISCOUNT:    DISCOUNT:   DISCOUNT:
BID OPENING DATE: 07/14/06
FOR: Pest Control                     2ND TIER     JOINT      WORKFORCE TARGETED        INCOME     GENERAL
# BIDDERS SOLICITED: 14                           VENTURE      DIVERSITY ACQUISITION      TAX       TARGET
BUYER: AM                                                                              INCENTIVE     AREA
DEPT: VARIOUS

                             YEAR 1

                             YEAR 2

                             YEAR 3


   IPM SERVICES




   ROSE PEST CONTROL
 City                                  CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
 Comptroller


 Date:                   August 29, 2006

 To:                     Mayor George Heartwell and City Commissioners

 From:                   Stan Milanowski, City Comptroller

 Subject                 COMPTROLLER'S REPORT FOR PERIOD OF                        August 9, 2006       THROUGH          August 22, 2006

 Cash payments released totaled                 $ 52,256,654.81 including $            3,825,931.41 for Payroll expenditures and        $ 92,816.03
 for Income Tax warrants for the above captioned period.                  728 Income Tax Refunds and                  2,128 Accounts Payable checks were issued
 including those Accounts Payable checks over $20,000, detailed on the following schedules for your reference. A list of other disbursement
 transactions by fund is included in report FAMRS025 on file with the City Clerk. A summary of disbursements by entity follows:

                                                                  AMOUNT
 ENTITY                                            PAYROLL                         OTHER                      FUNDING BANK ACCT.

  City of Grand Rapids                         $   3,780,948.52              $     46,346,118.02              General Bank Acct. -Bank One - 390-6
  City of Grand Rapids                                20,665.38                       128,592.54              Community Development Acct. - 5/3B - 663-9
  City of Grand Rapids                                 3,312.58                        97,634.76              Home Investment Partnership Program - 5/3B - 520-4
  City of Grand Rapids                                      -                             140.00              1999 & 2003 Street Bonds - 5/3B 758 & 742
  City of Grand Rapids                                      -                       1,539,207.36              1998 & 2004 & 2005 Sewer Bonds - 5/3B 522 & 683 & 531
  Grand Rapids Building Authority                           -                                -                Various Bank Accounts
  Smart Zone                                           1,496.21                         8,485.21              General Bank Acct. -Bank One - 390-6
  Downtown Development Authority                       7,339.27                       209,128.89              General Bank Acct. -Bank One - 390-6
  Tax Increment Financing Authority                      156.81                         7,495.21              General Bank Acct. -Bank One - 390-6
  Brownfield Redevelopment Authority                   1,677.32                         1,105.38              General Bank Acct. -Bank One - 390-6
  Retirement Systems Office                           10,335.32                              -                General Bank Acct. -Bank One - 390-6
* Museum                                                    -                                -
             Total                             $   3,825,931.41              $     48,337,907.37
                                                              CHECKS ISSUED TO VENDORS > $20,000
                                                              FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 9, 2006 TO AUGUST 22, 2006
   DEPT            CHECK #              VENDOR                  AMOUNT     DESCRIPTION

    Library        937625    Dell USA                              46,431.50 PC Replacements for Library Staff - (40)Optiplex GX620 Ultra Small Form Factor

  Engineering      937688    Franklin Holwerda Co                 166,644.00 Construction of South Plant Aeration Improvements at WWTP & South Plant Clarifier Improvements

 Motor Equip.      937690    Lemmen Oil Co                         35,507.35 Regular Unleaded Gas

  Engineering      937691    Dykema Excavators Inc                 97,323.64 Reconstruction of Ionia Ave - Lyon St to Michigan St.

  Engineering      937712    CD Barnes Assoc Inc                   44,444.00 Final Effluent Disinfection Improvements to WWTP

  engineering      937725    Windemuller Electric Inc             142,700.00 Improvements to Automation System at Lake Michigan Filtration Plant

  Engineering      937739    Wyoming Excavators Inc                78,716.95 Watermain Replacement in Louis Street - Monroe Ave to Ottawa Ave

  Comm. Dev.       937749    Home Repair Services                  39,120.34 General Programs - FFY05 CDBG

     Fire          937752    Good GMC Inc                         111,996.00 (3) 2007 GMC - Yukon XL 4x4

DDA/Engineering    937756    Diversco Construction Co              83,187.11 Reconstruction of Division Ave - Cherry to Oakes

Fiscal Services    837760    Area Community Service               130,900.00 Administrative and Local Support - June 2006
                             Employment

  Comm. Dev.       937875    Brown-Hutcherson Ministries           20,146.00 Project COOL - Youth Program July 12, 2006 through August 31, 2006

Streets & Sanit.   937993    Western MI International Truck       175,485.55 (3) 2007 International 4x2 Dump Trucks and (1) 2006 International 6x4 Dump Truck - Replacements

     DDA           938011    G.R.A.N.D.                            65,480.43 Administration, Marketing, Communication,Maint. & Beautification-June 2006

    Water          938369    Consumers Energy                      33,810.23 Electricity - Billing Period 624/06-7/25/06

 Traffic Safety    938384    Carrier & Gable Inc                   68,782.35 (6) Controller Assy, (48) Load Switch Cube, (39) Signal 12" RYG Led MDOT & Misc. Items

Streets & Sanit.   938396    Quality Transparent Bag               24,260.40 (138.000) 30x37 Refuse Bags Blue with City Logo




                                                                                             1
                                                                CHECKS ISSUED TO VENDORS > $20,000
                                                                FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 9, 2006 TO AUGUST 22, 2006
     DEPT              CHECK #              VENDOR                AMOUNT     DESCRIPTION

   Engineering         938401    Erhardt Construction Company        82,922.00 Installation of Standby Power System at Lake Michigan Filtration Plant

   Engineering         938410    Neyer Tiseo & Hindo LTD             22,259.50 Environmental and Building Technology Services- VanAndel Museum Center Building

   Engineering         938439    Diversco Construction Co           251,442.95 Reconstruction of Division Ave - Cherry to Oakes & East Side Sewer Improvements

   Engineering         938452    Tetra Tech MPS                      28,138.70 Construction Engineering Services - Market Ave Pump Station

   Engineering         938458    Lodestar Construction Inc          199,200.12 Utility Improvements at Various Locations - Contract 2005

   Engineering         938459    Mid Michigan Great Dane Inc         27,472.00 Easement Acquistion & Temporary Grading Permit - Eastside CSO

   Comm. Dev.          938494    New Development Corp                39,129.06 Reimbursement for Acquisition Costs - 1262 North NE

   Engineering         938505    In't Hout Concrete Constr.          23,795.60 Reconstruction of Sidewalks, Curbs & Gutters At Various Locations

Streets & Sanitation   938551    County of Kent                     195,733.65 Waste to Energy - July 2006

     61st DC           938553    County of Kent                     110,759.00 City Share of Operational Expenses for Kent County Courthouse- September 2006

    Info. Tech.        938621    Electronic Data Systems Corp        30,785.14 (15) HW-Dell- OptiGX620, (3) HW-Dell-LatD820, & (5) HW-Dell-23in LCD Screen
  Streets & Sanit.     938623    MS Compost LLC                      39,194.20 (19,020) Yard Waste Bags, (800) Brush Tags, & (600) Carts

     61st D.C.         938633    61st District Court                 21,180.28 Civil Trust Credit Card Payments

   Comm. Dev.          938637    Michael Hopson                      20,574.50 Rental Rehab - 846 Wealthy SE

   Comm. Dev.          938641    G.R.A.N.D.                          24,685.92 Program Administration and Members Administration - July 2006

     61st DC           938645    County of Kent                     250,642.57 July 2005-June 2006 - Kent County Revenue

    Fac. Mgmt          938646    Pitney Bowes                        25,000.00 Postage for City Hall Mailroom

   Engineering         938717    Dykema Excavators Inc              326,821.95 Indian Mill Creek Trunk Sewer Improvements Contract No. 1




                                                                                              2
                                                              CHECKS ISSUED TO VENDORS > $20,000
                                                              FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 9, 2006 TO AUGUST 22, 2006
    DEPT           CHECK #              VENDOR                  AMOUNT     DESCRIPTION

  Engineering      938732    Walker Parking Conslnt/Eng            42,684.14 Preliminary/Study Engineering Services - Fulton Parking Ramp Gallery

Water-Lake Plant   938738    Kendall Electric Inc                  41,228.06 CBMFACT AB EnPAC 2500 with EMONITOR and Software

  Engineering      938747    Diversco Construction Co             404,945.44 Construction & Design Services - Eastside Sewer CSO

  Motor Equip.     938849    Western MI International Truck       100,123.74 (1) 2007 International 4200 Utility Truck and (1) 2007 International 4400 4x2 Utility - Replacements

  Motor Equip.     938880    Lemmen Oil co                         64,521.72 #2 Biodiesel LS Dyed and Regular Unleaded Gas

    WWTP           938894    AIS Construction Equip.               41,425.00 (1) Duetz 6" Pump & Kit

  Engineering      938921    Georgetown Construction              191,383.53 Eastside Sewer Improvements Separation Project 4 & 5

  Engineering      938925    Burns Contracting                     57,768.60 Trench Repair over Water & Sewer Lines at Various Locations

 Fiscal Services   938955    Monroe Place LLC                      31,115.01 Common Area Maintenance & Property Management - August 2006- One North Division Ave

  Engineering      938960    Engelsma Brothers Farms LLC           80,327.32 Easement Acquistions - Tallman Creek Sanitary Sewer

     Payroll       939018    Vantagepoint Transfer 457            110,166.52 (City Employee ) 457 Plan Withholding ICMA PPE 08/12/06

     Payroll       939027    MISDU                                 26,765.95 (City Employee) FOC (Friend Of Court) Withholding - MISDU - PPE 8/12/06

     Payroll       939053    Northern Trust Company               168,940.95 (City Employee) General, Police/Fire PPE - 8/12/06

      DDA          939088    Cherry Street JV LLC                  34,650.00 AREAWAY INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM FOR 38 OAKES SW

  Engineering      939130    In't Hout Concrete Constr.            51,335.00 Reconstruction of Sidwalks, Drive Approaches, Curb & Gutters at Various Locations

   Treasurer       939159    Bank of New York                     214,166.67 Rent - 1 Division Ave North - (City of G.R./State of MI/Monroe Place LLC)

 EP/Water/First    939181    Consumers Energy                      30,195.88 Electricity - 7/3/06-8/2/06




                                                                                             3
                                                          CHECKS ISSUED TO VENDORS > $20,000
                                                          FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 9, 2006 TO AUGUST 22, 2006
  DEPT         CHECK #              VENDOR                  AMOUNT     DESCRIPTION

 Treasurer     939244    Kent Intermediate School           5,818,061.01 Distribution of Property Taxes 8/1/06-8/15/06
                         District

 Treasurer     939254    Grand Rapids Community             2,216,088.52 Distribution of Property Taxes 8/1/06-8/15/06
                         College

 Treasurer     939260    Interurban Transit Partnership     1,178,405.19 Distribution of Property Taxes 8/1/06-8/15/06

 Treasurer     939264    Grand Rapids Public Schools       15,423,243.72 Distribution of Property Taxes 8/1/06-8/15/06

 Treasurer     939265    Godwin Heights Public Schools        426,322.28 Distribution of Property Taxes 8/1/06-8/15/06

 Treasurer     939267    County of Kent                     3,542,220.45 Distribution of "Current" Property Taxes 8/1/06-8/15/06

 Treasurer     939269    County of Kent                     7,291,572.01 Distribution of State Education Property Taxes 8/1/06-8/15/06

 Treasurer     939271    Forest Hills Public Schools          441,068.12 Distribution of Property Taxes 8/1/06-8/15/06

 Treasurer     939272    Kentwood Public Schools            2,158,391.32 Distribution of Property Taxes 8/1/06-8/15/06

Engineering    939334    Bosch Mechanical Contractors          20,512.07 Headworks Improvements at WWTP

Engineering    939356    Wyoming Excavators Inc               300,546.89 Reconstruction of Fuller Ave from Fountain St to Michigan St. and Resurfacing of Fuller Ave.

Engineering    939392    Black & Veatch LTD of MI              28,375.53 Final Design Engineering Services - Remembrance Lift Station

  Library      939397    Baker & Taylor Inc                    29,856.23 Books & Periodicals for Library Circulation

  Pension      939409    Northern Trust Co                    321,767.19 (Employer) General, Police/Fire PPE-7/29/2006

Econ. Dev.     939410    Roosevelt Pk Neighborhood             52,647.52 Grandville Restoration Project - 2005 Cool Cities Grant Projects
                         Assoc.

Motor Equip.   939457    Western MI Intern'l Truck             49,881.43 (1) 2007 International 7400 4x2 Dump truck - Replacement




                                                                                        4
                                                        CHECKS ISSUED TO VENDORS > $20,000
                                                        FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 9, 2006 TO AUGUST 22, 2006
   DEPT           CHECK #              VENDOR             AMOUNT     DESCRIPTION

    WWTP          939465    Consumers Energy                143,315.75 Electricity - Billing Period 7/3/06-8/06/06

     DDA          939467    Dykema Excavating                 91,679.46 Reconstruction of Ionia ave - Lyon to Michigan

 Engineering      939472    Walker Parking Conslnt            22,588.88 Construction Engineering Services - DASH 8

     DDA          939486    Diversco Construction             49,537.87 Reconstruction of Division Ave - Cherry to Oakes

 Impound Lot      939505    Merl's Towing Service             26,129.40 Towing for the Month of July 2006

  Info. Tech.     939506    Electronic Data Systems           28,485.89 (9) HW-Motion- LE1600, (3) Motion Digitizer and 2 yr Warranty

    Library       939563    American Standard Trane           26,972.50 Quarterly Select Maintenance for Ryerson Library

Motor Equp/Fire   939577    Lemmen Oil Co                     34,246.18 Regular Unleaded Gas and Premium Diesel LS Dyed

 Engineering      939599    Wyoming Excavators                40,833.80 Watermain Replacement in Louis Street

 Engineering      939611    SecurAlarm Systems                37,384.60 Installation of Security Systems at Lake Michigan Filtration Plant, Coldbrook Pump, Livingston
                                                                        Pump, Franklin Pump, and Booster "A" Pumping Station
                                                        FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 9, 2006 TO AUGUST 22, 2006
                                                        CHECKS TO BE ISSUED - In Accordance to Admin Policy 69-03 revised 9/2/97

  Executive       937525    National League of Cities         10,254.00 Membership Dues 7/1/06-6/30/07

  Info. Tech.     937896    Norex                              5,900.00 Hardware/Information/Conference Services Renewal - 8/1/06-7/31/07
                                                        WIRE TRANSFERS
                                                        FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 9, 2006 TO AUGUST 22, 2006
                                                            199,908.57 Employer FICA Pay Date 8/22/2006
                                                            199,908.57 Employee FICA Pay Date 8/22/2006
                                                            415,350.62 FIT
                                                            670,082.58 BSI Payment
                                                            479,059.07 BSI Payment




                                                                                       5
                                                                                  SMALL CLAIMS REPORT
                                                                                            July 2006                                                                           Page one
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

INCIDENT        CLAIMANT NAME                  ADDRESS                              CLAIM LOCATION                          AMOUNT           EXPLANATION
 DATE
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


2/4/06          Wightman, Beverly                4151 S Norway SE                   4151 S. Norway SE                          $ 293.11       Sewer Backup
                VP06-14819 06R0059               Grand Rapids, MI                   Grand Rapids, MI

1/2006          Helmick, Charles & Ace Fencing   1521 Union Ave NE                  1521 Union Ave NE                         $ 250.00        Snowplow damaged chain link fence
                VP06-14781 06-0103               Grand Rapids, MI                   Grand Rapids, MI

12/26-27/06     Herodes, Virginia                1761 Clearbrook SE                 1761 Clearbrook SE                        $    20.00      Sanitation truck struck tree branch damaging house
                VP06-14783 06-0030               Grand Rapids, MI                   Grand Rapids, MI

06/06/06        Woods, Ronald & Kathryn          860 Jones                          Exit Ramp Market & US131                  $ 500.00        Police care rear-ended claimants vehicle
                VP06-15023 2006-0121             Grand Rapids, MI                   Grand Rapids, MI

6/15/06         Ford, Ronald                     1890 Ruthver Ave NW                McReynolds & Leonard St                   $ 2,965.83      Rear-end of Fire Truck swung out and hit parked vehicle
                VP07-0069 06-0132                Grand Rapids, MI                   Grand Rapids, MI

January 2006    Heyboer, Iris                    1018 Westmoor Dr NW                Westmoor & Haines NW                      $ 190.22        Snowplow damaged sprinkler heads and yard
                Vp07-495 06-0075                 Grand Rapids, MI                   Grand Rapids, MI


                                                                                    Sewer Backup                              $ 293.11
                                                                                    Snowplow                                  $ 440.22
                                                                                    Police                                    $ 500.00
                                                                                    Fire                                      $ 2,965.83
                                                                                    Refuse                                    $    20.00
                                                                                    Total                                     $ 4,219.16
                               TO: Chairman,Fiscal Committee
                                     City Commission

                            FROM: CITY COMPTROLLER - Mr. Stan A. Milanowski
                          SUBJECT:   EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED UNDER COMMISSION POLICY 100-06 & CITY MANAGER'S POLICY 69-3
                                     In accordance with Com. Pro. No. 35342, June 10, 1980 and accompanying resolution, you are
                                     advised that the following monthly reports by City officials, Department heads and City
                                     employees were charged to the respective travel for                  July-06

                                                              CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS TRAVEL REPORT SUMMARY
                                                                                                 JULY 2006
                                                                                    MEALS &                                 MONTHLY                YEAR TO
                                           IN-STATE               OUT-STATE         LUNCHES           TRAINING              TOTALS                DATE TOTALS


2 CULTURAL SERVICES                                   47.60          1,375.01            68.59                   0.00            1,491.20                 1,491.20

3 PLANNING & DEVELOP SERVICES                         25.00              0.00           157.50                   0.00                182.50                  182.50

4 PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES                          128.26               198.34             0.00               166.01                  492.61                  492.61


5 PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES                                0.00              0.00             0.00               350.00                  350.00                  350.00


 INTERNAL SERVICES                                     0.00          1,503.02           527.81                   0.00            2,030.83                 2,030.83


 ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS                             1,070.00                 0.00            64.16               165.00              1,299.16                 1,299.16


 NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES                                 0.00              0.00             0.00                   0.00                  0.00                     0.00

6 HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES                             95.00              0.00            33.24                   0.00                128.24                  128.24


7 FISCAL SERVICES                                      0.00              0.00             0.00                   0.00                  0.00                     0.00


                Monthly TOTALS $                1,365.86      $     3,076.37    $       851.30    $          681.01     $       5,974.54      $          5,974.54


            Year to Date TOTALS $               1,365.86      $     3,076.37    $       851.30    $          681.01

 Respectfully Submitted
 Stan A. Milanowski
                                         MONTHLY DETAIL REPORT                                                           Page 1 of 5

                                               July 2006

                                              OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL
CULTURAL SERVICES
Department          Pay Date     Name              Travel Period         Desc Location                                     Amount

LIBRARY             07/21/2006   WARNER, MARCIA    06/22/06 - 06/29/06   ALA Annual Conf / New Orleans, LA               $ 1,332.01

LIBRARY             07/21/2006   OWENS, NANCY      06/23/06 - 06/27/06   Add't to closed trip / New Orleans, LA             $ 43.00

INTERNAL SERVICES
Department          Pay Date     Name              Travel Period         Desc Location                                     Amount

EXECUTIVE           07/21/2006   HEARTWELL,        06/21/06 - 06/23/06   Great Lakes St. Lawrence Cities Init. / Parry   $ 1,503.02
                                 GEORGE                                  Sound, Ont CAN

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
Department          Pay Date     Name              Travel Period         Desc Location                                     Amount

POLICE              07/30/2006   LUBBERS, DANIEL   07/30/06 - 08/01/06   Subpoena / Chicago, IL                             $ 42.22

FIRE                07/15/2006   MARTINEZ, PABLO   07/16/06 - 07/21/06   ATF Canine Trng / Memphis, TN                    $ 156.12
                                           MONTHLY DETAIL REPORT                                                Page 2 of 5

                                                 July 2006

                                                    IN-STATE TRAVEL
CULTURAL SERVICES
Department            Pay Date     Name                Travel Period         Desc Location                        Amount

LIBRARY               07/30/2006   MAYNE, REBECCA      07/22/06 - 07/22/06   Abrams Genealogy Sem. / Lansing       $ 47.60

Enterprise Systems
Department            Pay Date     Name                Travel Period         Desc Location                        Amount

ENVIRO. PROT.         07/30/2006   LUNN, MIKE          06/24/06 - 06/28/06   MWEA Annual Conf / Boyne Falls      $ 950.00

WATER SYSTEM          07/21/2006   WATER, ADMIN 5      07/13/06 - 07/13/06   W MI Operators Mtg / Lowell         $ 120.00

HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES
Department            Pay Date     Name                Travel Period         Desc Location                        Amount

LABOR RELATIONS       07/10/2006   CHILDERS,           07/21/06 - 07/21/06   MPELRA Conf / Frankenmuth             $ 35.00
                                   GEORGE

HUMAN RESOURCES       07/31/2006   JELKS, MARI BETH    07/21/06 - 07/21/06   MPELRA Conf / Frankenmuth             $ 60.00

PLANNING & ECON DEV
Department            Pay Date     Name                Travel Period         Desc Location                        Amount

PLANNING & DEV.       07/15/2006   FOWLER, JAY         07/28/06 - 07/28/06   MI Downtown Assoc Mtg / Manistee      $ 25.00

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
Department            Pay Date     Name                Travel Period         Desc Location                        Amount

DISTRICT COURT        07/30/2006   BALK, JENNIFER      07/11/06 - 07/12/06   DART Team / Lansing                 $ 128.26
                                          MONTHLY DETAIL REPORT                                                         Page 3 of 5

                                                July 2006

                                                   MEALS & LUNCHES
CULTURAL SERVICES
Department           Pay Date     Name                Travel Period         Desc Location                                 Amount

LIBRARY              07/21/2006   WARNER, MARCIA      06/13/06 - 06/13/06   Lunch Mtg / Grand Rapids                       $ 15.72

LIBRARY              07/30/2006   LIBRARY, ADMIN      07/18/06 - 07/18/06   Union Mtg Refreshments / Grand Rapids           $ 5.70

LIBRARY              07/21/2006   WARNER, MARCIA      06/14/06 - 06/14/06   Lunch Mtg / Grand Rapids                       $ 47.17

Enterprise Systems
Department           Pay Date     Name                Travel Period         Desc Location                                 Amount

WATER SYSTEM         07/30/2006   WATER, ADMIN        07/25/06 - 07/26/06   Safety Mtgs / Grand Rapids                     $ 64.16

HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES
Department           Pay Date     Name                Travel Period         Desc Location                                 Amount

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY    07/15/2006   EQUAL OPS, ADMIN    07/05/06 - 07/05/06   CRC Meeting Lunch / Grand Rapids               $ 33.24

INTERNAL SERVICES
Department           Pay Date     Name                Travel Period         Desc Location                                 Amount

EXECUTIVE            07/21/2006   KIMBALL, KURT       07/10/06 - 07/10/06   GVMC Qtrly Lunch / Grand Rapids                $ 17.00

EXECUTIVE            07/21/2006   HEARTWELL,          06/01/06 - 06/01/06   Mtg Group-Univ. Club / Grand Rapids          $ 258.14
                                  GEORGE

EXECUTIVE            07/21/2006   HEARTWELL,          06/07/06 - 06/07/06   Lunch Mtg-Univ. Club / Grand Rapids            $ 40.56
                                  GEORGE

EXECUTIVE            07/26/2006   KIMBALL, KURT       05/03/06 - 05/03/06   Dues June-May & Lunch Mtg-Univ. Club /         $ 98.48
                                                                            Grand Rapids

EXECUTIVE            07/21/2006   KIMBALL, KURT       05/11/06 - 05/11/06   Lunch Mtg-Univ. Club / Grand Rapids            $ 47.18

EXECUTIVE            07/21/2006   KIMBALL, KURT       05/08/06 - 05/08/06   Lunch Mtg-Univ. Club / Grand Rapids            $ 26.11

CITY CLERKS          07/30/2006   CLERKS, ADMIN       06/20/06 - 06/20/06   Automark Trng Refreshments / Grand Rapids      $ 15.44

EXECUTIVE            07/21/2006   EXECUTIVE, ADMIN    07/14/06 - 07/14/06   Top Mgmt Mtg / Grand Rapids                    $ 24.90
                                          MONTHLY DETAIL REPORT                                                 Page 4 of 5

                                                July 2006

PLANNING & ECON DEV
Department            Pay Date     Name              Travel Period         Desc Location                          Amount

PLANNING & DEV.       07/30/2006   PLANNING, ADMIN   07/20/06 - 07/20/06   Board of Zoning Mtg / Grand Rapids      $ 78.75

PLANNING & DEV.       07/30/2006   PLANNING, ADMIN   07/27/06 - 07/27/06   Planning Commission / Grand Rapids      $ 78.75
                                          MONTHLY DETAIL REPORT                                                  Page 5 of 5

                                                July 2006

                                                  TRAINING
Enterprise Systems
Department           Pay Date     Name            Travel Period         Desc Location                              Amount

WATER SYSTEM         07/30/2006   ROSS, DIRK      04/06/06 - 04/06/06   Basic Math Class / Harrison               $ 165.00

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
Department           Pay Date     Name            Travel Period         Desc Location                              Amount

POLICE               07/30/2006   SYNDER, JULIE   06/01/06 - 06/01/06   AFIS Conf / Gaylord                         $ 37.01

POLICE               07/21/2006   BUDZILEK,       08/15/06 - 08/15/06   MIOSHA Bloodborne Path. / Grand Rapids    $ 129.00
                                  THERESA

PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES
Department           Pay Date     Name            Travel Period         Desc Location                              Amount

TRAFFIC SAFETY       07/21/2006   ENDRES, DON     07/31/06 - 08/03/06   Electric Meter School / Grand Rapids      $ 350.00
DATE:          September 29, 2004

TO:            Mayor George K. Heartwell and City Commissioners




DATE:          August 22, 2006

TO:            Mayor George K. Heartwell and City Commissioners

FROM:          Albert C. Mooney, City Treasurer

SUBJECT:       TREASURER'S REPORT FOR PERIOD OF
               AUGUST 9, 2006 THROUGH AUGUST 22, 2006


The City Treasurer's Office report listed below reflects investments of $162,815,000 during the
above captioned period. The investments were placed in certificates of deposit. Other
investment balances were invested in the various short-term money market trust funds and our
money market account.


      Investment                 Amount              Maturity Range        Yield

  Flagstar Bank               $44,000,000            182 - 365 days    5.60% - 5.61%
  Huntington Bank             $40,000,000            182 - 365 days    5.58% - 5.64%
  Mercantile Bank             $28,300,000            182 - 365 days    5.50% - 5.55%
  Chemical Bank               $20,000,000                  182 days            5.50%
  Macatawa Bank               $15,000,000            182 - 365 days    5.51% - 5.56%
  Irwin Union                  $9,000,000                  175 days            5.53%
  Bank of Holland              $4,640,000                  365 days            5.63%
  Select Bank                  $1,875,000                  175 days            5.54%

Please contact me at ext. 3285 with any questions on this Treasurer's report.

Thank you.
ACM//SRS/kg:FC TREASURER’S REPORT CITY COMMISSON 08-29-06.WRD


cc:    Fred Raabe, Deputy City Treasurer
       Stephen R. Schmuker, Investment Analyst
DATE:                       August 11, 2006

TO:                         Greg A. Sundstrom
                            Chief Services Officer

FROM:                       Connie M. Bohatch
                            Community Development Director

SUBJECT:                    Public Hearing on Past Performance and Future Needs of Housing
                            and Community Development Programs

Attached is a resolution that would set Tuesday, September 12, 2006 as the date for a public
hearing to offer citizens the opportunity to share their views on past performance of Grand
Rapids' housing and community development programs and to identify community needs to be
addressed by future programs. Written comments may be submitted during the comment
period from September 1, 2006 through September 15, 2006.

Program Performance. A draft copy of the FFY 2005 Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER) will be available for public review during the comment period from
8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. in the Community Development Department, City Hall, Suite 440, and at
www.grcd.info. This report contains both fiscal and program performance information.
Citizens may provide comment on these activities funded through the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Local Law
Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG), Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), and American Dream
Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) programs.

Community Needs. Citizens may also comment on housing and community development
needs for future planning for the CDBG, HOME, ESG, and ADDI programs. These comments
will contribute to the development of the FFY 2006 Housing and Community Development
Annual Action Plan.

Please forward this item for consideration at the August 29, 2006 City Commission meeting.

ELP/ep

Attachment




CD01 Public Hearing Future Needs of H&CD Programs.doc
       YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the
following resolution setting the date of a public hearing to obtain public comment on housing
and community development program performance and needs.


                                                _____________________________________

      CORRECT IN FORM

 _____________________                          _____________________________________
    DEPARTMENT OF LAW



                                                _____________________________________

                                               COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE


Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that a public hearing to obtain public comment on the FFY 2005 Consolidated
Annual Performance and Evaluation Report and for future housing and community
development program needs be held on Tuesday, September 12, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the City
Commission chambers, 9th Floor, City Hall; and the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish
notice of said public hearing.

Drafted by: Eileen L. Pierce, Administrative Services Officer


                                                                                 Yeas                      Nays

                                                                                 _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                 _____   Dean              _____

                                                                                 _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                 _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                 _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                 _____   White             _____

                                                                                 _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                      Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                      Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____




CD01 Public Hearing Future Needs of H&CD Programs.doc
DATE:               August 24, 2006

TO:                 Kurt Kimball
                    City Manager

FROM:               Glen Beekman
                    City Assessor

SUBJECT:            Confirmation of Special Assessement Roll Number 8588 and
                    Special Assessment Nuisance Roll Number 8626


The enclosed resolutions are to confirm the aforementioned Special Assessment Rolls. The
billing date for Special Assessment Roll Number 8588 will be September 1, 2006, and the
billing date for Special Assessment Nuisance Roll Number 8626 will be October 1, 2006. The
final assessment roll totals are as follows:


                                  8588         $ 33,263.07
                                  8626         $ 107,525.38


The City Commission sat as the Board of Review for the Special Assessment Rolls on
May 23, 2006. A list of all appeals and resulting determinations is attached to each respective
roll. The City Treasurer may have collected payments subsequent to the confirmation of
these rolls which will reduce the actual outstanding balances of the above listed final
assessment totals.




cc:     Al Mooney
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution approving the amendments to Special Assessment Roll No. 8588, which are set forth in
the attached report.

                                                        _____________________________

     CORRECT IN FORM
                                                        _____________________________
_____________________
   DEPARTMENT OF LAW
                                                        _____________________________
                                                        Community Development Committee


Com._________________________,           supported    by    Com.     ______________________,
moved adoption of the following resolution:

      RESOLVED that the City Commission, after due and legal notice to all interested parties,
has duly met as Board of Review for the purpose of reviewing the Special Assessment Roll
prepared by the City Assessor for the purpose of assessing the share of the cost of the
Improvement District Project to be borne by the parcels of property in Special Assessment District
No. 8588; and

      RESOLVED that said Special Assessment Roll has been open to review before the City
Assessor for the length of time required by Chapter 10 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Grand
Rapids, the charter of the City of Grand Rapids, and the laws of the State of Michigan; and

       RESOLVED that the City Commission, acting as such Board of Review, has given
opportunity to all persons interested in and affected by said Special Assessment Roll to appear
before said Board of Review, has carefully considered all objections and appeals made thereto
and has made such corrections and changes in such Special Assessment Roll as in its judgment
ought to be made; and

       RESOLVED that the City Commission is of the opinion that said Special Assessment Roll,
as so corrected and changed, results in the Special Assessment spread and levied thereon to be
in accordance with the advantages which each parcel of property in said district is benefited by
the improvements therein, and that said Special Assessment Roll is in all respects fair, just and
equitable and results in the assessment levied being in proportion to the benefits to be derived.

      RESOLVED that the City Assessor be authorized and instructed to make deletions from
said Special Assessment Roll No. 8588 in accordance with the report from the Community
Development Committee.

       AND RESOLVED as follows:

       1.     The City Commission, sitting as a Board of Review, is satisfied with the Special
              Assessment Roll No. 8588, is of the opinion that said Special Assessment Roll No.
              8588 results in the assessments being levied in accordance with the benefits to be
              derived by such separate, respective public improvements, and has caused and
              does hereby cause such determination to be entered upon its minutes.
2.   Special Assessment Roll No. 8588, as prepared by the City Assessor and as
     reviewed, corrected, and changed by the City Commission, acting as a Board of
     Review, is hereby ratified and confirmed.

3.   Special Assessment Roll No. 8588, with a certified copy of this resolution attached
     to it, shall be delivered by the City Clerk to the City Treasurer, with the warrant
     signed by the Mayor, commanding the City Treasurer to collect all taxes and fees,
     interest and penalties thereon in a manner required by Chapter 10 of the City
     Ordinance Code.

4.   That the assessment may be paid in a minimum of ten annual installments, with
     interest. The minimum installment payment is $100. The first installment shall be
     due September 1, 2006. Subsequent installments, if any, shall be due September
     1st of each year thereafter. In addition to the principal amount of each annual
     installment, there shall be added thereto and collected from the special assessment
     rolls by the City Treasurer, as part of each annual installment, interest at the rate of
     at least seven percent (7%) per annum on the unpaid balance of the special
     assessment, commencing with the due date of the first installment, and computed to
     the due date of each particular installment, which said rate of interest on the
     deferred installments shall be equal to a rate of interest, which is one (1%) more
     than the rate of interest borne by the bonds issued in anticipation of the collection of
     said special assessments. In addition to said annual interest, in the event that any
     special assessment or installment thereof shall not be paid within one (1) month of
     the due date thereof, penalties shall thereafter be charged and added to such past
     due assessment or installment, in lieu of further interest as follows:

     One percent (1%) per month of the principal amount of the assessment due for
     each month, or fraction thereof, thereafter, until paid or until sale of the special
     assessment. There shall also be added on the first of September next following, a
     collection fee in addition to such penalties. The collection fee shall be four percent
     (4%) of the total then due or the amount provided by State Law for such collection
     fees for counties making such collection fees, whichever amount shall be the
     greater. Such penalties and collection fees shall be collected at the same time and
     in the same manner as the special assessments and interest thereon are collected.
     The entire assessment may be paid during the first month after the due date thereof
     without penalty.
                                                                   Yeas                      Nays

                                                                   _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                   _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                   _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                   _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                   _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                   _____   White             _____

                                                                   _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                        Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                        Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution approving the amendments to Special Assessment Nuisance Roll No. 8626, which
are set forth in the attached report.

                                         _____________________________

   CORRECT IN FORM
                                         ______________________________
_____________________
   DEPARTMENT OF LAW
                                         _____________________________
                                         Community Development Committee


Com.              , supported by Com.              ,moved adoption of the following resolution:



        RESOLVED that the City Commission, after due and legal notice to all interested
parties, has duly met as Board of Review for the purpose of reviewing the Special Assessment
Roll prepared by the City Assessor for the purpose of assessing the share of the cost of the
Improvement District Project to be borne by the parcels of property in Special Assessment
District No. 8626; and

      RESOLVED that said Special Assessment Roll has been open to review before the City
Assessor for the length of time required by Chapter 10 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Grand Rapids, the charter of the City of Grand Rapids, and the laws of the State of Michigan;
and

       RESOLVED that the City Commission, acting as such Board of Review, has given
opportunity to all persons interested in and affected by said Special Assessment Roll to appear
before said Board of Review, has carefully considered all objections and appeals made thereto
and has made such corrections and changes in such Special Assessment Roll as in its
judgment ought to be made; and

       RESOLVED that the City Commission is of the opinion that said Special Assessment
Roll, as so corrected and changed, results in the Special Assessment spread and levied
thereon to be in accordance with the advantages which each parcel of property in said district
is benefited by the improvements therein, and that said Special Assessment Roll is in all
respects fair, just and equitable and results in the assessment levied being in proportion to the
benefits to be derived.

      RESOLVED that the City Assessor be authorized and instructed to make deletions from
said Special Assessment Roll No. 8626 in accordance with the report from the Community
Development Committee.

       AND RESOLVED as follows:
1.   The City Commission, sitting as a Board of Review, is satisfied with the Special
     Assessment Roll No. 8626, is of the opinion that said Special Assessment Roll
     No. 8626 results in the assessments being levied in accordance with the benefits
     to be derived by such separate, respective public improvements, and has caused
     and does hereby cause such determination to be entered upon its minutes.

2.   Special Assessment Roll No. 8626, as prepared by the City Assessor and as
     reviewed, corrected, and changed by the City Commission, acting as a Board of
     Review, is hereby ratified and confirmed.

3.   Special Assessment Roll No. 8626, with a certified copy of this resolution
     attached to it, shall be delivered by the City Clerk to the City Treasurer, with the
     warrant signed by the Mayor, commanding the City Treasurer to collect all taxes
     and fees, interest and penalties thereon in a manner required by Chapter 10 of
     the City Ordinance Code.

4.   Said Special Assessment Roll No. 8626 shall be billed on or before October 1,
     2006, and be due one (1) month thereafter. In the event that any special
     assessment shall not be paid within one (1) month of the due date thereof, the
     assessment shall remain a lien upon said property and penalties shall thereafter
     be charged and added to said past due assessment as follows:

     One percent (1%) per month of the principal amount of the assessment due for
     each month, or fraction thereof, thereafter, until paid or until sale of the special
     assessment. There shall also be added on the first of October next following, a
     collection fee in addition to such penalties. The collection fee shall be four
     percent (4%) of the total then due or the amount provided by State Law for such
     collection fees for counties making such collection fees, whichever amount shall
     be the greater. Such penalties and collection fees shall be collected at the same
     time and in the same manner as the special assessments and interest thereon
     are collected. The entire assessment may be paid during the first month after the
     due date thereof without penalty.
                                                                                   Yeas    Nays

                                                                 _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                 _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                 _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                 _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                 _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                 _____   White             _____

                                                                 _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                      Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                      Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
DATE:              August 23, 2006

TO:                Eric R. DeLong
                   Deputy City Manager

FROM:              Susan Shannon
                   Economic Development Director

SUBJECT:           Sale of Vacant Lot – 629 Cass Ave., SE

The attached resolution authorizes the sale of a 26’ x 110’ non-buildable vacant lot identified
as 629 Cass Ave., SE to Brown-Hutcherson Ministries, an adjacent property owner. The
request to purchase indicates the proposed use of the site will be to combine it with their
adjacent property at 633 Cass Ave., SE. The other adjacent property owner has been notified
of Brown-Hutcherson Ministries request to purchase this property and have not expressed any
interest in purchasing or splitting this property. The property is currently zoned R-3. The
property is not located within an existing Renaissance Zone. Brown-Hutcherson Ministries has
offered $1,000 for the property. The conveyance would be by quitclaim deed in a form
approved by the City Attorney’s Office.

Staff is recommending issuance of a quitclaim deed to Brown-Hutcherson Ministries and would
appreciate this matter being placed on the agenda of the City Commission.

SS/EWS/kka

Attachment
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution authorizing the sale of the City owned property at 629 Cass Ave., SE.




     CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________
     DEPARTMENT OF LAW




                                            COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED

1.     That the transfer and conveyance of 629 Cass Ave., SE, legally described as:


              The South ½ of Lot 13, Block 8, L. Porter's Addition to the City of Grand
              Rapids, Kent County, Michigan.

       P.P.# 41-14-31-176-020
       (commonly known as: 629 Cass Ave., SE)

       by quitclaim deed to Brown-Hutcherson Ministries, 618 Jefferson Ave., SE, Grand
       Rapids, MI 49503, for the consideration of One Thousand and XX/100 Dollars
       ($1.000.00), be and is hereby approved, and that the Mayor is authorized to execute
       said quitclaim deed to be issued pursuant thereto in a form approved by the City
       Attorney, and that the Economic Development Department is hereby authorized and
       directed to record said quitclaim deed with the Kent County Register of Deeds.

2.     That the funds from the above sale be deposited with the Economic Development's
       Department of Natural Resources Fund.
                                                                                 Yeas                      Nays

       Drafted by: Eric W. Soucey, Economic Development Coordinator              _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                 _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                 _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                 _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                 _____   White             _____

                                                                                 _____   [Vacant]          _____

                                                                                 _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                      Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                      Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
DATE:              August 21, 2006

TO:                Eric Delong, Deputy City Manager

FROM:              Suzanne M. Schulz, Planning Director

SUBJECT:           RESOLUTION TO SET THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
                   CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE FROM GRTZ GRAND RAPIDS
                   TOWNSHIP ZONING TO PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
                   2100 EAST BELTLINE NE, AND 3269 AND 3271 KNAPP STREET NE

The attached resolution would establish September 26, 2006 as the date for a public hearing
before the City Commission to consider a zone change from GRTZ Grand Rapids Township
Zoning to PUD Planned Unit Development for 2100 East Beltline NE, and 3269 and 3271
Knapp Street NE. PUD approval would allow the construction of a mixed-use development on
the 33.3-acre site. Project square-footage within the City of Grand Rapids includes 41,600
square feet of office and residential uses and 348,982 square feet of retail commercial
development. The overall project, encompassing an additional 13.4 acres in Grand Rapids
Township, is comprised in total of 140,780 square feet of residential and office uses and
406,174 square feet of commercial retail development for a “lifestyle” center.

The 2002 Master Plan designates this area as a sub-regional mixed use center with high-
density residential development on the northern portion of the parcel. The North East Beltline
Joint Development Plan, adopted as an area-specific plan to the Master Plan, identifies this
site for residential and office uses. The North East Beltline Plan describes Knapp and the East
Beltline as a town center, comprised of several mixed use quadrants. Celebration Village
serves as the retail component, while the northeast quadrant serves as the residential/office
component.

The applicant originally requested a zone change in October 2004 from GRTZ to PUD for a
lifestyle center that would contain a total of nearly 356,000 sq. ft. of commercial development.
The Planning Commission voted 4-3 to support the request on August 11, 2005 based on their
desire to control the height and square footage of the project should the City Commission
decide to approve. In October 2005 the City Commission unanimously rejected the rezoning
request based on a failure of the project to align with the Master Plan. This new request adds
another 50,174 square feet of retail commercial as well as 140,780 square feet of office and
residential to the earlier request within the city and township.

A public hearing for the revised proposal was held by the Planning Commission on August 10,
2006, at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to be heard. The North East
Citizens Action Association (NECAA), through Rupert McGinn, and a nearby resident were
opposed to the development; and three individuals spoke in favor of the development. The
applicant urged the Planning Commission to vote on the project rather than to table it.
                                                                                              1
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 6 – 1 to recommend denial of the
zone change for 2100 East Beltline NE, and 3269 and 3271 Knapp Street NE. Planning
Commission concerns focused on the proposal’s departure from the Master Plan and the North
East Beltline Plan recommendations for office and high-density residential uses on this site. In
addition, Mr. Potter commented at the lack of evidence that such a need existed for intense
commercial retail development at this site.

Given the recommendation to deny the zone change by the Planning Commission, Planning
staff recommends that a public hearing be held by the City Commission. Prior to the public
hearing, a complete history of the project will be provided to the Commission. Please find
attached a series of Planning Commission minutes pertaining to this request. Project detail is
provided in the most recent discussion dated August 10, 2006. It is also anticipated that three
alternative resolutions will be available for the Commission’s review to approve, deny and to
remand the project back to the Planning Commission for revisions with direction given by the
City Commission.

Please forward this resolution for consideration at the next scheduled City Commission
meeting.


SS/EB
Attachments




                                                                                                  2
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution to set a public hearing to consider a zone change for 2100 East Beltline NE, and
3269 and 3271 Knapp Street NE from GRTZ Grand Rapids Township Zoning to PUD Planned
Unit Development for the construction of a mixed-use development to include approximately
41,600 square feet of residential and office uses and 348,982 square feet of commercial retail
uses.


                                        __________________________________________

    CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                   __________________________________________
   DEPARTMENT OF LAW



                                        __________________________________________
                                        COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE


Com. ________________________, supported by Com. ________________________,
moved to adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED:
       1. That a public hearing be scheduled before the City Commission to consider the
request for a zone change for 2100 East Beltline NE, and 3269 and 3271 Knapp Street NE
from GRTZ Grand Rapids Township Zoning to PUD Planned Unit Development, said hearing
to be held on September 26, 2006 at 7:00 P.M., in the City Commission Chambers on the 9th
Floor of City Hall, 300 Monroe NW, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49503.

       2. That the Planning Director shall give notice of such hearing in the same manner and
to the same persons as required by Section 5.31(2).

      3.     The proposed amendment reads as follows:




                                                                                             3
      AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 5.12, MAP 8 OF CHAPTER 61 OF TITLE V
      OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

                                ORDINANCE NO. 2006 - ____

                  THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS DO ORDAIN:

      Section 1. That Section 5.12, Map 8 of Chapter 61 of Title V of the Code of the City of
Grand Rapids be amended to approve a zone change from GRTZ Grand Rapids Township
Zoning to PUD Planned Unit Development for 2100 East Beltline NE, and 3269 and 3271
Knapp Street NE and described as:

      2100 East Beltline Avenue NE (Parcel Number 41-14-11-301-050): The North
      1268.00 feet of the South 1868.00 feet of the West ½ of the West ½ of the Southwest
      ¼, Except that part lying Westerly of a line commencing at a point on the South Section
      line which point is 272.59 feet South 89˚47’25” East along the South Section line from
      the Southwest corner of the Section; thence North 00˚12’35” East 33.00 feet; thence
      North 44˚50’31” West 125.26 feet to the East line of the West 182.00 feet of the
      Southwest ¼; thence North 01˚07’29” East along said East line 43.49 feet to the North
      line of the South 165.00 feet of the Southwest ¼; thence North 89˚47’25” WEST
      ALONG SAID North line 21.30 feet; thence North 01˚04’45” West 264.68 feet; thence
      North 88˚55’15” East 45.00 feet; thence Northerly 437.40 feet along a 11344.16 foot
      radius curve to the right, the long chord of which bears North 00˚01’32” East 437.37
      feet; thence North 88˚52’12” West 30.00 feet; thence North 01˚07’48” East 440.94 feet;
      thence South 88˚52’12” East 30.00 feet; thence North 01˚07’48” East 558.99 feet to the
      North line of the South 1868.00 feet of the West ½ of the West ½ of the Southwest ¼
      and the point of ending of said line. Also part of the West ½ of the West ½ of the
      Southwest ¼ commencing 5.40 feet Westerly along the South Section line from the
      Southeast corner of the West ½ of the West ½ of the Southwest ¼; thence Easterly
      along the South Section line 5.40 feet to the East line of the West ½ of the West ½ of
      the Southwest ¼; thence Northerly along said East line 310.00 feet to the North line of
      the South 310.00 feet of the West ½ of the West ½ of the Southwest ¼; thence
      Westerly along said North line 6.52 feet; thence Southerly 309.98 feet to the place of
      beginning. Also the West ½ of the East ½ of the Southwest ¼ of the Southwest ¼,
      Section 11, Town 7 North, Range 11 West, City of Grand Rapids, Kent County,
      Michigan. Also Lots 16 and 17 Except the East 300.00 feet. Also the West 330.00 feet
      of Lots 18 and 19, Doland Plat. (Parcel B)

      3269 Knapp Street NE (Parcel Number 41-14-11-301-051): The South 600.00 feet of
      the West ½ of the West ½ of the Southwest ¼, Except that part lying Westerly of a line
      commencing at a point on the South Section line which point is 272.59 feet South
      89˚47’25” East along the South Section line from the Southwest corner of said Section;
      thence North 00˚12’35” East 33.00 feet; thence North 44˚50’31” West 125.26 feet to the
      East line of the West 182.00 feet of the Southwest ¼; thence North 01˚07’29” East
      along said East line 43.49 feet to the North line of the South 165.00 feet of the
      Southwest ¼; thence North 89˚47’25” West along said North line 21.30 feet; thence
      North 01˚04’45” West 264.68 feet; thence North 88˚55’15” East 45.0 feet; thence
      Northerly 437.40 feet along a 11344.16 foot radius curve to the right, the long chord of

                                                                                                4
      which bears North 00˚01’32” East 437.37 feet to the point of ending of said line and
      Except the North 170.00 feet of the South 350.00 feet of the West 90.00 feet of the East
      240.00 feet of the West ½ of the West 1/2 of the Southwest ¼ and Except the South
      310.00 feet of the East 150 feet of the West ½ of the West ½ of the Southwest ¼,
      Section 11, Town 7 North, Range 11 West, City of Grand Rapids, Kent County,
      Michigan. (Parcel A)

      3271 Knapp Street NE (Parcel Number 41-14-11-301-052): The North 170 feet of the
      South 350 feet of the West 90 feet of the East 240 feet of the West ½ of the West ½ of
      the Southwest ¼. Also the South 310 feet of the East 150 feet of the West ½ of the
      West ½ of the Southwest ¼, Except commencing 5.40 feet Westerly along the South
      Section line from the Southeast corner of the West ½ of the West ½ of the Southwest
      ¼; thence Easterly along the South Section line 5.40 feet to the East line of the West ½
      of the West ½ of the Southwest ¼; thence Northerly along said East line 310.00 feet to
      the North line of the South 310.00 feet of the West ½ of the West ½ of the Southwest ¼;
      thence Westerly along said North line 6.52 feet; thence Southerly 309.98 feet to the
      place of beginning, Section 11, Town 7 North, Range 11 West, City of Grand Rapids,
      Kent County, Michigan. (Parcel C)

      Section 2. That a waiver of the number of parking spaces required by Article 6 of the
Zoning Ordinance be granted, allowing a reduction to 1,391 parking spaces.

       Section 3. As provided in Sections 5.27.1. of the Zoning Ordinance that the following
provisions are an integral part of this Ordinance:

   1. That this approval is based on the premise of a lifestyle center and the appropriateness
      of this development as it relates to the general definition of a sub-regional center without
      consideration of the North East Beltline Joint Development Plan as an area-specific
      plan.

   2. That plans prepared by Nederveld and dated July 12, 2006, shall constitute the
      approved conceptual site development plans for the project.

   3. That proper zoning approvals shall be received for that portion of the project located
      within Grand Rapids Township prior to the issuance of any Land Use Development
      Services (LUDS) or Building permits. Zoning approval shall substantially conform to the
      plans as submitted, comprising a significant portion of the residential and office
      components for the proposed mixed-use project.

   4. That detailed plans for all development phases shall be subject to review by the
      Planning Commission who shall determine if the submitted plans substantially comply
      with the approved plans and supporting information. If the Commission determines that
      plans do comply, they shall then review the detailed plans under the requirements of
      Article 6A Site Plan Review. However, should the Commission decide that the detailed
      plans do not comply with the approved plans they shall then determine if the changes
      constitute a Minor Deviation or a Major Amendment following the requirements of Article
      4A Planned Unit Development District (PUD).



                                                                                                 5
5. That any uses permitted in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and C-2 Community
   Commercial Zone Districts of the City of Grand Rapids Zoning Ordinance is allowed, as
   regulated in that district unless otherwise specified below.
      a. Automobile laundry, parts store, repair shop, sales and storage garage or gas
          station are prohibited.
      b. Department stores, excluding the maximum 50,000 square feet of sales
          generating space requirement.
      c. Drive-through facilities associated with any uses, subject to Permitted with
          Approval provisions of Section 5.30 through 5.35.
      d. Outdoor storage and self-storage facilities are prohibited.
      e. Residential uses permitted.
      f. Temporary outdoor community activities, including, but not limited to car shows,
          art fairs, festivals and the like, subject to Director Site Plan Review per the
          requirements of Article 6A.

6. That prior to the submittal of detailed plans for any development phase to the Planning
   Commission, all appropriate City of Grand Rapids, County and State Departments and
   Agencies shall review the overall site and detailed plans for compliance with all
   necessary roadway, sidewalk, infrastructure and stormwater management
   improvements and their phased installation. Department and Agency approval of all
   necessary improvements and associated agreements shall be required prior to Planning
   Commission action on any site plan review.

7. That all conditions imposed by the City of Grand Rapids Traffic Safety Department, Kent
   County Road Commission and Michigan Department of Transportation are satisfied
   pertaining to necessary traffic studies and improvements. Including that deceleration
   lanes and tapers of suitable length are to be constructed in conjunction with the
   entrance drives onto the East Beltline, the plans for which shall be prepared according
   to MDOT specifications and approved by MDOT. That deceleration lanes and tapers of
   suitable length are to be constructed in conjunction with the entrance drives onto Knapp
   Street, the plans for which shall be prepared according to Kent County Road
   Commission specifications and approved by Kent County Road Commission. And that
   appropriate right-of-way is dedicated to the proper agency as required for roadway
   improvements.

8. That the exterior lighting standards of the North East Beltline Overlay District shall be
   met; mounting heights of cut-off fixtures shall not exceed thirty (30) feet above grade in
   height along the East Beltline frontage and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height
   above grade for the east parking area that abuts residential properties.

9. That a final detailed plan for landscaping, berming and screening of parking areas and
   site edges for each phase of development shall be prepared identifying species, caliper,
   and height of plantings for the review and approval of the Planning Commission as part
   of its site plan review proceedings.

10. That a detailed maintenance agreement for any proposed retaining walls shall be
    recorded with the Kent County Register of Deeds for the Village at Knapp’s Crossing.



                                                                                                6
    11. A detailed signage package shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review
        and approval prior to installation of any signage and that the proposed sign package as
        presented is not accepted.

    12. All Northeast Beltline Overlay requirements not addressed or modified by this resolution
        shall remain in effect.




                                                                                Yeas                      Nays

                                                                                _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                                _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                _____   White             _____

                                                                                _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                     Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                     Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____




This resolution was reviewed by Suzanne Schulz, Planning Director.



                                                                                                             7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 14, 2005

Members Present: Chairperson Shaula Johnston, Robert Zylstra, Peter Carlberg, Marilyn A. Titche,
Patrick A. Miles, Gabriel Works, James Doezema and student member Nick Preston
Members Absent: Janet Sanders and Paul Potter


Northeast Corner of Knapp and the East Beltline Ave., NE - Discussion of Master Plan
Recommendation.

Ms. Schulz explained that the public hearing was scheduled for the purpose of discussion regarding the
northeast corner of the East Beltline and Knapp. The Planning Commission is to consider and hear
public comment as to whether the Master Plan should be amended from office and high density
residential to commercial uses. The process for amending the Master Plan requires an extensive
coordinated planning effort between the Planning Commission and regional bodies and adjoining
communities to review when a Master Plan is amended. This discussion is to determine whether the
Planning Commission is willing to consider an amendment. If a decision were reached today the
Master Plan is not automatically amended, it would be direction to staff to begin the process for
amending the Master Plan.

Ms. Schulz drew the Commission’s attention to information provided in the packet that was previously
provided as well as a second sheet explaining what a master plan is and information as to size to help
evaluate the scope of the proposal regarding intensity of development. The proposed project is for
350,000 sq. ft. of commercial development. She feels it is appropriate for the Commission to
understand the scale of the request in the consideration of future development of this corridor and of
this property.

Ms. Schulz explained that the site is currently zoned Grand Rapids Township, which is low density
residential. The future land use map for the North East Beltline Joint Development Plan includes
parcels 8 and 9, which are the areas that would be affected by the development request. Parcel 8 is
planned for office uses adjacent to the intersection and the balance of the parcel for high density
residential. Parcel 9 is also designated for high density residential which is 9-16 units per acre. The
reasoning behind the land use designations is that the property located at the northeast corner of
Knapp and the East Beltline should 1) provide a physical and visual transition between commercial
uses to the west and low density residential uses to the east which front Dunnigan, 2) to provide the
density of population to support a town center area and 3) to support the residential component of the
mixed use concept.

Ms. Schulz explained that the City of Grand Rapids Master Plan, adopted in 2002, describes the
intersection as being a mixed-use center which generally consists of the following: mixed-use retail that
includes shops, services, offices, restaurants, entertainment, civic and residential uses in buildings that
are oriented to the street; a transit stop; public spaces for shared activities; a connected street system
that defines small blocks, is designed for walkability and links the mixed-use center to surrounding
neighborhoods; a range of housing types for people of all incomes and ages; and an “edge” zone that
creates a transition in residential densities and building scale adjacent to single family neighborhoods.

Ms. Schulz reminded the Commission of the discussion that took place in January regarding the
centers, edge zones, where the transitional areas are appropriate and where the centers are located.
The Master Plan shows part of the subject site located within a center and high density residential use
further to the north.



                                                                                                          14
Ms. Schulz indicated there are three things for the Commission to consider today: 1) whether to
consider commercial development here, 2) what should the scale of the commercial development be
and 3) what should the character of that development be? As stated, the proposed project includes
350,000 sq. ft. of commercial development. Supercenters such as Wal-Mart typically range from
180,000 - 250,000 sq. ft. or between 4.1 and 5.7 acres. Other big box retail such as Home Depot or
Lowe's are in the 60,000 - 140,000 sq. ft. range and smaller free-standing chains such as Walgreens or
Rite Aid are generally 11,000 - 15,000 sq. ft. The neighborhood commercial level ranges typically from
1,000 -3,000 sq. ft. in size.

Ms. Schulz concluded her presentation again noting the three main questions to be considered today.
Should the Planning Commission determine that a change is warranted, then character of development
should also come into the discussion to provide some guidance for the future.

Mr. Miles asked about public notification.

Ms. Schulz explained that the normal practice was followed; it was published in the newspaper and
notices were sent to all within a 300’ radius.

Mr. Doezema asked if staff was able to determine how the subject area was designated for office and
high density residential; the logic behind that designation?

Ms. Schulz replied that she wasn’t involved in that planning process. However, in comparing the North
East Beltline Plan and the 2002 Master Plan there are a lot of parallels. Both plans identified this area
as a center; they both mention transitional use from most intense to least intense along the single
family area. Ms. Schulz feels it depends on where the Commission feels that line is and if commercial
on the entire site is appropriate. The applicant will likely address soil contamination and issues such as
that. Ms. Schulz indicated that staff has access to counsel that can provide a professional opinion
regarding the contamination analysis.

Ms. Johnston invited public comment.

Attorney Robert Scott was present on behalf of the property owner. He offered to defer his comments
for two weeks, understanding that the Commission has been involved in a long meeting today. They
would be glad to return in two weeks for a more meaningful discussion. He offered to let the neighbors
that are present, who may not be able to return in two weeks, speak first.

Ms. Johnston asked if he had a lengthy presentation.

Mr. Scott replied that he wants to be sure they have an opportunity for an appropriate discussion.

Ms. Works was concerned that the two issues not be mixed. The discussion today is to consider the
Master Plan and possible amendment; not to discuss the specific proposal for the site.

Mr. Scott replied that his presentation has nothing to do with the proposed development.

Don Seuter, resident on Littlefield, stated that he likes the East Beltline as it is and doesn’t want to see
it change. Countless hours went into the Master Plan and he doesn’t understand why the change is
even being considered. There is no reason whatsoever to change the Master Plan. Mr. Seuter
requested that he have a second opportunity to speak after the owner makes his presentation.

Mark Hegedus explained that he is a nearby resident. The area residents have worked very hard to tell
the City what is desired only to have it continually questioned. He asked that the Commission not
second guess the plans that took three municipalities and nine years to make. Both the overlay and
Master Plan are recent documents accepted by the City. He asked that the Commission not ignore the
                                                                                                           15
intent of the documents and that they not to do something that will make the citizens wonder why they
should participate with the City in the future. Additional commercial development isn’t necessary on
this site and it should be developed as it was planned.

Dianne Janereth, NECAA vice-president, read her prepared statement. NECAA has been actively
involved in master planning their area of Grand Rapids for over 20 years. Since the 1980’s their
involvement has included working with staff on at least three small area master plans; Meijers, the East
Beltline Overlay, Celebration Village and most recently the City’s Master Plan revision. They ask how
much more they have to do to relate that the Master Plan backed up by a more specific overlay plan is
what they feel is good for this area. They have worked to accommodate commercial growth at Knapp
and the East Beltline but also included limitations so that the growth would not get out of control. The
question today seems to be whether there should be commercial development on the NE corner of
Knapp and the East Beltline. NECAA stands by the Overlay, which is in line with the Master Plan, and
says no. That is the understanding that was reached with the two townships that worked on the overlay
in conjunction with the City. The office and residential development was planned to enhance the
commercial development on the other corners. More importantly, it was designed as a transition area
to the homes to the east. If in fact commercial development is considered, it should be limited to less
than 5 acres and should only allow small buildings so as not to include a building like Walgreens. Once
a precedent is set for commercial development it will be hard to control the size of the buildings if the
resolution is not very carefully worded. The size of this property could accommodate all of the buildings
in the Greenridge Mall on Alpine, which is exactly what will happen if there is a blanket statement
permitting commercial development. A simple no to commercial development on this site would be
exactly what the Master Plan intended for the site. The citizens of the City should not pay because the
current owner feels the contamination on the site is too much to work with; there are Brownfield funds
available. Their attorney has reviewed the contamination analysis and indicated that it isn’t as bad as
the developer would like you to think that it is. The citizens of the City should not have to pay if an
overzealous developer made a mistake and purchased the property before it was rezoned. The
citizens of the City should not have to pay by repeatedly defending all the hard work that went into
creating the Master Plan. The citizens of the City should not have to pay for a developer's whim to go
against the Master Plan. They ask that the developer’s problem not become their problem and that the
Planning Commission say no to commercial development.

Frank Lynn, 3440 Devon, stated that the Master Plan was recently completed and involved lengthy
discussions relating to this property. Mr. Lynn addressed Mr. Doezema’s question as to the future land
use designation. He related that former Mayor Logie and City Commissioner Rabaut spent many hours
working on the North East Beltline Overlay. The discussion that went into the Master Plan was intense
when it came to this corner. It was clearly the will of the people that this should be a transitional area.
To come back only two years later and request a change makes no sense. The residents put a huge
investment into getting their opinions heard during the Master Plan process and he asks why they
would consider going against that now. To rezone this property as proposed would be disastrous. A
commercial zoning would lead to a strip mall and traffic will only get worse. A lot of good work went into
the Master Plan and the Commission should stick to it.

Jack Teggelaar, 4338 Baywood in Grand Rapids Township, feels this is an exciting plan. The area is
becoming a great mix of restaurants, theater and shops and this would be a vital addition to what is
now a rather exciting retail area. There is always resistance to this kind of development but he feels
that in the future people would appreciate the services it could offer.

Mr. Zylstra asked for clarification as to what plan he finds exciting.

Mr. Teggelaar replied the plan by the new owner.

John Loeks, Celebration Cinema, feels there is a good start to the commercial development, but
believes it is only a start. With regard to the Master Plan, the question is whether there should be more
                                                                                                         16
commercial development along the East Beltline. If the answer is yes, the next question is where. He
feels that if there is to be more commercial development that this would be the appropriate location. He
feels it is a good idea to have the density in one general location. It identifies it, makes it a destination,
a place that is advertised and a place that people will come to from all over this side of the county. He
feels that is a good thing. Obviously his operation is competing with different sites around the county
and they have discovered that having a commercially vibrant area is much to their advantage. He feels
this would bring greater commercial vibrancy to this area. Mr. Loeks explained the reasons he feels
this is a good location on the East Beltline for additional commercial development. There are very few
streets that intersect the Beltline that extend very far east or west. Knapp St. is one of them, which
makes it much more efficient for people to get there. If they are coming from the east or west they can
access the intersection without spending much time on the East Beltline itself.

Cary Southland stated that she is very excited about the possibility of this development. She lives
approximately one mile from the Meijer development and loves it. Her in-laws were terribly concerned
about the Meijer and Celebration Village proposals and now love the convenience of it. To add what is
proposed for the northeast corner and provide convenient places to shop would be fantastic.

Jim Siegel of Siegel Jewelers stated that they are currently scouting for a new place to develop their
retail business. In order to avoid pockets of commercial development he feels this is an ideal place for
this kind of development, rather than spreading it out. He doesn’t feel the site would be appropriate for
residential development given the development already in place.

Joe Zieterveen, resident of Grand Rapids Township, read an email he received 10/29/02 from Mayor
Logie. The email indicated that the East Beltline Overlay Zone was approved by the City Commission
and that Plainfield Township and Grand Rapids Township companion legislation was expected to
follow. That would create, for the first time in the metropolitan area, a three governmental unit compact
for common oversight to reach commonly agreed upon goals. The area will continue to develop but
now on a much more coordinated basis than has ever been possible. Mr. Zieterveen stated that the
development that continues in the northeast section of Grand Rapids is to the point that the
infrastructure no longer supports the traffic. He read recently that the Planning Commission visited the
Celebration Village site at 2:30 on a weekday afternoon. He suggested they drive down the East
Beltline at 7 p.m. on a Friday evening and they might experience a different situation. Mr. Zieterveen
feels the obvious draw for this development is from the east and the traffic will use Knapp. Knapp is a
two lane road and is posted at 55 mph from the East Beltline to Grand River Dr. A new elementary and
high school have recently been constructed in that same stretch and no one knows the impact the
traffic will have; however he has no doubt it would increase 10 fold. There are drainage problems that
remain unresolved. The concept of over riding a Master Plan agreed upon by three municipalities isn’t
in the people’s best interest. Grand Rapids Township actually lowered their zoning standards to meet
the overlay plan and yet changing it is being considered. The benefits of this proposal are limited to
those proposing the development; those that are trying to make the northeast section of Grand Rapids
something that it isn’t.

Val Lazdins feels there is a misconception that the Overlay District would be thrown out the window;
this really deals with the Master Plan and has nothing to do with the Overlay District. In the Master
Plan this entire intersection is designated as a sub-regional mixed use center. It is designed, according
to the Master Plan, to serve a population that ranges between 55,000 and 115,000, which implies that it
should be very intensely developed with substantial commercial space to serve that market. According
to the Master Plan, a sub-regional center is proposed to have a retail area of approximately 150,000 -
275,000 sq. ft. which would serve a much smaller population than the population a sub-regional center
is designed for. There appears to be inconsistencies in what the Master Plan states and how that
entire area has already developed. If one considers the top end of what a 275,000 sq. ft. center could
entail, it is a little larger than a Meijer store. Currently, at Knapp and the East Beltline, the Meijer store
has already absorbed all of the square footage currently identified in the Master Plan yet the Master
Plan somehow addresses that the area is to serve a larger population. The diagram in the Master Plan
                                                                                                            17
also seems to generically apply to the other mixed use center located at 28th St. and the East Beltline.
When looking at the relationships, in either case, they don’t appear to make any sense. The diagram
indicates that a sub-regional center is the whole identity. It is a town center area not divided by major
roads. Yet in both cases it is split by two major roads. He asked then how is the consistent mixed use
area that is supposed to have supermarkets, drug stores etc. to be maintained. The inner ring is
supposed to accommodate things like a college or tech school or some type of health care facility.
They are also supposed to be located so that they can be served by proposed express and high
frequency transit routes. In reality, the red ball captures all four corners of this intersection, suggesting
that the entire quadrant has been designated as a sub-regional center. Yet in looking at each quadrant,
the Meijer site is designated as a sub-regional center but is basically a well designed shopping center.
The strip development to the south is also well designed and creatively done with second story office
space, yet the office space remains underutilized and primarily vacant. In looking at the Celebration
Cinema quadrant, that also is supposed to take on the attributes of a sub-regional center but in reality it
is a lifestyle center that’s anchored by a multi-screen movie theater. It is a well done facility but doesn’t
really fit the mold of a sub-regional center. It has supporting restaurants and supporting retail and two
drive-through banks. Mr. Lazdins asked where is the mix of uses, where is the prominent park, where
is the proposed high frequency transit. At a regional level, transit corridors are being studied but this
area isn’t being considered for that. The third quadrant, located in the township, contains a bank and
has none of the features of a sub-regional center. The fourth quadrant would provide the retail
elements missing from the other areas in an attempt to create a sub-regional center. Given that this
site is located at a very busy intersection, it is his opinion that it is ill suited to residential development.
Staff has identified a number of residential opportunities that could fit on the site but the question to be
asked is whether residential is appropriate and why the desire would be to generate additional
population in an area impacted by traffic and all the noise that goes with it. Therefore, Mr. Lazdins feels
this intersection is best suited to commercial development done in a way that is complimentary to mixed
use development. It appears that the sub-regional center hasn’t been well conceived in the Master
Plan and the Township and City have already supported and approved development projects contrary
to the intent of the Master Plan. In this case it appears that this is an attempt to try and get it right with
the last quadrant, yet the intent of the overall mixed use concept hasn’t been attained in the other three
quadrants.

Steve Benner indicated that he is the developer for the proposed project. He referred to the front page
GR Press from the previous day. One article speaks of 700 jobs created by a Toyota plant and another
article speaks of a department store closing. Mr. Benner indicated that the proposed project would add
over 2,000 jobs to the city. How can the City afford not to approve this project, adding thousands of
jobs to west Michigan and an increase in tax base for the City of Grand Rapids? With all of the
reported closings and layoffs, new jobs are what the City needs, not new apartments. This is an
upscale development that is very viable for this area. They are local developers employing local people
and this project brings more jobs to the area. Many other cities would be happy to have this
development come to their area yet the proposal continues to encounter obstacles. They need
approvals and they need them now so as not to miss the 2005 building season. If they miss the
opportunity now there are many jobs that would be delayed for another year and a half. Mr. Benner
feels this is the best use for the property, not an apartment complex or some other project that doesn’t
bring jobs to the area. The Master Plan designates the property as a regional shopping center, which is
why they chose the site. Offices are not leasing. There is an abundance of vacant office space in the
area and there is an abundance of available housing. Mr. Benner related that the Grand Rapids
Township portion of the proposed development does allow commercial retail. North of Celebration
Village also permits commercial retail. If it is permitted on both sides of this site and across the street
he doesn’t understand why this site shouldn’t be permitted the same right. Mr. Benner also commented
on the rising cost of gas noting that this would provide people in the area the convenience of not
traveling 17 miles to Rivertown Crossings.

John Katseer stated that he is a 30 year veteran in commercial real estate and has been very active on
behalf of both the seller and buyer of this site. He feels change, opportunity, service and control need
                                                                                                             18
to be considered. It seems that change is inevitable. There is a Master Plan that allows for certain
things and this Commission has the difficult task of making decisions about the type of change that
takes place. There is also opportunity; an opportunity for a wonderful development. The type of
development that has taken months to determine what would serve this community in the best way.
The last consideration is control. They are not asking that the Commission relinquish control but to play
a part, help, control the development in a manner that will make this a great opportunity, great
opportunity for service and great opportunity to change in the right way for this community. Mr. Katseer
supports this opportunity and feels it is the best opportunity and best development to serve this area
and community.

Mr. Hoyt suggested, given the late hour, that the Commission table the discussion. There have been
several interesting issues raised the he would like to provide more information on for the Commission.

Mr. Carlberg MOVED TO TABLE. SUPPORTED by Mr. Miles. YEAS: 7. NAYS: 0. MOTION
CARRIED.

Ms. Johnston explained that the hearing has been tabled open

Mr. Doezema asked for additional information regarding the contamination and whether there is the
possibility for residential development. He feels that would make the decision easier. He would also
like some idea as to the cost of remediation.

Mr. Hoyt related that he has made a request to the City Manager to hire outside expertise to review the
environmental report and offer comments.




                                                                                                       19
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 28, 2005

Members Present: Chairperson Shaula Johnston, Janet Sanders, Robert Zylstra, Peter Carlberg,
Patrick A. Miles, Gabriel Works, James Doezema, Paul Potter and student member Nick Preston
Members Absent: Marilyn A. Titche


Tabled Public Hearing - 2100 East Beltline Ave., NE: Review of Master Plan - discussion of
recommendation of Master Plan for this area. (ZC 23-04)

Ms. Schulz explained that this discussion relates to a Master Plan Amendment for the northeast corner
of Knapp and the East Beltline brought about by a developers request for a 33 acre retail development.
She reminded the Commission about previous discussions relating to whether the proposal is
consistent with the Master Plan and its goals. The purpose of the discussion today is to consider the
Master Plan for this area and whether the Planning Commission feels an amendment to that plan is
necessary. If so, the Planning Commission would direct staff to begin the process of amending the
Master Plan. The amendment process is quite lengthy and involves both the City Commission and
surrounding jurisdictions.

Ms. Schulz explained that the first questions to consider are what the Master Plan says, what are the
recommendations and what is the difference between the City of Grand Rapids Master Plan and the
North East Beltline Plan. The City of Grand Rapids Master Plan, adopted in 2002, is a general plan;
not site specific. The Future Land Use Map within the Master Plan is not parcel specific; it is a very
general plan. Within the Master Plan there is mention of a need for area specific planning, which is
intended to be more parcel specific and provide more direction. The City of Grand Rapids Master Plan
shows this site as part of a sub-regional center with high density residential to the north. A sub-regional
mixed use center is further defined in the Master Plan with core and inner ring uses. The core is
intended to be the most intense part of the development with the inner ring being more of a transitional
area into lower density development. The North East Beltline Plan is more specific in its
recommendation for this area and is parcel specific. Number 8 on the North East Beltline Plan shows
the Knapp and East Beltline corner of this parcel recommended for office development with the back of
the parcel, as well as parcel 9, recommended for high density residential; 9-16 units per acre.

Mr. Carlberg asked if there is a provision for service or retail uses in these areas.

Ms. Schulz replied that the North East Beltline Plan mentions this entire area as being defined as a
town center. The mixed use area was defined as parcel 10 which was to have the most intense
development; with the idea of a transitional area located between the single family homes on Dunnigan
and the development at the northwest corner.

Mr. Carlberg clarified then that there is no specific mention of retail for the northeast corner.

Ms. Works stated that if she recalls correctly the office definition encourages incorporating supporting
retail businesses into the office development.
Mr. Potter stated that his understanding of the material is that this is a transitional piece with the key
concept being transition; whether it be high density residential or low density commercial.

Ms. Schulz agreed that is the way it is described in the plan. She continued stating that the inner ring
uses include office, churches, high density residential, university etc.

Ms. Schulz recalled another question raised during a previous discussion; the intensity of commercial
development proposed in the Master Plan and whether or not the definition of mixed use center was

                                                                                                             20
appropriate. The retail gross square feet for a sub-regional center is defined as 150,000 - 275,000
gross sq. ft. and the population needed to support that would be 55,000 to 115,000. In considering
what is present now (Meijer & Celebration Village), the approximate gross sq. footage is within that
defined range; closer to the maximum at approximately 215,000 sq. ft. Ms. Schulz recalled from the
last meeting that Mr. Lazdins mentioned that the square footage is low compared to the population
number designed to support it.

Ms. Schulz commented next on the Master Plan characteristics/philosophy of a sub-regional center.
Ms. Schulz referred to page 22 of the handout, which lists a number of characteristics as objectives for
overall mixed use centers; a balance of old and new, architecture, open space, human scale elements,
transit and parking. When defining where the sub-regional center is or where the mix of uses should
be, these concepts should apply to all areas. Celebration Village has office above commercial for
example and some of the goals as described in the key characteristics have been or are close to being
met.

Mr. Hoyt offered his comments. At the last public hearing the Planning Commission heard that the
Master Plan might be flawed or not well conceived. However, Mr. Hoyt feels it is important to look at
how it developed to see why it says what it does. Meijer was in place when the East Beltline was
looked at by the three governmental jurisdictions. When that was done he feels there may not have
been a good concept of how this area could or should function. There was a great deal of insight when
considering the northwest corner including talk about mixed uses and trying to create some mixed use
activity. At that time the feeling was that Meijer provided the retail element and Celebration Village
provided some of that, as well as office and entertainment, and now the residential component was
needed. Several years later, when discussing the Master Plan, that intersection was over-laid with the
circle/the sub-regional designation, which may have been somewhat naïve. However, the Beltline is
identified as one of the major express lines for bus service. The activity centers were located so that
they provided a major stop on the transit corridors. Since the area is relatively developed with Meijer
and Celebration Village, again it may have been somewhat naïve to overlay it with the circle. However,
the idea was to incorporate the mixed use kind of thinking and something that became more transit
friendly even though it was recognized that the majority of those that would go there would do so by
car. Those were the kinds of principles that were considered when the circle was placed there. Mr.
Hoyt feels Mr. Carlberg raised a good point noting that the area will never function as a Regional
Center TOD because of the split by the East Beltline and Knapp making it impossible to have the
pedestrian connection to all four corners. However, seeing to it that each of the four corners is
developed to be pedestrian friendly is important. Mr. Hoyt stated that it may have been somewhat of an
afterthought to try and go back and add some corrections, but he feels the emphasis is on the
pedestrian environment and something that fits the idea of an activity center.

Mr. Carlberg referred to the diagram of a sub-regional mixed use center noting that the diagram implies
that the center isn’t split by main streets but is off-set from the main street, which would seem more
desirable. Mr. Carlberg also commented on the gross square footage and population number to
support it stating that he assumes the numbers were considered in terms of meeting the needs of the
population but not creating so much retail as to take away from existing retail space.

Mr. Hoyt replied that he doesn’t feel the numbers were looked at in that great of detail but that was the
thinking/assumption.

Mr. Hoyt continued, stating that just because it can’t necessarily work as a pedestrian center doesn’t
mean that development in a mixed use fashion shouldn’t be considered. On the other hand, he doesn’t
feel the Commission needs to say that that means that the plan shouldn’t be changed. The
Commission should consider land use relationships in terms of how the area has developed, the most
appropriate land use for the site and how it can fit and work with the other corners of the intersection.



                                                                                                        21
Ms. Schulz advised the Commission that four resolutions were prepared for their consideration. The
first leaves the office and high density residential in place and indicates that high intensity commercial
is not an appropriate use; the second provides preliminary approval of the request and that the feeling
is this would be an appropriate use of the property. If this is the case, the Commission will decide
whether the proposed development complies with the Master Plan or whether the desire is to amend
the Master Plan to further support the development plans. The third option is a wait and see approach,
suggesting that the proposed development is something that may be a consideration in the future; and
the fourth suggests that the desire is for something in the middle; perhaps a mix of office, residential
and retail.

Mr. Doezema asked for clarification on how the Commission is to look at the North East Joint
Development Plan and the Master Plan.

Mr. Hoyt replied that the Master Plan suggests the generalized land use be looked at first and the sub-
area plan provides the detail. In this case, the sub-area plan was completed prior to the Master Plan.

Mr. Doezema asked if they should still consider the sub-area plan even though there is a slightly
different depiction.

Mr. Hoyt replied that to him it is the same depiction over-laid with the idea of trying to integrate it as
much as possible; knowing that much of the area is already developed.

Mr. Doezema noted then that the belief is that some of the commercial uses would fit within the joint
development plan.

Mr. Hoyt agreed.

Mr. Doezema asked then if it is the area to the north, depicted as high density residential, that is the
issue.

Mr. Hoyt replied that to make it simpler they consider the circle as transparent and look through it to see
what the area specific plan says underneath as a starting point. That doesn’t mean that should be fixed
or not changed, but that it is a starting point.

Mr. Carlberg asked if he was also saying that because mixed use is encouraged in all of these aspects
that it would be possible to have commercial/retail uses and still be compatible with the Master Plan.

Ms. Schulz replied that the question is to what extent.

Mr. Carlberg felt that if the primary use remained office and residential then perhaps an argument could
be made for some commercial.

Ms. Works indicated that if it is primarily commercial it wouldn’t meet the North East Joint Development
Plan, which was supported by the Master Plan.

Mr. Carlberg responded that if commercial were a minor component it would be consistent with the
Master Plan.

Mr. Hoyt agreed that it would be consistent with what the Master Plan says now. What is being
suggested however is making retail a more major component.

Rick Sprague, Grand Rapids Township, was present to answer questions regarding the vicinity
surrounding the subject site, located within their jurisdiction. He referred to the map identifying zonings
in the immediate area. Mr. Sprague informed the Commission that Grand Rapids Township plans to
                                                                                                             22
rewrite their Master Plan next year and have begun preliminary work. He described the area
surrounding the subject site. The area to the south is zoned residential, which permits public uses such
as township halls and fire stations. The future plans, as noted in the 1990 Master Plan, are for a town
center PUD. Mr. Sprague identified the Township Park, wetlands that will not be developed, and
commented on the potential for developing that site. Nothing will go forward on that site until it is
considered in the Master Plan rewrite. The property located east of the subject site is low density
residential. There is a fairly large site they anticipate being developed. Traveling further east along
Knapp the lots had once been fairly deep and have been split up and developed using cul-de-sacs.
Those lots tend to be ½ to 2 acres in size. Mill and Flowers Crossing is located to the south and east
and consists of smaller lots. To the north of the subject site the Master Plan designation is medium
density residential, which allows up to 8 units per acre. The Township is aware that the developer has
an option on the property to the north and proposes moving a regional detention location to that parcel,
which would require discussion. The Township has not received a formal application.

Mr. Carlberg asked about the PUD5 on the other side of the Beltline.

Mr. Sprague replied that it is a mixed use site. The back half has been rezoned to PUD5 and an
office/restaurant/retail development has been approved for that site. At this time they are at a standstill.
The Township has encouraged them to wait for something to happen with the property to the east of
them in order to work cooperatively with driveways off of the Beltline. They have been patient and
agreed to hold off but they aren’t expected to wait forever.

Mr. Zylstra asked about plans for the East Beltline and Three Mile intersection.

Mr. Sprague replied that they have been approached by Robert Akins and Assoc. with a zoning
ordinance amendment to allow a new PUD district in the township. They are interested in a mixed use
commercial/lifestyle PUD. When they originally approached the township about doing a lifestyle center
in the township they were discouraged from doing a PUD5 because of the sizes of the buildings it
allowed and the type of development it allowed. They offered to come to the Township with a proposed
ordinance that would address their type of development, which is a fairly new concept for Michigan and
most area municipalities don’t have an ordinance to specifically address that retro-downtown type
development. They have made application and the first conceptual review of the ordinance was done.
The Township Planning Commission was asked if they wished to proceed with reviewing the ordinance
and they felt it was worthy of looking into. A special meeting will be held to discuss the details of the
ordinance. Staff will make suggested changes. A development plan has not been presented at this
time. Mr. Sprague believes their process is to get the ordinance in place and then come in with a plan
that would fit that ordinance.

Mr. Zylstra asked if it is the southeast corner of that intersection.

Mr. Sprague agreed.

Mr. Carlberg asked Mr. Sprague if he has done some research into the lifestyle centers.

Mr. Sprague replied that he had an opportunity to visit the Village of Rochester Hills. He has also been
provided with material relating to those developed in the south.

Mr. Carlberg asked about the term “retro-downtown”.

Mr. Sprague replied that the lifestyle center concept has a downtown feel to it with a main street and on
street parking, taller buildings of multiple stories or facades that give that impression, and incorporated
pedestrian access; more so than the standard suburban strip mall. There is a lot of detail that goes into
aesthetics.

                                                                                                         23
Mr. Carlberg asked if they also have easier connections to the neighborhoods.

Mr. Sprague agreed that that is typical. However, he found that the Village of Rochester Hills doesn’t
have the pedestrian connection to the neighborhoods. His understanding is that the neighbors fought
the connection and now wish they had it. There was also an elevation issue. As for the ordinance
being proposed for the Township, that is something that staff is definitely recommending and he has
asked the developer to include a requirement for connection; but not necessarily vehicular.

Mr. Zylstra asked Mr. Sprague if he had any comments regarding what the Planning Commission is
considering today.

Mr. Sprague replied that they have no proposal before them and as a Planning Commission they have
not discussed it. They don’t have a formal opinion at this point.

Mr. Carlberg asked if the applicant would require a zone change in the Township in order to relocate
the regional detention basin to the north.

Mr. Sprague replied that they have discussed it but they haven’t received an application and have not
had their attorney look into it. They anticipate a rezoning request at some point since what is proposed
is not a multi-family residential development.

Ms. Johnston invited public comment.

Val Lazdins, LSL Planning, recalled pointing out a section in the Master Plan at the last meeting that
states if there is an inconsistency between the area plan then the City Master Plan supercedes. On
one hand the Planning Commission is being asked to review the North East Beltline Master Plan and
on the other hand they must look at the City Master Plan that designates a red dot over this
intersection. Mr. Lazdins stated that try as he might, he is unable to lift the red ball off the intersection.
If the Commission is asked to look at the North East Beltline Plan it is for high density residential and
office. However, looking at the Master Plan there is a discrepancy between the North East Beltline
Plan and the area north of Celebration Village, which has now been designated in the Master Plan as
residential and TBA connection. So the Commission is being asked to refer to the North East Beltline
Master Plan for the northeast corner but to refer to the Master Plan for the quadrant. It seems that
there are inconsistencies in the way the Commission is being asked to review the development
proposal as well as the Master Plan. In his opinion there are discrepancies and therefore, the city’s
Master Plan supercedes the North East Beltline Master Plan and in this case it encompasses all four
corners of the intersection. The diagram suggests that that entire area is designated as part of that
mixed use development, which should include commercial development.

Mr. VanFossen, a resident within two miles, stated that he is very much in favor of the project in order
to get business back on this side of town. He feels this would add to/compliment Woodland Mall rather
than take businesses away from it.

Dianne Janereth, NECAA vice-president, read her prepared statement. She reminded the Commission
that she informed them how the Neighborhood Association felt about the Master Plan at the last
meeting. Today she would like to remind the Commission that they strongly stand behind the 1 ½ year
old Master Plan and the even more specific Overlay Zone for this corner. They realize something will
be built on this corner and it will involve numerous meetings. The association hopes that by their
presence today the Commission will uphold the Master Plan so that they don’t have to be back every
two weeks to protest and argue about the development. Those that were present during the Meijer
development are aware that the association can work with developers who are reasonable in their
requests and would very much like to be present offering support to a developer who presents a
reasonable plan and works with the neighborhood association. The association is unable to do that if
the Commission allows the Master Plan to be changed to allow projects like the one currently proposed.
                                                                                                             24
Rupert McGinn stated that after spending so much time working on something it feels like a slap in the
face. If this is permitted, the next time there is a request to get the citizens involved in a study there
won’t be much interest. Mr. McGinn finds it disturbing that the Master Plan is so new and they are
considering amending it. He asks that the Commission either vote not to do anything or vote not to do
anything but consider it in the future.

Mr. Thorne Brown, a resident off of the Beltline for 30 years, stated that he is in favor of the
development. He and his wife currently frequent Celebration Village but mostly only for movies. He
had the pleasure of visiting a lifestyle center in the south and was very impressed. He feels it would be
good for this corner.

Mr. Carlberg asked if the lifestyle center included multi-story buildings and whether there was a
residential component in it.

Mr. Brown replied that some were multi-story. He visited the center for the commercial/retail but did
observe that there was residential behind/in the area.

Mr. Carlberg asked if there was a connection to the residential.

Mr. Brown replied that he believes there were sidewalks. The lifestyle center he visited was in Florida.

Jim Reminga noted that he has a fairly significant investment in the area, both in Celebration and to the
south of Meijer. Mr. Reminga responded to Mr. Lazdins’ comment about lifting the dot. In the
resolutions that were passed by the Planning Commission and the City Commission it specifically says
that the North East Master Plan supercedes the new City Master Plan. Although the City Master Plan
consists of 300 pages with several columns on each page there are very few columns that speak to
area specific plans. Mr. Lazdins is correct that it does state that if there is an inconsistency then the
new Master Plan supercedes. However, out of all of those pages, the only thing that is text specific is
about the area specific plans that predated the Master Plan. His feeling is that the North East Master
Plan is the plan for this area. Mr. Reminga noted Ms. Works’ statement that the office definition in the
North East Plan does allow for retail and he agrees that it supports retail in office buildings. Mr.
Reminga concluded his comments stating that the Master Plan has a lot of purposes; one of them
being defense. If the door is opened too soon and the Commission suggests that this corner has
potential for commercial development and later decides they don’t like the plans presented, there won’t
be many options. There is always the potential to change it in the future and he encouraged the
Commission to keep an open mind for opportunity in the area while being careful. The relationship of
the proposed development to Dunnigan is severe and the North East Plan is what it is because of the
concern for the residential.

Kevin Raymond, a resident of Grand Rapids Township, stated that he lives on Dunnigan with the
proposed going into his back yard. A few years ago he came home to find that the grassy area had
been completely clear cut and the existing detention pond was installed. He thanked the Commission
for the opportunity to express his concerns before being surprised again. Mr. Raymond commented on
the traffic noting that in the last week it took him in excess of 8 minutes to get from the I-96 exit at the
East Beltline to Knapp. The East Beltline is highly traveled by commuters from Rockford, Belding,
Cedar Springs and other communities to the north. Knapp is not as was stated two weeks ago with
very little traffic in the east west direction; it backs up regularly taking three traffic lights to get through.
These are not isolated incidents; they occur on a daily basis. Mr. Raymond also commented on
accidents at the subject intersection. He asked that the Commission consider the impact a project of
this size will have. Mr. Raymond indicated that another concern is for his neighbors as well as himself.
Most projects of this size have well established buffer zones. The proposed buffer is a 25’ strip. The
elevation change from his property line to the proposed parking lot will be 25-30’, which means a wall of
some type will be located within 25’ of his property. Neighboring properties have an even greater
                                                                                                              25
elevation change. After much discussion with the neighbors about how they could turn this into a
positive situation they have decided if the wall is built they will turn this huge retaining wall in the back
yards into a shooting range but before doing so they thought it would be appropriate to discuss the
change in use with their local township officers and City neighbors to the west to determine if this is
best for everyone involved. They ask the same from the Commission; to consider everything involved
and everyone affected by the change proposed today. Mr. Raymond concluded stating that if there is
no retaining wall then the arrows won’t fly in your direction.

Jack Teggelaar, 4338 Baywood in Grand Rapids Township, stated that he is not as immediately
affected by the proposed development. He has been in favor of the project from the beginning and
feels development in the area to date has been very nice and the accessibility and proximity to his
home is good. He feels the proposed use will augment the vitality of the area as well as the
attractiveness.

Attorney Robert Scott, present on behalf of the subject property owner, commented on the history of
the Beltline. He arrived in Grand Rapids in the mid ‘70’s when the Beltline was a two-lane rural
highway and the closest thing to commercial was a bait shop. Obviously it has come a long way and it
hasn’t been an easy process. The Meijer site was not always in the City of Grand Rapids. When
Blodgett Hospital wanted to move their facility to that site they worked with the residents who found a
way to get the property annexed to the City. Shortly thereafter an amendment to the Master Plan was
put into place that didn’t describe a Meijer store. The Planning Commission felt at that time that this is
where commercial development should occur in the northeast quadrant of the City. In the mid ‘90’s the
owners of Sietsema Orchards and Flowers of the Field had similar ideas and also found a way to get
the property annexed to the City. Again a Master Plan was put together. If examining that Plan closely
one will find that Celebration Village doesn’t meet that plan very well either. He agreed it is close but
does not meet it. Once again the Planning Commission and City felt it was close enough and that this
is where commercial development should occur in this quadrant. At present, this area is being
considered again and Mr. Scott feels this continues to be the finest and best area for commercial
development in the northeast quadrant of the City. Testimony has revealed a proposal for similar
development at 3 Mile and the Beltline that may or may not come to fruition. He feels that if the City
takes a good look at the subject location it is a much better location for such development because it
does have the access across the river to the east. This is a better intersection. Mr. Scott commented
on the high density residential. He explained that he went through the Master Plan process and agrees
there was discussion about high density residential on this corner. However, in part, that discussion
was because the City was not prepared to say more commercial was appropriate on that corner at that
time. It had to have some designation other than single family residential. Mr. Scott stated that to the
best of his knowledge there hasn’t been a lot of demand for high density residential in this quadrant.
He agreed that there are some condominiums but they are not high density residential. This location is
best suited for commercial development. If one notes that there is already commercial development
and asks what more is needed, he suggests the list of commercial uses be reviewed. There aren’t any
department or clothing stores, no specialty shops or home improvement stores. On behalf of his client
he submits that this site is eminently appropriate for commercial development. They agree that there
are issues to address but with the wisdom of the Commission they can be addressed.

Mr. Scott also commented on the economic impact of the proposed development. His client did a
market study in an effort to attract tenants to the site. It is estimated that there will be over $100 million
of sales out of this location, which can be a huge economic benefit to the City of Grand Rapids.

Ed DeVries, resident of 2049 Brunsink NE for 38 years, stated that he has witnessed the entire area
evolve and develop over the years and it has been a benefit to see these developments occur. Most of
the components of a good retail area now exist, yet as Mr. Scott mentioned there are a few pieces
missing. Mr. DeVries commented on a condominium project he developed on Perkins stating that his
feeling is the proposed lifestyle center can supply what the residents need. There are other nearby

                                                                                                            26
areas for residential development and more retail is needed to support that. Mr. DeVries is in favor of
the project.

Mort Hoffman of Grand Rapids Township stated that he is firmly opposed. The Commission has heard
the traffic situation described and he agrees it is horrendous. More retail will equal more traffic. In five
minutes one can be at the malls located at 28th and the Beltline and there is also commercial
development along the 28th St. corridor. He doesn’t feel there is any need for additional retail. Mr.
Hoffman also feels that developing retail at this corner will take away from what currently exists as well
as what has been developed in the northern communities. Mr. Hoffman commented on the three
fatalities he is aware of at the subject intersection and he is concerned that more traffic will result in
additional fatalities. He urged the Commission to adhere to the North East Beltline Master Plan.

Don Seuter, resident on Littlefield, stated that he is tired of out of town developers coming to the area
stating they are creating a great city here by adding more retail where it isn’t necessary. Mr. Seuter is
opposed, as more retail is not needed in the area. He asked that the Commission stick with the Master
Plan.

Frank Lynn, resident of Devon Lane, stated that he supports the Overlay and the Master Plan as they
exist. The drawings in the packets show how the property could nicely be developed as Master
Planned. He doesn’t feel the proposal that would come before the Commission is an extraordinary
opportunity. He doesn’t feel a Walgreens or the potential Home Depot are necessarily extraordinary.
He could drive to these businesses located on 28th St. just as quickly as he could if they were located at
the subject intersection. Mr. Lynn encouraged the Commission to adopt resolution #1.

Ms. Schulz noted that the drawings Mr. Lynn referred to were included in the Commission packets for
the meeting held on 4/14/05.

Developer Steve Benner stated that if this development doesn’t go on this site there will be similar
development at the corner of 3 Mile and the Beltline. The Commission heard Mr. Scott comment on the
tax base such a development would generate. Mr. Benner feels this is a good opportunity for the City
in all financial/economic respects. Mr. Benner also advised a previous speaker that they are not an out
of town developer; they are local.

John Doran, 2061 Dunnigan, stated that he grew up on Dunnigan, married and rented a home on
Dunnigan and later returned to the neighborhood purchasing a home on the same street. His only
major investment is in his home and he asks that the Commission protect that investment.

Mr. Potter recalled the reference to a Home Depot being constructed on this site. He asked staff if that
comment was fact based.

Ms. Johnston replied that her packet refers only to a certain size anchor/major retail. It doesn’t
specifically indicate what would be located there.

Mr. Bakita explained the process for the benefit of all present. If the Planning Commission decides they
are not interested in proceeding with a Master Plan amendment the owner may still seek rezoning and
take it forward to the City Commission, even with a negative recommendation from the Planning
Commission. If they do that or if the Planning Commission were to offer a favorable recommendation
on the rezoning it may just be the inconsistency or perceived inconsistency between the Master Plan
and the new zoning classification that might make it more questionable in terms of legal validity. Mr.
Bakita summarized stating that if the vote is no on the Master Plan amendment it does not necessarily
stop the proposal from moving forward.




                                                                                                          27
Ms. Works MOVED, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has evaluated the future land use
designations of this area and finds that the present designations as described in the North East
Beltline Joint Planning Study are appropriate for the following reasons:
   • Office and high-density residential development with a minority of commercial are
       appropriate transitional uses between the intense, mixed-use development of Celebration
       Village and single-family residential uses located to the east.
   • Intense commercial development covering 33-acres of land would adversely impact the
       general quality of life of neighboring residents as it would increase noise, light, vehicle
       exhaust and litter, among other things.
   • Many examples of viable office and residential development can be found along the East
       Beltline corridor.
   • The North East Beltline Joint Planning Study was coordinated with surrounding
       communities and based on extensive community input.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby reaffirms the future land
use designations of Parcels 8 and 9 as described in the North East Beltline Joint Development
Plan and finds no need to amend the Plan.

SUPPORTED by Ms. Sanders.

Ms. Works related that one reason she wanted to be the one to make this motion was the amount of
time she spent involved in the North East Beltline Overlay planning. She remembers the reasons for
the designation of high density residential. She feels there was a lot of thought that went into that
designation and there remains a lot of flexibility here.

Mr. Carlberg noted that she added “commercial” to the language of the resolution.

Ms. Works agreed. It is not ruled out but should be very minimal/small scale.

Mr. Potter noted that he didn’t have the benefit of serving on the same committee but did read the
notes. The impression he got was that this property was meant to serve as a transition.

Ms. Works explained that her belief is that the thought was that the development would be fairly intense
but still respect and have transitional aspects for the neighboring properties.

Mr. Potter asked if something along the lines of mid-rise office and high density condominium would fit
the intent.

Ms. Works agreed.

Mr. Potter feels that a less intensive commercial development, compared to the site to the west, could
still meet that objective of providing transition from the commercial to the west and residential to the
east.

Ms. Works doesn’t feel the focus should be on transitional.

Mr. Potter replied that he is trying to understand the thought process of the work that went into the plan
and that was the impression he got.

Ms. Works explained that when the plan was worked on the development to the west didn’t exist. She
feels another layer now exists with some of the uses that are present and that they should be
complimented with what was determined in the Overlay, which was office and high density residential.


                                                                                                        28
Mr. Potter noted however that high density residential condominiums and mid-rise office of poor quality
would not meet the intent. He feels the three keys are type of development, quality of development and
intensity of development.

Ms. Works agreed that quality can be important. However, she feels that the true mixture of uses is
more important than just having high quality.

Mr. Potter replied high quality, density and meeting the needs of transition into the residential
component are important.

Mr. Carlberg feels intensity was meant in terms of traffic generated to the site. His belief is the
commercial would create a lot more trips then the uses permitted under the current designation.
Mr. Potter argued that an office development with one employee per 100 sq. ft. is pretty intensive in
terms of traffic.

Mr. Carlberg related that he is just trying to guess what was meant/desired.

Mr. Potter related that he has been in real estate development for 20 years and the proposed is just too
intense to meet the objectives of those that worked on the Plan. It should be downsized. He feels the
quality and concept are good but in the wrong location from an intensity standpoint.

Mr. Carlberg stated that his problem with the proposal is that the Master Plan calls for office and
residential. Approving the applicant’s plan eliminates the potential of office and residential and devotes
the entire site to commercial. Mr. Carlberg finds no argument for doing that at this time.

Mr. Potter replied that his only concern is that although they may get the component they are interested
in, it may not be a quality development.

Mr. Carlberg argued that there are other avenues to address that. He doesn’t feel a Master Plan
amendment is justified by what the applicant has brought forward.

Mr. Doezema asked staff what the status of Celebration Village was at the time the Master Plan was
adopted.

There were several different thoughts amongst staff and the Commission as to the status of both Meijer
and Celebration Village at that time.

Mr. Reminga provided further clarification. The developers of the northwest corner were aware of the
land and had an interest in developing there in the middle of the Master Planning process and they did
have input. They actually came in for the rezoning after the Master Plan process. One of the first steps
that Celebration Village went through was to go back to the Committee for review of the application.
Celebration Village was the first project that went to that committee for review.

Mr. Zylstra offered his reasons for supporting the resolution on the table. If this site were developed
commercially, it is labeled as a lifestyle center but includes some pretty big box proposals, which really
qualifies more in his mind as a big box type development. Orientation doesn’t change that. What he
has seen in other areas is very well developed, medium to high density mixed style and scale
residential with small scale commercial incorporated within to serve that population. His observation is
that they have been highly successful and very appealing. Mr. Zylstra feels that that type of
development is more in line with the existing East Beltline Overlay. He feels the possibility remains for
a nice, medium to high density residential development. To amend the Master Plan and lose that
opportunity seems very inappropriate.



                                                                                                         29
Ms. Johnston agreed that a lifestyle center proposed without a residential component seems
inappropriate.

Mr. Doezema argued that that isn’t the issue. The site is Master Planned for office and residential now
and what the focus should be on is whether there should be more emphasis on commercial
development. Based on the testimony, it doesn’t sound like the proposal for Celebration Village came
in exactly as Master Planned. His view of the area is primarily commercial not excluding some
residential, but not primarily office and residential.

Ms. Schulz suggested the last resolution in the packet may fit that view better.

Ms. Works noted that when Celebration Village went in, it went in under the North East Beltline Plan.

Mr. Hoyt explained that the North East Beltline Plan was adopted and replaced the section of the
1960’s Master Plan for this area.

Mr. Miles offered his comments. He will support the resolution as he hasn’t heard anything
overwhelming to convince him there should be a change to the Master Plan. The Master Plan was well
thought out.

Ms. Sanders indicated that if she were a developer she too would want to see it all go commercial.
However, as a planner and thinking of the long term, she is aware that East Grand Rapids purchased
property along the Beltline to remain and help keep the East Beltline moving traffic. The South Beltline
was just completed to help with moving traffic. The developer talks about the tax base. Ms. Sanders
would respond to that comment noting that there is a huge tax base in that area with the residential
homes that have been developed over the years and that too needs to be part of the consideration.
Ms. Sanders is in favor of leaving the designation as is.

Ms. Johnston stated that she too agrees with the motion. The intensity level of what is proposed is just
too great. The citizens of the area have spoken and she believes the Master Plan should be upheld.

The question was called. YEAS: 6. NAYS: 2 (Doezema, Potter). MOTION CARRIED.

Additional discussion followed regarding the process involved for this proposal. The applicant will be
back requesting the rezoning. If the Planning Commission recommends against the proposed rezoning
the applicant has the right to proceed with that recommendation to the City Commission

Mr. Doezema asked if they could deny and then make a recommendation as to what they would like to
see it zoned; something less intensive.

Mr. Bakita replied that the request to come before the Commission is for a PUD.

Mr. Hoyt indicated that if he were making a recommendation it would be for SR which permits office
and residential.

Mr. Doezema asked if the Commission can initiate that rezoning.

Mr. Hoyt replied that the Commission can direct staff to initiate the change.

Mr. Bakita suggested it may be more appropriate to do that when the rezoning request is before the
Commission. If the Planning Commission recommends against the proposed PUD and the City
Commission also agrees to deny the PUD, the recommendation to the City Commission at that point
could be to direct staff to initiate rezoning to something felt to be more appropriate.

                                                                                                        30
Mr. Potter asked, since the rezoning request will be for a PUD, whether the applicant could change the
scope and scale of the project.

Mr. Hoyt agreed.




                                                                                                     31
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 27, 2006

Members Present: Chairperson Patrick A. Miles, Shaula Johnston, Marilyn A. Titche, , Jasmine Hall,
Paul Potter, James Doezema, H. David Soet and Gabriel Works
Members Absent: Robert Zylstra and student member Hanna Preston


NE Corner Knapp & East Beltline NE - Planning Commission Master Plan Discussion - Ms.
Schulz explained that this discussion was noticed as a public hearing and it will be at the Commission’s
discretion whether they receive public comment or not. There have been some significant changes in
this area and the applicant will come before the Planning Commission with a revised plan on 8/10/06
requesting re-zoning to PUD. The plan is similar to the previous request but now includes residential
and office components and does not relocate the regional infiltration basin. Ms. Schulz reminded the
Commission that the previous request was for a 300,000+ sq. ft lifestyle center. The City Commission
denied the re-zoning finding that it didn’t comply with the Northeast Beltline Overlay Plan. Meanwhile,
Grand Rapids Township heard a request for the southeast corner of 3 Mile and the East Beltline and
that was approved, although it isn’t necessarily in compliance with the Northeast Beltline Plan.
Presently, signatures are being verified for validity with the expectation that the matter will be placed on
the ballot for a vote. Ms. Schulz feels the recent actions and opinions in the Township have regional
implications and may or may not affect the Planning Commission’s feelings for what happens at the
subject site. Due to the fact that the applicant for the northeast corner of Knapp and the East Beltline
will come before the Commission in August, Ms. Schulz felt it was important to discuss what is
appropriate for that corner. The Master Plan future land use map identifies the intersection as a sub-
regional center. The Northeast Beltline Plan is parcel specific and should be deferred to as the more
detailed plan as opposed to the general city wide Master Plan.

Ms. Schulz explained that the goal of a mixed use center is that there be a mixed use core with retail
and commercial uses, offices, transit, public spaces, variety of housing surrounding and appropriate
densities to support the retail and transit. The overall Master Plan shows high density residential on the
far north side of the east side of the East Beltline. In 1998 the Planning Commission adopted the
Northeast Joint Development Plan. It was a partnership between the City of Grand Rapids, Grand
Rapids Township and Plainfield Township. The goal was that the East Beltline not look like 28th St.;
that it would be a limited access roadway and would have well thought out land uses. Several
intersections were identified that would serve as town centers/mixed use centers that would have a
mixed use component and would have neighboring higher density residential development to support it.
When originally planned, the site of Celebration Village was to be the commercial mixed use
component and the subject site at the northeast corner was to be the supporting residential with the
infiltration basin as a buffer between the single family homes on Dunnigan and the high density
residential on this site. When looking at regional considerations, regional growth patterns, available
land for development and the efficiency of the roadway, some of the decisions and conversations have
focused primarily on the intersections between Knapp and 4 Mile. The development approved in Grand
Rapids Township encompasses all of the property north of the Evergreen northern property line to 3
Mile and east to Dunnigan. Therefore, there are two major land holders between Knapp and 3 Mile.
The applicant for the Grand Rapids Township project proposes nearly 400,000 sq. ft. of retail along the
East Beltline frontage and 156 residential condominium units. Rumors with regard to the Robinettes
parcel are that of a big box. Neither 3 or 4 Mile Roads were identified as town centers in the East
Beltline plan. The commercial that was to go on 3 Mile was to be similar to a D & W store. The PUD
that was approved for 3 Mile is that of a lifestyle center and talks about it being a neighborhood center,
however, the size of the development is more a regional commercial use than a neighborhood center.
The Township has indicated that they purchased a piece of land that adjoins their park property on the
southeast corner of Knapp and the Beltline and their intent is not to keep it for park land and anticipate
commercial development there at some point in the future.

                                                                                                          32
For the purpose of this discussion, Ms. Schulz asked that the Planning Commission consider where the
core of the Village Center is. She also asked that they consider the intensity/concentration of uses and
offer feedback on what types of uses or concerns there may be with regard to the subject corner.

Ms. Schulz responded to questions. The subject site is zoned low density residential. It is the City’s
philosophy to align the zoning with the Master Plan and they are currently working on zoning maps in
an effort to align them with what the future land use map recommends. The Master Plan identifies the
subject site as office and residential. That was in 1998 and, based on the discussions with the Overlay
Committee and partner communities, perhaps the plan is outdated.

Mr. Potter noted then that the normal course would be to rezone this site to office and residential.

Ms. Schulz responded that a straight rezoning is possible but the history along the Beltline has been
PUD’s for more control.

Ms. Schulz responded to additional questions indicating that the subject site is 36 acres in the City and
several more acres in the township. She agreed that if the site were rezoned for office and residential
they could still consider a PUD and the zoning would be in keeping with the Master Plan.

Ms. Schulz indicated that the question she would like the Commission to consider is whether the
Master Plan still holds water.

Mr. Miles recalled that the Planning Commission previously expressed a desire to adhere to the Master
Plan.

Ms. Works feels that no matter what happens around the site there were some basic needs called out
in the village center. The residential and office are missing, especially the high density residential. She
feels the Master Plan still holds water no matter what takes place around it.

Mr. Potter felt it would be to their benefit to align the zoning with the Master Plan.

Ms. Schulz explained that with the new zoning ordinance they are making the East Beltline Overlay an
actual district.

Mr. Doezema related that he can’t discount commercial on the site.

Ms. Schulz recalled previous acceptance of the idea of neighborhood oriented commercial or boutique
style commercial. She advised that if the Commission feels the Master Plan is outdated then they
could initiate a Master Plan amendment.

Mr. Doezema feels some form of commercial on the subject corner is inevitable.

Ms. Works replied that the point of the Master Plan is to steer development.

Ms. Johnston suggested a straw vote to determine if there was an interest in more commercial or
continued support for the Master Plan.

Ms. Works recalled a long discussion considering that very question and asked if they wanted to re-
open that again.

Mr. Miles agreed. He recalled that they previously determined they would support the Master Plan and
stay away from commercial.

                                                                                                         33
Ms. Schulz stated that the recent Grand Rapids Township approval at 3 Mile puts everyone in a difficult
position. It puts Plainfield Township in a difficult position for what will happen at 4 Mile and it puts
Grand Rapids in a difficult position to some degree at Knapp because Grand Rapids Township doesn’t
see a problem with commercial up and down the Beltline apparently.

Judge Soet stated that he is bothered by the use of the word commercial. Offices are commercial. If
one means retail when speaking of commercial use then it is more clearly defined. He is not
necessarily in favor of more retail in this area but perhaps a transition of office and higher density
residential.

Ms. Schulz advised that the Master Plan is a policy document and the zoning is the law. The Master
Plan is to guide decisions. Is it necessary to change the policy document or is it sufficient as is?
Unless there is a motion made to amend the Master Plan, it will remain as it is.

Mr. Potter suggested it may be in their best interest to re-zone the property to reflect the Master Plan.

Ms. Schulz stated that as they re-write the boundaries for the new code that can be done. She
suggested an SR zoning, which is a residential district that permits office uses.

Additional discussion took place with regard to rezoning the property. A rezoning would have to be
consistent with the Master Plan or the Master Plan would first have to be amended.

Mr. Doezema wondered how the residential neighbors feel in light of the decision for 3 Mile.

Ms. Schulz explained that the request for a PUD for the Knapp corner was noticed for the 8/10 meeting
and it is likely the Commission will hear from neighbors.




                                                                                                            34
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2006

Members Present: Chairperson Patrick A. Miles, Shaula Johnston, Marilyn A. Titche, Paul Potter,
Robert Zylstra, James Doezema, H. David Soet and Gabriel Works
Members Absent: Jasmine Hall and student member Hanna Preston

Mr. Doezema left the meeting and did not return.

2100 East Beltline Ave. NE - Zone Change - requesting a zone change of 33.3 acres from GRTZ
Grand Rapids Township Zoning, defined as low-density residential, to PUD Planned Unit Development
for property known as the former site of Sietsema Orchards within the City of Grand Rapids. Another
13.4 acres of land presently located in GR Township has been included within the project proposal and
will require Township approval. The request would permit the construction of approximately 140,780
sq. ft. of residential and office uses and another 406,174 sq. ft. of commercial retail development for a
“lifestyle” center to include two drive-through uses. Waivers for signage and number of parking spaces
will be required from the Northeast Beltline Overlay District. (ZC 25-06)

Ms. Schulz presented the rezoning request, a request to rezone from GRTZ to PUD, for the former
Sietsema Orchards. The site is located at the northeast corner of Knapp and the East Beltline with
Meijer located at the southwest corner and Celebration Village at the northwest corner. Grand Rapids
Township hall is located at the southeast corner. The project involves 33.3 acres within the city of
Grand Rapids and an additional 13.4 acres in Grand Rapids Township; the site plan reflects the entire
site. The request includes construction of approximately 140,780 sq. ft. of residential and office uses
and another 406,174 sq. ft. of commercial retail development for a lifestyle center to include two drive-
through uses. Waivers for signage and number of parking spaces will be required from the Northeast
Beltline Overlay District. Ms. Schulz explained that this area is identified as a sub-regional mixed use
center in the Master Plan. The Planning Commission has had considerable discussion and debate
about the Master Plan, particularly with this project. Ms. Schulz explained that the Northeast Beltline
Plan describes a town center as comprised of mixed use and it actually quadrants off the intersection
with the mixed use component in the location of Celebration Village and a residential/office component
being at the northeast quadrant of this corner. The applicant requested a zone change in Oct., 2004
from GRTZ to PUD for a lifestyle center that would contain a total of nearly 356,000 sq. ft. of
commercial development. The Planning Commission voted 4-3 to support the request on 8/11/05. In
October 2005 the City Commission unanimously rejected the rezoning request based on the Master
Plan. The applicant has since made quite a few alterations to the original plan of 356,000 sq. ft. of
commercial. The commercial component remains and the total retail square footage, that would
include both Grand Rapids Township and the City of Grand Rapids, is proposed at 406,174 sq. ft. 86%
(approximately 349,000 sq. ft.) of that would be located in Grand Rapids and 14% in Grand Rapids
Township. The residential component is proposed at approximately 141,000 sq. ft. and at 1,000 sq. ft.
per unit that would be 141 units; 30% of that in Grand Rapids. The residences would be located above
store fronts and live work units located between the City and the Township area. The remaining 70%
would be in Grand Rapids Township. They propose primarily single story building with the exception of
building #4, which is proposed at two-stories with a height of 30-42’ and building #9, a two-story
building with a height between 30-36’. All of the other buildings in Grand Rapids would be between14-
24’. The site plan is largely dictated by access. The applicant has met with MDOT and they show four
access points along the Beltline. They meet all of the minimum spacing requirements of MDOT. They
aren’t doing a new traffic study with the increase in use. MDOT is relying on the original study done by
Progressive AE. MDOT has stated that they will select a worse case scenario with regard to the
potential traffic generated. Any additional queuing lengths, signals etc. will be required of the applicant
and the applicant will be responsible for installing those improvements. Knapp St., under the
jurisdiction of the Kent County Road Commission, is proposed to have three curb cuts. The applicant
has met with the Road Commission and their preference is to eliminate one of the curb cuts. The

                                                                                                         35
original plan provided cross access to Celebration Village and that has been eliminated. Proposed
grading has been reduced and they are keeping the infiltration basin. The basin was placed there to
provide a buffer between the single family on Dunnigan and any development on the Beltline. The
infiltration facility was sized based on the Master Plan for office and residential and can accommodate
some of the run off from this site but additional mitigating measures will be necessary. The retaining
wall has changed; there will be a retaining wall along the infiltration basin but there will be no wall
directly adjacent to the residential on Dunnigan. There is also a retaining wall proposed along the edge
in the Township.

Ms. Schulz explained that the concept of a lifestyle center is that it is pedestrian oriented; an internal
pedestrian oriented circulation pattern with a main street concept. Obviously it is more of a regional
shopping center, as far as the draw, but once inside the site it has a main street feel to it and with the
office and residential proposed for the second stories that may help enhance the mixed use feel of the
site. The developer is proposing to develop it in one phase. Ms. Schulz referred to the site plan
describing the pedestrian circulation pattern and noting that they propose a 5’ sidewalk around the
perimeter of the site.

Ms. Schulz explained the sign package. An internal sign package has not been provided but the
applicant is suggesting they follow the 1.5 sq. ft. per linear ft. of building for their internal signage. The
downtown code permits 1 sq. ft. per every linear foot. The major signage proposed are three (3) four-
sided towers with signage and digital display panels measuring 18’ x 18’ (324 sq. ft.), each at 40’ high;
two (2) project monument signs at 120 sq. ft. each, with a 120 sq. ft. base to include digital time and
temperature; one project monument sign of 60 sq. ft. for a tenant at the corner with a digital reader
board. The total perimeter signage request is for 1,272 sq. ft. excluding the sign bases.

The proposed parking provided is 1,391 spaces, including on street spaces within the City of Grand
Rapids. The estimated number of total required parking spaces is 1,770. An 11% reduction would be
required by the Planning Commission. The reduction would be consistent with what was done for
Celebration. With the mixed use component it could be argued that there will be some shared use of
parking.

Ms. Schulz addressed the setbacks stating that building setbacks along the Beltline satisfy the 140’
setback requirement. Building #1, proposed at the corner of Knapp and the Beltline, is proposed to be
100’ back from Knapp. Parking lot setbacks comply with the Overlay 90’ setback requirement with the
exception of one area, which has a 75’ setback. They would need a minor waiver for that.

Ms. Schulz offered general staff comments. Grand Rapids Township had not received a submittal for
the project as of yesterday and that may be a consideration for the Planning Commission. Because
70% of the residential is located in the Township and because of the intense mixed use nature of the
site, some coordination with the Township may be necessary to ensure a cohesive development.
Traffic Safety has indicated that a traffic study will be required to satisfy their departmental concerns.
Ms. Schulz noted that very limited elevations have been submitted but overall all building elevations
have not been provided.

Mr. Zylstra observed that there is no connection between this project and the other project proposed for
Three Mile and the Beltline.

Ms. Schulz stated that her understanding is that the Township encouraged the Three Mile developer to
coordinate with the developer of this site but there hasn’t been much coordination that has occurred.
There are some topography issues between the two sites including the retention basin and steep
ravines that may prohibit the connection. She has no knowledge of any formal coordination that has
occurred to evaluate that linkage.



                                                                                                             36
Mr. Zylstra stated that the link would be essential to him. He wouldn’t want people to have to go back
out onto the Beltline to go from one development to the other.

Rick Palaski of Nederveld Assoc., Attorney Bob Scott, and Evergreen Properties representatives Steve
Benner and Jim Pollack were present to discuss the request. Mr. Palaski stated that this is a lifestyle
center, an urban design traditional type of street. The lifestyle center design concept does away with
the massive blank walls and windowless buildings and tries to be more pedestrian oriented. This is a
location with a lot of traffic and they intend to capture a lot of that but will also try to pull people out of
their cars and get them walking. This type of project is an exciting place for people to be. The types of
shops attracted to this type of development are boutique style or upscale shops. Mr. Palaski provided
examples of some that have expressed interest; Banana Republic, Anne Taylor and Sharper Image.
Typically the retail is on a city style street with one or two large anchors. This development has two
large anchors. Mr. Palaski referred to photos Mr. Benner has taken to represent the architecture he
would like as part of this development. Mr. Palaski explained that areas for entertainment have been
included with the possibility of civic functions taking place. There is a green area, a play area on the
west side of the site and a Glockenspiel with a figurine that comes out hourly and hits a bell; they are
trying to make it an exciting place.

Mr. Palaski commented on the street system. He agreed that four access points from the Beltline are
proposed. MDOT rejected the idea of an access directly across from Celebration. Mr. Palaski
described the street system and the views from the different entry points off the Beltline. The street
coming in from Knapp is the crown piece of the development because that will be where all of the fun
shops and great architecture will be as one walks and drives down the street. There is a nice opening
into the green area to the north where the dancing waterfall will be located.

Mr. Palaski concluded his presentation indicating that they would appreciate a decision today. They
understand that there are a few reasons the Commission may consider tabling but they would like
some direction as to whether the Commission feels this is good for the City of Grand Rapids or whether
it doesn’t fit into the Master Plan. The developers have stuck through this process and are getting to a
point where they need a decision.

Mr. Palaski feels the plan substantially conforms to the Master Plan. The general language of the
Northeast Beltline Overlay for the area north of Knapp is specified as a town center consisting of a
mixed use environment of office, retail and residential. It is further defined then by individual parcels
but the main vision was retail, office and residential. Basically, even with what is present, the argument
could be made that not a lot of what was envisioned is present. Celebration has a little bit of retail but
is mainly an entertainment venue with a lot of nice restaurants. There is no residential. Therefore, they
feel having some shopping in the subject proposal is appropriate because it provides the significant
portion of retail envisioned for this corner. The same would hold true with the City Master Plan. There
are two areas designated for sub-regional centers; one near Centerpointe Mall that is already built out
and the subject area. The Master Plan says that the sub-regional center serves a specific area of the
city and may also serve areas outside the city and located on a high frequency service transit route.
The core uses are defined as general merchandise and convenient shopping with two anchors. The
proposed development is on a high frequency service route, general merchandise and two anchors are
included. No other location north of Knapp fits the definition of the Master Plan. With regard to the
office uses, the reason they haven’t included a lot of office is that there is plenty of office already in the
area. By the end of 2006 there will be approximately a million sq. ft. along the East Beltline beginning
near 28th St. and to the north. The vacancy rate currently is the highest in the county for all the different
commercial areas which calculates to 250,000-280,000 sq. ft., which is approximately a 10 year build
out. Another 100,000 sq. ft. has been approved at the Waters Building and office space approved at
Celebration is not yet built. They felt it was important to include office because that is what the
Planners envisioned but not important to add another 20-25 years worth of office. The biggest thing
that was lacking from the Master Plan in this area was the retail and the shopping component. This is
an area where they can create synergy with the uses to the west at Celebration. They can build on
                                                                                                             37
what was created there. Many of the retailers they have marketed this development to are interested in
sites such as the proposed development in Walker but why not encourage them to locate in Grand
Rapids.

Ms. Schulz clarified that the request is for a conceptual PUD and the Planning Commission would have
future opportunities to flush out building designs and other details.

Mr. Palaski agreed. Their desire is to know whether the general concept is acceptable.

Ms. Johnston asked why they propose a grocery store within the development with Meijer right across
the street.

Mr. Benner addressed the Commission and replied that the grocery anchor would be more of a high
end whole food, fresh market; nothing like what is present in the area. The shops they are proposing
are higher end and a grocer like that would fit in.

Ms. Johnston asked if they would consider expanding the residential component.

Mr. Benner replied that there is only so much land between the City and the Township and they need a
critical mass to attract the retailers. There isn’t enough land to expand the residential and still attract
the retail. There was no residential in the previous plan. There is also second floor office included in
one of the buildings. The regional basin is not being relocated, the retaining wall along the residences
has been eliminated and there aren’t as many outlots in this plan.

Mr. Palaski clarified that the plan includes 120 residential units.

Mr. Zylstra asked about connection to the development to the north.

Mr. Benner replied that they plan to connect to their property line but there is a drop of 90’ and he
doesn’t believe the other developer will be able to make the connection. Mr. Benner also related that
his plans were submitted to Grand Rapids Township today.

Mr. Miles asked about the traffic study.

Mr. Benner explained that MDOT and the Road Commission accepted the original traffic study. They
would agree to that as a condition of approval if the City would like an additional study.

Ms. Johnston asked if they had conceded to the two entry points on Knapp rather than three.

Mr. Benner replied that they agreed on two. Mr. Palaski added that the westerly entrance has been
eliminated.

Mr. Miles invited public comment.

Rupert McGinn was present on behalf of NECAA. He read their prepared letter stating that their
position has not changed. NECAA presented a packet to the City Commission last year that proved the
mix of office and residential uses would bring more revenue to the city than a residential and
commercial or strictly commercial development would. The current plan may include residential but not
in the city, which brings no property or income tax money. The plan is much more intense than the
previous plan and would devastate the City’s goal of orderly development. The proposed seems to go
against everything that has been planned for organized development of the East Beltline. NECAA asks
that the Planning Commission work with them for quality development. A hard message should be sent
to this developer who continues to come back with proposals that don’t fit what was planned.

                                                                                                         38
Jessica VanAntwerp stated that she would like to see a nice place to shop and dine and not have to go
to Rivertown or Woodland for it. She feels that with gas prices today it would be nice to add that to the
Beltline.

Ed Beaumont of Grand Rapids Township stated that he is dumbfounded by their suggestion that this
proposal complies with the Master Plan. The Master Plan makes no mention of commercial uses on
this parcel; it is to be residential, with office on the corner. The City Commission unanimously rejected
this basic proposal and, although they have made changes, it is basically still a shopping mall. Traffic
on Knapp is already bad and backs up at the lights. Mr. Beaumont stated that he would have no
problem going someplace else to find the stores that they have mentioned. There are 22 restaurants
between Leonard and Knapp, nine banks, 4 hair salons, 3 nail salons, 3 gas stations, 2 car washes, 2
travel agencies and they don’t need more retail in this area. Mr. Beaumont asked what Mr. Benner’s
plans are for the lots he purchased on Dunnigan.

Tommy Johnson of Milford NW stated that he is a general contractor and sees this as a good idea. It
would provide jobs for construction as well as in the retail sector when complete. It would also provide
more shopping opportunities and revenue to the city. He doesn’t understand why anyone would want
to stop more revenue coming in.

Kevin Napier stated that he and his wife like to shop at upscale stores and visit these types of places.
They would love to stay in Grand Rapids and move into a development like this when they retire. They
currently have to look to other areas for this type of experience and having it in this area is long
overdue.

Mr. Benner responded to the question regarding the properties on Dunnigan. He explained that they
will be kept as single family homes. The lots are very deep and they will use a portion of the back
yards for the residential portion of the development. He responded to additional comments stating that
they didn’t create the traffic on Knapp but they will take some of it during peak hours that will stop to
shop. Mr. Benner commented on the recent election stating that the residents in Grand Rapids
Township voted for retail in the immediate area. He feels this is a better location than 3 Mile, which has
a more residential character than the commercial corner here. Mr. Benner asked that the City officials
decide whether they want the development, tax base and jobs or if they will turn their back on it. Mr.
Benner restated the office vacancy statistics. The choice isn’t whether they want a lifestyle center on
the East Beltline but which is the better location, Knapp or Three Mile. Mr. Benner related that they
received over 1,000 signatures of support that have been turned in to staff.

Ms. Titche asked if Dunnigan goes through to Three Mile.
Mr. Benner replied that it does but it is very hilly.

Ms. Johnston asked what the two anchor retailers are.

Mr. Benner replied that the two they are working on are department stores. They’re company has hired
national brokers to tend to the leasing. They are seeking a department store and a whole foods store
or something like Trader Johns. They would like stores that aren’t already in the area so as not to
compete with what is at Celebration Village. They propose to compliment those uses and bring more
business to them.

Ms. Johnston asked about the convenience store.

Mr. Benner replied that they are working with Walgreens.

Ms. Johnston asked what is upscale about Walgreens.



                                                                                                        39
Mr. Benner didn’t disagree with the comment but they pay three times the rent as others and help to
subsidize the rest of the stores. They make the project and land values work. There is no drug store in
that area. Meijers has the only pharmacy. Mr. Benner asked that the Commission approve with
conditions that they see fit. Timing is critical and they have worked long and hard on the project. As
the Commission is aware the Three Mile project has been approved and they have been working with a
lot of tenants that want to be at Knapp and the Beltline but they haven’t been able to make a
commitment to them.

Ms. Johnston asked why seven more restaurants.

Mr. Benner replied that there are a lot of flavors not there and he provided examples. Mr. Palaski
added that those could be retail uses as well.

Ms. Schulz advised the Commission that they don’t approve the tenants.

Mr. Benner offered that they would be open to the condition that the restaurants would have to be
silverware, sit down restaurants, which would alleviate any concern over a Burger King or Taco Bell.

Judge Soet MOVED, WHEREAS, the Village at Knapp’s Crossing, LLC has requested a zone
change for property located at 2100 East Beltline, 3269 and 3271 Knapp Street, at the northeast
corner of Knapp Street and the East Beltline, from GRTZ Grand Rapids Township Zoning to PUD
Planned Unit Development for intense 546,954 square-foot commercial, office and residential
development; and

       WHEREAS, the intensity of the proposed commercial development of a lifestyle center to
contain a total of 348,982 sq. ft. of retail and restaurants within the City of Grand Rapids and an
additional 41,600 sq. ft. of office and residential uses has been determined to be too intense of a
use abutting single-family homes; and

       WHEREAS, the proposed development plan is located on Parcels 8 and 9 as described in
the North East Beltline Joint Planning Study, which recommends that the future land use of
these parcels consist of office and high density residential, respectively; and

       WHEREAS, that on April 28, 2005 and July 27, 2006, the Planning Commission evaluated
the future land use designations of this area and found that the present designations as
described in the North East Beltline Joint Planning Study are appropriate for the following
reasons:

1. Office and high-density residential development with a minority of commercial are
   appropriate transitional uses between the intense, mixed-use development of Celebration
   Village and single-family residential uses located to the east.
2. Intense commercial development covering 33-acres of land would adversely impact the
   general quality of life of neighboring residents as it would increase noise, light, vehicle
   exhaust and litter.
3. Many examples of viable office and residential development can be found along the East
   Beltline corridor.
4. The North East Beltline Joint Planning Study was coordinated with surrounding
   communities and based on extensive community input.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends
denial of the request of Village at Knapp’s Crossing, LLC, to rezone the northeast corner of
Knapp Street and the East Beltline to PUD Planned Unit Development and suggests that the
developer and City Commission consider a more compatible project to the Master Plan and the
abutting single-family homes located on Dunnigan.
                                                                                                       40
SUPPROTED by Ms. Works.

Ms. Johnston recognized that Mr. Benner has done a lot of work here and she understands why some
people they have approached would desire this location vs. further up the Beltline. Being across from
Meijer and Celebration Village makes sense and upscale development makes sense. However, she is
not happy with the intensity of the commercial and would like the residential expanded.

Mr. Potter stated that the Northeast Beltline plan designates this for office and residential as does the
City Master Plan. Putting that aside he has not heard a case that more commercial is needed.

The question was called. YEAS: 6. NAYS: 1 (Titche). MOTION CARRIED.




                                                                                                            41
DATE:              August 21, 2006

TO:                Eric Delong, Deputy City Manager

FROM:              Suzanne M. Schulz, Planning Director

SUBJECT:           RESOLUTION TO SET THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
                   CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1A ONE FAMILY AUXILIARY
                   ZONE TO PRD PLANNED REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR 1001,
                   1003 AND 1011 BEMIS STREET SE

The attached resolution would establish September 26, 2006 as the date for a public hearing
before the City Commission to consider a zone change from R-1A One Family Auxiliary Zone
to PRD Planned Redevelopment District for 1001, 1003 and 1011 Bemis Street SE. PRD
approval would allow the demolition of three houses and the construction of six attached 2-
story townhouses and two 3-stall attached garages on a 146 ft. by 84 ft. site within the North
Baxter Revitalization Area.

A public hearing for the proposed project was held by the Planning Commission on August 10,
2006, at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to be heard. No comments were
received. The Planning Commission discussed its concerns regarding the project and voted 6
- 1 to recommend denial of the zone change to the City Commission.

Planning Commission concerns included the density of this development, the layout of the site,
and the North Baxter Revitalization Area’s focus on the development of detached single-family
homes on in-fill lots. The Master Plan designates this area as medium low density residential,
at 5 to 9.9 units per acre. The proposed project would be the equivalent of 21 units to the
acre. The lots are shallow (84’) for standard development, particularly without an alley.
Concern was expressed about setting precedent for such a development within the center of a
neighborhood based on economic reasons.

Given the recommendation for denial of the zone change by the Planning Commission,
Planning staff recommends that a public hearing be held by the City Commission. Please
forward this resolution for consideration at the next scheduled City Commission meeting.



SS/EB
Attachments
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution to set a public hearing to consider a zone change from R-1A One Family Auxiliary
Zone to PRD Planned Redevelopment District for 1001, 1003 and 1011 Bemis Street SE to
allow the demolition of three houses and the construction of six townhouses and six garage
spaces.


                                       __________________________________________

    CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                  __________________________________________
   DEPARTMENT OF LAW



                                       __________________________________________
                                       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE


Com. ________________________, supported by Com. ________________________,
moved to adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED:

       1. That a public hearing be scheduled before the City Commission to consider the
request for a zone change for 1001, 1003 and 1011 Bemis Street SE from R-1A One Family
Auxiliary Zone to PRD Planned Redevelopment District, said hearing to be held on September
26, 2006 at 7:00 P.M., in the City Commission Chambers on the 9th Floor of City Hall, 300
Monroe NW, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49503.

       2. That the Planning Director shall give notice of such hearing in the same manner and
to the same persons as required by Section 5.31(2).

      3.     The proposed amendment reads as follows:
      AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 5.12, MAP 39 OF CHAPTER 61 OF TITLE V
      OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

                                 ORDINANCE NO. 2006 - ____

                   THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS DO ORDAIN:

      Section 1. That Section 5.12, Map 39 of Chapter 61 of Title V of the Code of the City of
Grand Rapids be amended to approve a zone change from R-1A One Family Auxiliary Zone to
PRD Planned Redevelopment District for 1001, 1003 and 1011 Bemis Street SE to allow the
demolition of three (3) houses and the construction of six (6) townhouses and six (6) garage
spaces, and described as:

       1001 Bemis Street SE, Tax Parcel #: 41-14-32-130-034. Description: West ½ of Lot
       27, except West 10 feet, except South 6 feet for street, Van Leeuwen’s Addition.

       1003 Bemis Street SE, Tax Parcel #: 41-14-32-130-035. Description: East ½ of Lot 27,
       except South 6 feet for street, Van Leeuwen’s Addition.

       1011 Bemis Street SE, Tax Parcel #: 41-14-32-130-064. Description: Lots 28 and 29,
       except South 6 feet for street, Van Leeuwen’s Addition.

       Section 2. That the following waivers be granted: 1) the two-acre minimum size
requirement (Section 301(2)); 2) the type of zone district considered appropriate for rezoning
to PRD (Section 5.301(3) and (4); 3) the parking placement requirements (Section 5.303(8)(g))
to allow parking on the outside of a corner lot; 4) the requirement that 75% of the exterior walls
exposed to public view be constructed or brick (Section 5.303(3)(c)); and 5) the requirement
for 60% street level transparency (Section 5.303(3)(d)).

       Section 3. As provided in Sections 5.306 of the Zoning Ordinance that the following
provisions are an integral part of this Ordinance:

   1. That the drawings prepared by Chuck Posthumus Architects, signed, dated and
      stamped by the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans.

   2. That final site plan drawings shall substantially conform to the approved plans and shall
      be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a Land Use
      and Development Services (LUDS) permit, including:

          a. A photometric plan showing that all exterior lighting shall be full, sharp cutoff
             fixtures mounted no more than 20’ in height, with all light contained on site.

          b. A landscape plan showing the location, size and labeling of all proposed
             plantings; and a list of all types of plants to be used, including common and
             species names, caliper size of trees, and the size of shrubs and bushes.

          c. A stormwater management plan and/or drainage plan approved by the
             Environmental Protection Services Department.
    3. That final curb cut details for access drives shall be subject to approval by the Traffic
       Safety Department.

    4. That final construction drawings shall substantially conform to the approved plans and
       shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a
       building permit.




                                                                                Yeas                      Nays

                                                                                _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                                _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                _____   White             _____

                                                                                _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                     Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                     Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____




This resolution was reviewed by Suzanne Schulz, Planning Director.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2006

Members Present: Chairperson Patrick A. Miles, Shaula Johnston, Marilyn A. Titche, Paul Potter,
Robert Zylstra, James Doezema, H. David Soet and Gabriel Works
Members Absent: Jasmine Hall and student member Hanna Preston


1001, 1003, and 1011 Bemis St. SE - Zone Change - requesting a zone change from
R-1A One-Family Auxiliary Zone to PRD Planned Redevelopment District to allow construction of six
(6) attached 2-story townhouses and six (6) 1-stall garages. A waiver of PRD requirements for
minimum lot size and parking placement is required. (ZC 23-06)

Landon Bartley explained that ICCF is requesting a zone change to PRD for these properties that are
currently zoned R-1A. The properties are located within the Baxter revitalization area. The surrounding
land uses are residential. There is a 2 acre park planned directly south, across Bemis, between Bemis
and Baxter. The Master Plan designation is medium-low density residential. Mr. Bartley explained that
the proposal includes the demolition of three houses and they are seeking a PRD zoning to construct 6
attached, two-story, townhouses and 6 one-stall garages. A waiver of the 2 acre minimum lot size is
necessary as the site is just over ¼ of an acre. They would also need a waiver for designation of a
PRD. The Master Plan designates mixed use traditional business area, neighborhood center, village
center or sub-regional center as appropriate for PRDs and this is within medium-low density residential.
Parking placement requires a waiver as well since all of the parking is not located in the inside of the
corner lot. At least one bicycle parking space is required and the applicant is fine with that. Staff has
some concern with the proposed 20’ wide drive entry from Diamond. There is residential across the
street and screening should be provided. There are no street trees provided; nine are required and
they are seeking a waiver of that requirement also. An 11’ setback from Bemis is proposed. The
design includes 6’ deep porches.

Mr. Bartley answered Commission questions. The size of the entire parcel is 84’ deep x 146’. The
applicant has indicated that there is a possibility of developing additional townhouses to the east. The
proposed front setback isn’t a major deviation from other setbacks on the street. There is a 2 acre park
planned across the street.

Ms. Schulz provided a brief overview of the North Baxter Initiative pointing out the location of the
proposed 2 acre park. She noted that the Planning Commission approved row houses along Sigsbee
as part of the Uptown Village project, which directly abuts a commercial business district. This is
further south than that and how the densities work and the parking placement may impact the houses
on Diamond are concerns. There has been over two-million dollars in investment in this neighborhood
in the last several years. The City sold nearly 30 tax reverted properties in packages for
redevelopment. Habitat, ICCF and a private developer purchased those lots.

Mr. Potter noted that those are all single family homes. This would be a use change and the density is
significantly increased.

Ms. Schulz explained that the medium-low density designation is for 5-10 units per acre and they are
proposing 6 units on 3/10 of an acre.

Mr. Potter feels 3 units would be more appropriate; 6 is a significant change of character. He feels this
is a neighborhood that will come back strong.

Ms. Works added that the massing creates the image of density, on top of the actual density increase.
Judge Soet asked what is planned for the property where the police trailer is parked.

Ms. Schulz replied that just south of that is a smaller park. The plan is to close that portion of Baxter
and connect the parcels together to create the 2 acre park. The lots are so shallow between Baxter
and Bemis that they wouldn’t be successful for single family development.

Mr. Zylstra noted that there are a significant number of 2-family homes in the area but a 6-family is
really a change in character. These are very narrow streets and with one space per unit it is likely there
will be street parking taking place.

Mr. Miles responded to Ms. Titche relating that mass transportation is located at Wealthy.

David DeVelder was present representing ICCF. He explained that the reason they are proposing six
units is the cost of the land, demolition and redevelopment. In order to make the numbers work for
affordable housing they have to increase the density. If they aren’t able to develop something like this
then they won’t be doing anything here. The houses present are small and obsolete.

Mr. Zylstra asked if the numbers would work with two, 2-family homes.

Mr. DeVelder replied that there are four parcels of land and they have to put in six units to make the
numbers work to provide some affordable and some market rate units. They are trying to provide
something for people entering the market and for those that want to live in an urban environment.

Judge Soet asked if any of the subject homes are occupied.

Mr. DeVelder replied that they are all vacant and have been for some time. ICCF owns one of the
houses and the other three parcels are all owned by the same person who is anxious to close.

Ms. Works stated that the density and massing will seriously change this neighborhood and she would
have a hard time approving this request. She also commented on the size of the porches indicating
that they aren’t large enough for reasonable use and to put the desired eyes on the street.

Mr. DeVelder clarified that the porches are 6’ deep and 10-12’ wide.

Mr. Zylstra asked the price range of the units.

Mr. DeVelder replied $120,000 to $140,000. It’s possible the price could be slightly less if they are able
to secure some funding.

Ms. Schulz related that when the City sold the tax reverted properties some of them went to Habitat,
some to ICCF and some to a private developer. The private developer just sold his first home for
$170,000. New housing in an older neighborhood is hard to come by.

Judge Soet asked how many parcels Habitat is developing.

Mr. DeVelder replied five and they have finished theirs. ICCF has done 10 and will likely do another 10.

Mr. Potter noted that economics are driving this development.

Mr. DeVelder agreed partly. In an attractive urban environment townhouses become very desirable
because people don’t want a big yard and a lot to take care of. The huge asset here is the park. They
are trying to capitalize on what the City has provided there. The more residences they can get on the
park, the better. This is ideal for townhouses. If the park wasn’t there it wouldn’t work because there
wouldn’t be enough open space. Mr. DeVelder indicated they are open with regard to the garages.
Mr. Miles invited public comment. There was none.

Ms. Johnston asked Mr. DeVelder if they’ve discussed the project with the Baxter Community Center.

Mr. DeVelder replied that they are 100% supportive. They are planning some renovation on Diamond
across from this site.

Ms. Johnston asked about landscaping and screening.

Mr. DeVelder explained they would provide screening along the east as well as a fence along the north.
They will install street trees along Diamond but not on Bemis because the City widened the street and
there isn’t a parkway. The front yards will include full landscaping however. They will install trees as
mature as they can get near the garages to get a canopy there to screen the garages. Mr. DeVelder
related that they signed a purchase offer today for 1017 Bemis. They would like to acquire everything
up to their new house and do something similar to what is proposed for the subject parcels.

Ms. Johnston asked if there would be any single family homes.

Mr. DeVelder replied that in order to acquire and demolish the homes they wouldn’t be able to build
single family. They would only pursue the properties if they can develop townhouses. The house that
they own they were able to purchase at a lower cost and they would propose a new single family home
for that site if they can’t develop the townhouses. It is a 33’ wide lot so they would rather redevelop it
as proposed.

Ms. Works MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Commission deny the request of ICCF to rezone property located at
1001, 1003 and 1011 Bemis St. SE from R-1A to PRD, to allow construction of six (6) attached 2-
story townhouses and six (6) 1-stall garages, for the following reasons:

1. The project does not meet the minimum two (2) acre lot size standards of Section 5.301(2) or
   parking placement requirements of Section 5.303(8)(g) of the Zoning Code.
2. The project is not located in an area designated by the Master Plan as appropriate for PRD
   designation.
3. The proposed densities, with six (6) units on a little more than a quarter of an acre, are too
   high for this residential neighborhood and are not consistent with the residential medium-
   low density designation of the Master Plan which would allow up to ten (10) units per acre.
SUPPORTED by Judge Soet.

Ms. Works stated she is concerned about precedent here especially when the area was zoned R-1A for
a reason. She feels that a three unit townhouse is as much density as she would be comfortable with
in the older neighborhoods. The massing is so important the way it blocks the sun and views and
people’s space for enjoyment.

Judge Soet stated that he sees movement in the direction of single family development with what
Habitat, ICCF and the private developer are doing and he feels this would be a mistake.

Mr. Doezema noted that the only reason he could see to approve this would be the economics and if
that is the only rationale it would set a huge precedent.

The question was called. MOTION CARRIED 6 to 1 (Titche).
DATE:               August 21, 2006

TO:                 Eric Delong, Deputy City Manager

FROM:               Suzanne M. Schulz, Planning Director

SUBJECT:            RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATE TO CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE
                    FROM I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE TO C-3B CITY CENTER SERVICE
                    DISTRICT (HEIGHT LIMIT ZONE A) FOR 600 SEVENTH STREET NW

The attached resolution would establish September 12, 2006 as the date for the City
Commission to consider a zone change from I-1 Light Industrial Zone to C-3b City Center
Service District for 600 Seventh Street NW to permit the renovation of an existing building for
retail and residential uses. Israels Designs for Living intends to rehabilitate the building and
add a third story, bringing the building height to 40 feet. The proposed building height is
allowable under C-3b Height Limit Zone A, which permits a building height up to 85 feet. The
first floor would be used for retail use, and the second and third floors for residential use. The
Master Plan designates this area as a mixed use area next to downtown.

A public hearing for the proposed zone change was held on August 10, 2006, at which time all
interested persons had an opportunity to be heard. No comments were received. The
Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the zone change. Given the vote by
the Planning Commission and the fact that no comments were received on the request,
Planning staff recommends that the City Commission waive an additional public hearing.

Please forward this resolution for consideration at the next scheduled City Commission
meeting.


SS/EB
Attachments
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends the following resolution that
would amend Section 5.12 Map 21 of Chapter 61 of Title V of the City Code of Grand Rapids
to rezone the property at 600 Seventh Street NW from I-1 Light Industrial Zone to C-3b City
Center Service District (Height Limit Zone A) to renovate an existing building for retail and
residential uses.


                                              _____________________________________

    CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                         _____________________________________
   DEPARTMENT OF LAW



                                              _____________________________________
                                              COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE


Com. ________________________, supported by Com. ________________________,
moved to adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that the following amendment to Section 5.12 Map 21 of Chapter 61 of Title V of
the Code of the City of Grand Rapids, which was considered by the Planning Commission at a
public hearing held on August 10, 2006, be published as part of the proceedings and be
considered for adoption by the City Commission at its meeting of September 12, 2006; and

The proposed ordinance reads as follows:
        AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 5.12, MAP 21 OF CHAPTER 61 OF TITLE V
        OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

                                         ORDINANCE NO. 2006 - ____

                       THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS DO ORDAIN:

That Section 5.12, Map 21 of Chapter 61 of Title V of the Code of the City of Grand Rapids be
amended to rezone property at 600 Seventh Street NW, described as:

        Block 1, Van Buren and Turner’s Addition to the City of Grand Rapids, Kent County,
        Michigan, as recorded in Liber 2 of Plats, Page 31. All being in Section 24, Town 7
        North, Range 12, West, City of Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan.

from I-1 Light Industrial Zone to C-3b City Center Service District (Height Limit Zone A).




                                                                                Yeas                      Nays

                                                                                _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                                _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                _____   White             _____

                                                                                _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                     Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                     Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____




This resolution was reviewed by Suzanne Schulz, Planning Director.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

August 10, 2006

Members Present: Chairperson Patrick A. Miles, Shaula Johnston, Marilyn A. Titche, Paul Potter,
Robert Zylstra, James Doezema, H. David Soet and Gabriel Works
Members Absent: Jasmine Hall and student member Hanna Preston


600 Seventh Street NW - Aslan Building - Zone Change & Optional Plan Review - asking to change
the zone classification from I-1 Light Industrial to C-3b City Center Service District with Height Limit
Zone A for the renovation of an existing building, and to permit exceptions to eliminate recessed
building entries, and to provide an alternative parking area design and related landscaping. (ZC 21-06)

Beth Byron explained that the plan is to redevelop the industrial building and use the first floor for
Israel’s Other Store and the second and third floors will be used residentially. The request is for a zone
change from I-1 to C-3b. Ms. Byron described the surrounding uses. The Master Plan designation is
near downtown mixed use. The building takes up the entire block. The site plan is compliant with the
provisions of the downtown district with one exception; recessed entries on two sides of the building. It
will be possible to provide the recessed entries on two sides but not the other two and they are not on a
public sidewalk or are on a lightly traveled sidewalk. There is quite a bit of transparency on the first
floor and the plan includes materials that mimic the Israel’s Designs for Living building to the south.
The transparency requirements have been met. A sign package has not been submitted at this time.
The parking supply is in excess of what is required. There will be 21 spaces on site at the front of the
building on Seward, which is the main entry to the building. On-street parking is a possibility and they
are working with Traffic Safety on that. The applicant also has a 99 year parking lease with the Knights
of Casimer for an additional 47 spaces.

Ms. Byron summarized indicating this is primarily a zone change request since the plans to date
basically comply with the downtown zoning. Staff will continue to work with the developer and any
dramatic changes would be brought back to the Planning Commission. The project is in a state of
redesign with potential changes. There is a possibility that Muskegon will be vacated and direct access
provided to garages for the residential clients. There will be approximately 12 luxury units on the
second and third floors and the feeling of the applicant is that those units will demand indoor parking.

Ms. Byron explained the vacation of Muskegon further. Normally when a street or alley is vacated the
property is divided between the properties that abut it. The adjacent property owner is Knights of
Casimer and the two parties have a good working relationship. There are also three residential
properties that abut Muskegon and they too may get a portion of the property. It is also possible that it
will be necessary to vacate a portion of the alley and the applicant would be looking to acquire a portion
of property that wouldn’t normally be transferred to them. The vacation of Muskegon is conceptual at
this time and involves only the portion of the street between 6th and 7th streets.

Ms. Schulz clarified that the request is for a straight rezoning to C-3b. The applicant requires a waiver
of the recessed entry requirement and staff offered to address that issue with the rezoning request. All
of the other issues have been resolved in a manner that meets the ordinance and therefore, the
applicant would not have to return for Optional Plan Review.

Bob Israels was present to discuss the request. He explained that they will reuse this obsolete
industrial building that was constructed in approximately 1904 and will not change it drastically. The
Other Store, currently located on Grandville, will be moved into this location. They feel this will be very
successful thanks to the Planning Commission and City of Grand Rapids’ good planning efforts. Many
new jobs have been created at the trade center. Mr. Israels explained that two weeks ago they shipped
$400,000 worth of furniture to China and this week $100,000 worth will be shipped to Korea. Mr.
Israels referred to a letter of support from Father DeYoung. He explained that his mission is to rebuild
and rebuild better. Rather than using the second floor as another commercial endeavor he felt it was
important to mix the use here. This project will be a tax generator in the future. Mr. Israels asked that
the Commission look at this property that can no longer be used as designed but can be reused and
revitalized and brought back into use. They are happy to comply with anything asked of them.

Ms. Works noted that often with a development of this nature one of the consequences is that the bits
of residential use that surround it start to disappear for parking. She asked if he feels confident with the
parking on site and the additional parking arrangements they have made. She asked if he owns the
houses on 7th St. yet.

Mr. Israels replied that he does not own the houses but has someone talking to the owners about that
today. The houses are not part of this application. He feels vacating Muskegon would be a positive
and that it could encourage the mix of office and home being in the same location. Taking Muskegon
out would provide the opportunity of having garages in the building, which adds to the value of the mix
within the building. However, with the parking on site and the arrangements made, the project would
proceed without the garages.

Ms. Works asked if he has plans to expand the project into the area of the houses.

Mr. Israels indicated that Traffic Safety just suggested the inclusion of the houses yesterday. It would
be nice to own those houses so that he could fix them up the way they should be. The houses don’t
have decent basements and have settled. If a decent basement were put in place they could be
restored. Mr. Israels stated that he doesn’t like to knock anything down/throw anything away. If
Muskegon were vacated it would be a wonderful opportunity to do something nice with the landscaping.
He noted that they won a national award for the best change in environment in landscaping last year for
the Widdicomb project.

Mr. Miles invited public comment. There was none.

Judge Soet MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the proposed Zone Change to C-3b City Center Service District with
Height Limit Zone A (85’) for 600 Seventh Street NW.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves an exception to the
recessed entry requirements of Section 5.176(6) for Seward and Muskegon Avenues for the
project proposed at 600 Seventh Street NW, with the following conditions:

   1. That the drawings prepared by Post Associates, signed, dated and stamped by the
      Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans.
   2. That final construction drawings shall substantially conform to the approved plans and
      shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a
      building permit.
   3. That final site plan drawings shall substantially conform to the approved plans and shall
      be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a Land Use
      and Development Services (LUDS) permit, including:
      a) A photometric plan showing that all exterior lighting shall be full, sharp cutoff fixtures
         mounted no more than 20’ in height, with all light contained on site.
      b) A landscape plan showing the location, size and labeling of all proposed plantings;
         and a list of all types of plants to be used, including common and species names,
         caliper size of trees, and the size of shrubs and bushes.
      c) A stormwater management plan and/or drainage plan approved by the Environmental
         Protection Services Department.
  4. That final curb cut details for access drives shall be subject to approval by the Traffic
     Safety Department.
  5. That a sign package shall substantially conform to the purpose and intent of the C-3b
     City Center Service District requirements and shall be reviewed and approved by the
     Planning Director prior to occupancy of the building.

SUPPORTED by Ms. Titche. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DATE:              August 22, 2006

TO:                Eric Delong, Deputy City Manager

FROM:              Suzanne M. Schulz, Planning Director

SUBJECT:           RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATE TO CONSIDER A MAJOR
                   AMENDMENT TO THE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 1870
                   LEONARD ST NE

The attached resolution would establish September 12, 2006 as the date for the City
Commission to consider a major amendment to an existing PUD Planned Unit Development at
1870 Leonard Street NE to permit the construction of a 2-story office building for the Christian
Counseling Center.

A public hearing for the proposed zone change was held on July 27, 2006, at which time all
interested persons had an opportunity to be heard. At the meeting, several neighbors raised
concerns that the height of the building and the setbacks were not consistent with the
previously approved PUD from 1998. The Planning Commission tabled the item. The
applicant then met with neighbors. As a result, all agreed to several setback and design
modifications that were more in keeping with the prior PUD yet permitted the 2-story building
height.

The request was taken off the table on August 10, 2006, and the Planning Commission voted 7
- 0 to recommend approval of the PUD amendment. Given the Planning Commission vote,
design changes made to accommodate neighbor concerns and the support of the North East
Citizens Action Association, Planning staff recommends that the City Commission waive an
additional public hearing.

Please forward this resolution for consideration at the next scheduled City Commission
meeting.


SS/EB
Attachments
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends the following resolution that
would amend Section 5.12 Map 24 of Chapter 61 of Title V of the City Code of Grand Rapids
to approve a major amendment to the existing PUD to permit the construction of a 2-sory office
building.


                                        _____________________________________

    CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                   _____________________________________
   DEPARTMENT OF LAW



                                        _____________________________________
                                        COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE


Com. ________________________, supported by Com. ________________________,
moved to adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that the following amendment to Section 5.12 Map 24 of Chapter 61 of Title V of
the Code of the City of Grand Rapids, which was considered by the Planning Commission at a
public hearing held on July 27, 2006, be published as part of the proceedings and be
considered for adoption by the City Commission at its meeting of September 12, 2006; and

The proposed ordinance reads as follows:
      AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 5.12, MAP 24 OF CHAPTER 61 OF TITLE V
      OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

                                ORDINANCE NO. 2006 - ____

                  THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS DO ORDAIN:

       Section 1. That Section 5.12, Map 24 of Chapter 61 of Title V of the Code of the City of
Grand Rapids be amended to approve a major amendment to the PUD Planned Unit
Development at 1870 Leonard Street NE for the purposes of constructing a 2-story office
building, and described as:

      Unit 3, Plymouth Road Office Condominium, Kent County Condominium Subdivision
      Plan No. 755, Kent County Records, Section 21, Town 7 North, Range 11 West, City of
      Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan.

       Section 2. As provided in Section 5.27.1 of the Zoning Ordinance that the following
provisions are an integral part of this Ordinance:

   1. That the drawings prepared by Moore & Bruggink, Inc., signed, dated and stamped by
      the Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans.

   2. That final site plan drawings shall substantially conform to the approved plans and shall
      be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a Land Use
      and Development Services (LUDS) permit, including:

      a) A photometric plan showing that all exterior lighting shall be full, sharp cutoff fixtures
         mounted no more than 20’ in height, with all light contained on site.

      b) A landscape plan showing the location, size and labeling of all proposed plantings;
         and a list of all types of plants to be used, including common and species names,
         caliper size of trees, and the size of shrubs and bushes.

      c) A stormwater management plan and/or drainage plan approved by the
         Environmental Protection Services Department.

   3. That final curb cut details for access drives shall be subject to approval by the Traffic
      Safety Department.

   4. That final construction drawings shall substantially conform to the approved plans and
      shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a
      building permit.

   5. That a sign package shall substantially conform to the purpose and intent of the
      Planned Unit Development (PUD) requirements and shall be reviewed and approved by
      the Planning Director prior to occupancy of the building.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2006

Members Present: Chairperson Patrick A. Miles, Shaula Johnston, Marilyn A. Titche, , Jasmine Hall,
Paul Potter, James Doezema, H. David Soet and Gabriel Works
Members Absent: Robert Zylstra and student member Hanna Preston


1870 Leonard St. NE - Major Amendment - asking to construct a two-story, 12,886 sq. ft. office
building and required parking areas to a previously approved PUD Planned Unit Development. (ZC 19-
06)

Landon Bartley made the presentation explaining that the PUD at the SE corner of Leonard and
Plymouth was approved in 1998. There is residential to the north across Leonard, multi-family to the
south beyond the undeveloped portion of the PUD and Lake Michigan Credit Union, within the PUD, to
the west and residential to the west beyond that. To the east is a residence and then Oakhill Church.
The Master Plan designation is medium density residential. Mr. Bartley presented photos of the
existing conditions and grade. The original PUD included a single story, 10,000 sq. ft. office building in
this location and the applicant is now proposing a two-story, 12,886 sq. ft. office building for the
Christian Counseling Center. The north setback is proposed at 19.6 ft. and the east setback 5.7 ft.
where 25 ft. is required. The Planning Commission can waive that down to 10 ft. The applicant
proposes 44 parking spaces for the use and an access drive.

Mr. Bartley responded to Planning Commission questions indicating that the PUD is no longer under
the same ownership; it has been split. The building between the credit union and the proposed building
has not been eliminated from the PUD but there are no plans for it at this time.

Bob Bruggink, architect Dwayne Messelink and Christian Counseling Center representatives Ed Berens
and Bruce Osterink were present to discuss the request. Mr. Bruggink stated that the two-story
structure will have a 6,500 sq. ft. footprint rather than the 10,000 approved in the original PUD. He
offered that they can provide a 10’ setback along the east property line and reduce parking from 44 to
35 spaces in order to meet the setback requirements along Leonard.

Mr. Messelink explained the reason for the two story structure; they are building into the hill and
therefore it will not be a full two stories above grade. He presented elevation views for the Commission.
The required parking prevents them from providing a 25’ setback on the east. That parking will be at
the same level as the home adjacent to the east.

Mr. Bruggink responded to Judge Soet stating that the east/west length of the parking lot is 60’.

Ms. Works suggested placing the parking west of the building rather than east of it.

Mr. Messelink explained that it is a unique building and part of the challenge is their operational needs
and how they receive clients and get them around each other without crossing paths in waiting rooms.
Much of the design was driven by their program.

Ms. Johnston asked if the program necessitates two floors.

Mr. Messelink explained that from a square footage standpoint, to make this a feasible project, they
need more office space and some separation between them.

Mr. Miles invited public comment.
Rupert McGinn, NECAA, stated that they were extremely pleased when they learned the Counseling
Center would be joining the neighborhood when the PUD was originally presented. However, when the
PUD presentation was made it was repeated over and over that the buildings facing Leonard would
only be one story and at the back they would be two so they could have a walk-out lower level to work
with the topography. When the credit union construction began there were major problems because
the PUD was not followed. Those issues were finally resolved. Mr. McGinn feels that a PUD should be
sacred and not changed. When the community is told buildings will be single story facing Leonard it
should be single story. The Association has reviewed the plans and they don’t feel it follows the
approved PUD. They are also disappointed that the applicants didn’t meet with them prior to today’s
meeting. Their concerns relate to the height of the building and the east side setback. They are
unclear as to the reference to an alternate fuel source. Mr. McGinn feels the building could be built
further south on the site. The resident to the east is very concerned but was unable to stay for the
duration of the meeting. Mr. McGinn asked that the Planning Commission adhere to the original PUD.

Mr. Bruggink responded to comments. The alternate fuel source relates to plug-in sites for electric
vehicles that may come to that site. With regard to the setbacks, the building is proposed at 40’ back
from the Leonard right of way and 74’+ from the east property line. They can revise the plan to provide
the required setback on Leonard but ask for a waiver down to 10’ on the east. The 10’ strip will be
seeded and landscaping installed. They aren’t proposing a fence but are open to suggestions. There
is an existing, heavy row of pines on the residential lot to the east and they can supplement that.

Judge Soet asked if they could provide greater than 10’ on the east.

Mr. Bruggink replied that it would be very difficult due to the parking bay widths and drive aisles.

Ms. Johnston related that she would prefer a 25’ setback along the east. She understands that they
are dealing with the topography, and that the tallest point of the building is at the back, but she remains
concerned about it being a two story because the agreement was that the Leonard frontage would
consist of single story buildings. She is also concerned that the bulk of the parking is located east of
the building.

Mr. Messelink indicated that the original PUD showed parking in that location and was approved.

The originally approved PUD site plan was circulated.

Ms. Works suggested they table the request and ask the applicants to work on achieving a greater
setback on the east and address the concern of the two story facing Leonard.

Motion by Judge Soet, supported by Ms. Johnston, to table the request. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2006

Members Present: Chairperson Patrick A. Miles, Shaula Johnston, Marilyn A. Titche, Paul Potter,
Robert Zylstra, James Doezema, H. David Soet and Gabriel Works
Members Absent: Jasmine Hall and student member Hanna Preston


1870 Leonard St. NE - Major Amendment - asking to construct a two-story, 12,886 sq. ft. office
building and required parking areas to previously approved PUD Planned Unit Development. (ZC 19-
06)

Landon Bartley reminded the Commission that this request was tabled at the last meeting. The
Commission had concerns about the setbacks from Leonard and from the east property line. There
were also concerns about the two-story appearance from Leonard. Since then the applicant has
amended their design. The setback from Leonard is now proposed at 27’ and the east property line
11’. The PUD approved in 1998 had a 10’ setback from the east property line. The appearance from
Leonard now looks more like a one story building. Mr. Bartley noted a letter from NECAA offering
general support.

Bob Bruggink, architect Dwayne Messelink and Christian Counseling Center representative Bruce
Osterink were present to discuss the request. Mr. Bruggink stated that they met with NECAA and he
believes they now have their support for the project.

Mr. Messelink explained that they eliminated one window on Leonard allowing them to bury more of the
face of the building. They’re also adding a little more landscaping and berming at the northeast corner
to better screen the building from Leonard.

Ms. Johnston recalled NECAA expressing concern about security/lighting at the back of the building.

Mr. Bruggink replied that they haven’t submitted their final lighting plan but they will address that for the
LUDS permit submittal.

Mr. Messelink explained that they have lighting at each entry proposed. They also have motion
sensors. He feels the photometrics they have will provide good illumination.

Ms. Works referred to the site plan noting that the proposed east property line screening is only shown
at the south end. She asked if that is because of existing trees on the neighboring property.

Mr. Bruggink replied yes. There are 20 to 25’ evergreens that provide excellent screening.

Mr. Miles welcomed public comment.

Rupert McGinn, NECAA, explained that they met with the applicant the day following the last meeting.
The PUD plan the applicants were in possession of lead them astray. They have worked through the
concerns and the Association is happy with what is now being proposed.

Mr. Zylstra MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the proposed major amendment to the approved PUD, subject to the
following conditions:
  6. That the drawings prepared by Moore & Bruggink, Inc., signed, dated and stamped by the
      Planning Director, shall constitute the approved plans.
  7. That final site plan drawings shall substantially conform to the approved plans and shall
      be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a Land Use
      and Development Services (LUDS) permit, including:
      a) A photometric plan showing that all exterior lighting shall be full, sharp cutoff fixtures
         mounted no more than 20’ in height, with all light contained on site.
      b) A landscape plan showing the location, size and labeling of all proposed plantings;
         and a list of all types of plants to be used, including common and species names,
         caliper size of trees, and the size of shrubs and bushes.
      c) A stormwater management plan and/or drainage plan approved by the Environmental
         Protection Services Department.
  8. That final curb cut details for access drives shall be subject to approval by the Traffic
      Safety Department.
  9. That final construction drawings shall substantially conform to the approved plans and
      shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a
      building permit.
  10. That a sign package shall substantially conform to the purpose and intent of the Planned
      Unit Development (PUD) requirements and shall be reviewed and approved by the
      Planning Director prior to occupancy of the building.

SUPPORTED by Ms. Titche. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DATE:               August 17, 2006

TO:                 Greg Sundstrom
                    Chief Services Officer

FROM:               Carlos A. Sanchez
                    Executive Director, Grand Rapids Housing Commission

SUBJECT:            ADAMS PARK




In conducting a title search of the Adams Park site, it was revealed that the properties have not
been transferred to the Grand Rapids Housing Commission from the City. In accordance with
the amended ordinance No. 97-36 (Adopted August 5, 1997) all deeds regarding real property
are to be in the name of the Grand Rapids Housing Commission. These properties were
initially developed with federal grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) with the City of Grand Rapids by and through the Grand Rapids Housing Commission.
In order to proceed with future construction financing, the deeds of these properties must
clearly be in the name of the Grand Rapids Housing Commission.

Please prepare and present to the City Commission a Quit Claim Deed from the City of Grand
Rapids to the Grand Rapids Housing Commission for the Adams Park site. The attached
Exhibit A is the property description for Adams Park.

If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will be available for the
next City Commission Meeting. Thank you for your assistance.
      YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of a resolution
authorizing the conveyance of property to the Grand Rapids Housing Commission [Adams Park].



                                          _____________________________________
    CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                     _____________________________________
   DEPARTMENT OF LAW


                                          _____________________________________
                                           COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE


   Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

  RESOLVED, that the transfer and conveyance of property commonly known as Adams Park
and legally described as:

    Lots 1 through 26, inclusive, Block 2, including the alley from the North line of Lot 26, to the
    South line of Adams Street, also Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, of Block 3 including the alley
    from the North line of the Pere Marquette Railroad Right of Way to the South line of Adams
    Street; also Silver Creek Avenue from the North line of said Railroad Right of Way to said
    South line of Adams Street; also all that part of the C.S.X. Railroad (formerly the Reeds Lake
    Suburban Railroad) contained in Block 2, of Silver Creek Park Addition to the City of Grand
    Rapids, Section 5, T6N, R11W, Kent County, Michigan except part of Silver Creek Park in
    Section 5, T6N, R11W, City of Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan described as follows:
    Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 15, Block 3 of said Silver Creek Park; thence
    S04°11’56”E 281.42 feet along the East line of Lots 15-20 to the Southeast corner of Lot 20
    of said Silver Creek Park; thence S64°37’40”W 216.12 feet along the South line of Lot 20 and
    Lot 11 of said Silver Creek Park also being the North right-of-way line of the C & O Railroad;
    thence N04°11’56”W 47.98 feet; thence Northerly 38.81 feet on a 56.79 foot radius curve to
    the left, long chord bearing N15°13’08”E 38.05 feet; thence N04°21’20”W 196.70 feet; thence




    Northwesterly 36.53 feet on a 53.36 foot radius curve to the left, long chord bearing
    N23°58’03”W 35.82 feet; thence N04°11’56”W 62.86 feet; thence N90°00’00”E 66.00 feet
    along the North line of Lot 4, Block 3 of Silver Creek Park to the Northeast corner of said Lot
    4; thence S78°41’08”E 14.53 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 15, Block 3 of Silver Creek
    Park; thence N90°00’00”E 122.03 feet along the North line of said Lot 15 to the Point of
    Beginning.
by Quit Claim Deed to the Grand Rapids Housing Commission, a public body corporate,1420
Fuller Avenue, S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49507, for the consideration of One Dollar ($1.00),
be and is hereby approved, and that the Mayor is authorized to execute said Quit Claim Deed in a
form approved by the City Attorney.



Drafted by: Carlos A. Sanchez

                                                                         Yeas                      Nays

                                                                         _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                         _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                         _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                         _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                         _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                         _____   White             _____

                                                                         _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                              Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                              Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
DATE:               August 17, 2006

TO:                 Greg Sundstrom
                    Chief Services Officer

FROM:               Carlos A. Sanchez
                    Executive Director, Grand Rapids Housing Commission

SUBJECT:            CRESTON PLAZA




In conducting a title search of the Creston Plaza site, it was revealed that the property has not
been transferred to the Grand Rapids Housing Commission from the City. In accordance with
the amended ordinance No. 97-36 (Adopted August 5, 1997) all deeds regarding real property
are to be in the name of the Grand Rapids Housing Commission. These properties were
initially developed with federal grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) with the City of Grand Rapids by and through the Grand Rapids Housing Commission.
In order to proceed with future construction financing, the deeds of these properties must
clearly be in the name of the Grand Rapids Housing Commission.

Please present to the City Commission a Quit Claim Deed from the City of Grand Rapids to the
Grand Rapids Housing Commission for the Creston Plaza sites. The attached Exhibit A is the
property description for the Creston Plaza site.

If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will be available for the
next City Commission Meeting. Thank you for your assistance.
      YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of a resolution
authorizing the conveyance of property to the Grand Rapids Housing Commission [Creston
Plaza].


                                           _____________________________________
    CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                      _____________________________________
   DEPARTMENT OF LAW

                                           _____________________________________

                                            COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE


      Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved
to adopt the following resolution:

      RESOLVED, that the transfer and conveyance of property commonly known
As Creston Plaza and legally described as:

      That part of the Northwest one-quarter, Section 19, town 7 North, Range 11 West, City of
      Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan, bounded by Barnett Street, Lafayette Avenue,
      Cedar Street and Clancy Avenue except Lots 43 through 48 Perkins Addition and also
      except Lot 2 and the West 13.00 feet of Lot 4 and the East 45.00 feet of Lot 5, Block 11,
      Tanner Taylor’s Addition.

by Quit Claim Deed to the Grand Rapids Housing Commission, a public body corporate,
1420 Fuller Avenue, S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49507, for the consideration of One Dollar
($1.00), be and is hereby approved, and that the Mayor is authorized to execute said Quit Claim
Deed in a form approved by the City Attorney.
DATE:                       August 23, 2006

TO:                         Eric DeLong
                            Deputy City Manager

FROM:                       Rick DeVries, P.E.
                            Acting City Engineer

SUBJECT:                    Vacation of Raymond Place from approximately 262 feet South of
                            Cherry Street to Cherry Street

Fairmount Square Investors, L.L.C. has requested the vacation of Raymond Place from
approximately 262 feet South of Cherry Street to Cherry Street in connection with the proposed
redevelopment of the Fairmount Square mixed-use development. This request has been
circulated to the other property owner adjacent to a portion of Raymond Place and to affected
City departments and public utility companies and there are no objections.

The attached resolution provides for the vacation of this portion of Raymond Place, with
conditions.

RDV/CEB/dv
Attachment

cc: Preston Hopson
    Pat Bush
    Darrell VanderKooi
    Scott Engerson




t:\cd06\vacation\CD Raymond Pl
082906
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution consenting to the vacation of Raymond Place from approximately 262 feet South of
Cherry Street to Cherry Street.


                                                _____________________________________

     CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                           _____________________________________
     DEPARTMENT OF LAW


                                                _____________________________________
                                                COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to adopt
the following resolution:

WHEREAS, a request has been received from Fairmount Square Investors, L.L.C. (hereinafter
referred to as the “Petitioner”) for the vacation of Raymond Place from approximately 262 feet
South of Cherry Street to Cherry Street described as:
             All that part of Raymond Place Alley, in Barclay and Co.’s Addition
             to the City of Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan, as recorded in
             Liber 3 of Plats, Page 2, Kent County Records, said alley lying East
             of Lots 29 and 30 of said plat and West of Lot 28, said plat, and
             extending from the South line of Cherry Street (66 feet wide) to the
             North line of Lot 31, said plat; therefore

RESOLVED, that all reports of all interested parties being favorable, the City Commission
consents to the aforesaid vacation of Raymond Place from approximately 262 feet South of
Cherry Street to Cherry Street subject to the following conditions:

1.     That Petitioner causes to be completed an amended plat conforming to State of
       Michigan requirements of the area affected by the aforesaid vacation, the cost of which
       is estimated to be $2,500.

2.     That Petitioner deposits the amount of $3,000 to be held in escrow by the City. Said
       amount includes the estimated costs outlined in Item 1 and an estimated cost of $500
       for engineering administrative fees. The City shall hold said escrow amount until such
       time as the amended plat requirement outlined in Item 1 has been completed. When
       said amended plat has been completed, any such monies remaining in the escrow
       account will be returned to the Petitioner. The engineering administrative fees shall be
       charged to the escrow account. If, after a reasonable length of time, the said amended
         plat requirement outlined in Item 1 has not been completed, the City may use the money
         held in escrow to accomplish the same. If any additional costs are incurred by the City in
         connection with the aforesaid amended plat requirement outlined in Item 1, including the
         engineering administrative fees, which exceed the escrow amount of $3,000, the
         Petitioner will be responsible to reimburse the City for said costs.

3.       That consent be predicated on receipt of the escrow funds outlined in Item 2 and the
         proper proceedings being commenced in the proper court within ninety (90) days of the
         date herein.

4.       That Petitioner delivers a recorded copy of the court judgment regarding the aforesaid
         vacation of a portion of Raymond Place to the City Attorney’s Office.

5.       That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record this resolution with the
         Kent County Register of Deeds.

This resolution was drafted by Rick DeVries, P.E., Acting City Engineer
t:\cd06\vacation\CD Raymond Pl
082906

                                                                                     Yeas                      Nays

                                                                                     _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                     _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                     _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                                     _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                     _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                     _____   White             _____

                                                                                     _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                          Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                          Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
DATE:                        August 23, 2006

TO:                          Eric DeLong
                             Deputy City Manager

FROM:                        Rick DeVries, P.E.
                             Acting City Engineer

SUBJECT:                     Streetscape Improvements in Grandville Avenue from Clyde Park
                             Avenue to Tulip Street

The attached resolution provides for the acceptance of three Sidewalk Easements and the
authorization of payments for the same (total amount of $621.00) in connection with the above-
captioned project, which is scheduled for construction in 2007. The City’s compensation
amounts for the Sidewalk Easements were based on a comparative market study prepared by
Engineering Department staff utilizing information gathered for a project in a similar neighborhood
business district. The aforesaid compensation amounts will be financed by the Street Fund.

RDV/CEB/dv
Attachment




t:\cd06\rightway\CD Grandville Ave
082906
#02124
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution accepting three Sidewalk Easements and authorizing payments for the same in
connection with Streetscape Improvements in Grandville Avenue from Clyde Park Avenue to
Tulip Street.


                                               ______________________________________

     CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                          ______________________________________
     DEPARTMENT OF LAW


                                               ______________________________________
                                               COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, it is necessary to accept three Sidewalk Easements and to authorize payments for
the same in connection with Streetscape Improvements in Grandville Avenue from Clyde Park
Avenue to Tulip Street; therefore

RESOLVED:

1.     That the City accept Sidewalk Easements from the following property owners for the
       compensation amounts noted, in connection with the aforesaid project.
                 Ivy Management Company, L.L.C.                        $153.00
                 8676 Breton Avenue, S.E.
                 Caledonia, Michigan 49316
                 Alejandro Martinez and Dernia Rodriguez-Martinez      $289.00
                 1426 Grandville Avenue, S.W.
                 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503
                 M&M Bakery, L.L.C.                                    $179.00
                 1506 Grandville Avenue, S.W.
                 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503

2.     That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record the aforesaid Sidewalk
       Easements with the Kent County Register of Deeds.
3.       That the City Comptroller is hereby authorized and directed to make payments, in such
         amounts and to said payees, as the City Engineer requests in a total amount not to
         exceed $621.00 in connection with the acquisition of the aforesaid Sidewalk Easements.
         Said amount of $621.00 to be charged to Code No. 2260405-986-213050.

This resolution was drafted by Rick DeVries, P.E., Acting City Engineer
t:\cd06\rightway\CD Grandville Ave
082906
#02124
                                                                                     Yeas                      Nays

                                                                                     _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                     _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                     _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                                     _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                     _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                     _____   White             _____

                                                                                     _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                          Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                          Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
DATE:                           August 23, 2006

TO:                             Eric DeLong
                                Deputy City Manager

FROM:                           Rick DeVries, P.E.
                                Acting City Engineer

SUBJECT:                        Utility Easement Acquisition at 654 North Park Street, N.E.

The attached resolution provides for the acceptance of a Utility Easement and the authorization
of payment for the same (total amount of $4,500.00) in connection with an existing sanitary
sewer line that has no recorded easement documentation. The property owners, Todd and
Angela Bennett, purchased the vacant lot in 2004 without knowledge of the City’s sanitary
sewer facilities, and they have cooperated by bringing this to the City’s attention and agreeing
to convey an easement of adequate dimensions to allow them to build a house on the lot while
avoiding the City’s utilities.

The City’s compensation amount for the Utility Easement is based on a front footage factor
applied to the Bennett’s purchase price for the property. The aforesaid compensation amount
will be financed by the Sewer System Fund.

RDV/CEB/dv
Attachment

cc:      Chuck Schroeder




t:\cd06\rightway\CD N Park St
082906
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution accepting a Utility Easement and authorizing payment for the same in connection
with Utility Easement Acquisition at 654 North Park Street, N.E.


                                                        ______________________________________

      CORRECT IN FORM

 _____________________                                   ______________________________________
     DEPARTMENT OF LAW


                                                        ______________________________________
                                                        COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to adopt
the following resolution:

WHEREAS, it is necessary to accept a Utility Easement and to authorize payment for the same
in connection with Utility Easement Acquisition at 654 North Park Street, N.E.; therefore

RESOLVED:

1.       That the City accept a Utility Easement from the following property owners for the
         compensation amount noted, in connection with the aforesaid Utility Easement acquisition.
                           Todd Bennett and Angela Bennett                           $4,500.00
                           123 Clark Street
                           Grant, Michigan 49327

2.       That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record the aforesaid Utility
         Easement with the Kent County Register of Deeds.

3.       That the City Comptroller is hereby authorized and directed to make payment, in such
         amounts and to said payees, as the City Engineer requests in a total amount not to
         exceed $4,500.00 in connection with the acquisition of the aforesaid Utility Easement.
         Said amount of $4,500.00 to be charged to Code No. 442501-945.
This resolution was drafted by Rick DeVries, P.E., Acting City Engineer
t:\cd06\rightway\CD N Park St
082906
                                                                                     Yeas                      Nays

                                                                                     _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                     _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                     _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                                     _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                     _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                     _____   White             _____

                                                                                     _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                          Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                          Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
DATE:                     August 23, 2006

TO:                       Eric DeLong
                          Deputy City Manager

FROM:                     Rick DeVries, P.E.
                          Acting City Engineer

SUBJECT:                  Eastside Sewer Improvements Program Separation Project
                          Contract No. 2A – Reconstruction of Logan Street from 300 feet
                          East of Grandville Avenue to Century Avenue, Century Avenue
                          from Pleasant Street to Logan Street, Buchanan Avenue from
                          Buckley Street (vacated) to Logan Street

The City of Grand Rapids awarded a contract to Diversco Construction Company, Inc. on April 25,
2006 (Commission Proceeding No. 74930) for the above-captioned project with total expenditures
not to exceed $7,658,000. A railroad permit is required from CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) for
the project. CSX requires a preliminary engineering agreement and a deposit from the City for
services associated with the review of the City's plans, specifications, and bid documents for the
project.

The attached resolution provides for the approval of a preliminary engineering agreement with
CSX in connection with this project, and authorizes the Mayor to execute the same, contingent
upon approval by the City Attorney. The agreement defines the scope of the services to be
provided by CSX, or its consultants/subcontractors. Also, the resolution authorizes total
expenditures not to exceed $9,380 for the costs of said services, administration, and
contingencies. The costs as noted above will be financed by Sewer System Fund Revenue
Bonds from funds previously approved for the project.

JDM/dv
Attachment

cc:     Dan Ophoff
        Rich Houghton



t:\cd06\misc\CD ESCSO - CSX
082906
#03056A
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution approving a preliminary engineering agreement with CSX Transportation, Inc. for
services in connection with the Eastside Sewer Improvements Program Separation Project
Contract No. 2A – Reconstruction of Logan Street from 300 feet East of Grandville Avenue to
Century Avenue, Century Avenue from Pleasant Street to Logan Street, Buchanan Avenue
from Buckley Street (vacated) to Logan Street.


                                                _____________________________________

     CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                           _____________________________________
     DEPARTMENT OF LAW


                                                _____________________________________
                                                COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to adopt
the following resolution:

WHEREAS, on April 25, 2006 (Commission Proceeding No. 74930), the City awarded a contract
to Diversco Construction Company, Inc. in connection with the Eastside Sewer Improvements
Program Separation Project Contract No. 2A – Reconstruction of Logan Street from 300 feet
East of Grandville Avenue to Century Avenue, Century Avenue from Pleasant Street to Logan
Street, Buchanan Avenue from Buckley Street (vacated) to Logan Street (hereinafter referred to
as the "Project"); and

WHEREAS, it is necessary to enter into a preliminary engineering agreement with CSX
Transportation, Inc. for services in connection with the Project and to authorize expenditures in
connection therewith; therefore

RESOLVED:

1.     That the City enter into a preliminary engineering agreement with the CSX Transportation,
       Inc. for services in connection with the Project, and that the Mayor is hereby authorized to
       execute the aforesaid agreement on behalf of the City, contingent upon approval of the
       same by the City Attorney.

2.     That total expenditures be authorized in an amount not to exceed $9,380 for the estimated
       costs of services associated with the aforesaid preliminary engineering agreement in
       connection with the Project, administration, and contingencies. Said amount of $9,380 to
       be charged to Code No. 4490532-986-2169A8.
3.      That the City Comptroller is hereby authorized and directed to make payment, in amounts
        and to said payees, as the City Engineer requests in connection with the Project.

4.      That the City, pursuant to Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations promulgated
        pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, declares its intent to
        reimburse itself the costs of the Project and other related costs as referenced herein in an
        amount not to exceed $9,380 (Sewer System Fund) through the issuance of tax-exempt
        bonds.

5.      That a copy of this resolution be available for inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 2nd
        Floor, City Hall, 300 Monroe Avenue, N.W., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503.

This resolution was prepared by Rick DeVries, P.E., Acting City Engineer
t:\cd06\misc\CD ESCSO - CSX
082906
#03056A

                                                                                      Yeas                      Nays

                                                                                      _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                      _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                      _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                                      _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                      _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                      _____   White             _____

                                                                                      _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                           Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                           Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
                               SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS

                                               for

                   Eastside Sewer Improvements Program Separation Project
                 Contract No. 2A – Reconstruction of Logan Street from 300 feet
                 East of Grandville Avenue to Century Avenue, Century Avenue
                    from Pleasant Street to Logan Street, Buchanan Avenue
                          from Buckley Street (vacated) to Logan Street



              Preliminary Engineering Agreement with
              CSX Transportation, Inc. – Estimated Cost of Services    $8,000.00

              Administration                                              375.00

              Sub-Total                                                $8,375.00

              Contingencies (12%)                                        1,005.00

              TOTAL                                                    $9,380.00




t:\cd06\misc\CD ESCSO - CSX
082906
#03056A
DATE:               August 23, 2006

TO:                 Eric DeLong
                    Deputy City Manager

FROM:               Rick DeVries, P.E.
                    Acting City Engineer

SUBJECT:            Eastside CSO Control Program – Increase for Design Engineering
                    Services in connection with Eastside Combined Sewer Overflow
                    Contract Nos. 8 - 12

Concurrent with completing the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) work on the west side of the
Grand River, the City retained Black & Veatch Ltd. of Michigan (Black & Veatch) to develop a
Master Plan for addressing the City's combined sewer system on the east side of the Grand
River. Also, the City authorized Black & Veatch to assist the City in securing the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality's (MDEQ) acceptance of an alternative schedule and
program for the east side work.

City staff and Black & Veatch determined alternatives and finalized recommendations for the
East Side CSO Control Program. In summary, the report presented two alternatives, namely
Combined Sewer Overflow Transport (Transport) and Sewer Separation (Separation). The
recommended alternative was Separation, which was consistent with the approach for combined
sewer overflow control on the west side of the City. The City Commission, at its meeting of
November 28, 2000 (Commission Proceeding No. 68038), approved Separation as the City's
selected alternative for the City's East Side CSO Control Program. At that time, the City
Commission authorized the City Manager to proceed with the implementation of Separation
upon issuance of the MDEQ's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit,
which included the extension of time to the year 2019 for completing the City's East Side CSO
Control Program and the inclusion of certain language in said permit regarding the elimination of
various Combined Sewer Overflow discharge locations. The preliminary estimate of cost for the
Separation alternative was $100 million (Year 2000 dollars). The current cost estimate (Year
2006 dollars) is estimated to be $144 million (reference Exhibit A: "Update Project Cost in the
Master Plan for CSO Elimination by 2019"). It is anticipated that the Separation alternative will
result in the elimination of the combined sewer overflow discharge locations on the east side of
the Grand River by 2019. The various projects required to accomplish the same are to be
phased over the time periods from approximately 2002 to 2006 (Phase I), 2007 to 2014 (Phase
II), 2015 to 2016 (Phase III), and 2017 to 2019 (Phase IV). Upon the elimination of the CSO
discharge locations, the City will be in a position to continue to pursue additional sewer
separation as it deems appropriate and/or coincides with other projects.
On August 14, 2001 (Commission Proceeding No. 68934) the City approved a professional
engineering services agreement with Black & Veatch Ltd. of Michigan (Black & Veatch), with
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. (FTCH) as its primary subconsultant, to provide
professional engineering services in connection with the Eastside Combined Sewer Overflow
(CSO) Control Program. At that time, Black & Veatch was authorized to provide preliminary
design engineering phase services. Subsequently, on August 6, 2002 (Commission Proceeding
No. 70250), the City authorized Black & Veatch to provide design engineering phase services for
the Eastside CSO Control Program (Phase I). The aforesaid agreement, for which an extension
was approved, provides for the City, at its option, to authorize Black & Veatch to provide
additional professional services (design engineering and/or construction engineering/inspection
phase services) for this project, or portions thereof. As Phase I has proceeded, the City has
approved additional professional services (construction engineering/inspection phase) for various
Phase I construction projects.

As required by the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Stormwater Discharge Permit, the City is in the process of completing construction of the
Eastside CSO Phase I by the end of 2006. The City is also required to continue separation
work throughout the combined area of the east side of Grand Rapids at various milestones:
Phase II for those projects constructed between 2007 through 2014, Phase III for those
projects constructed between 2015 through 2016, and Phase IV for those projects constructed
between 2017 through 2019. A section of separation work now included in Phase II includes
Division Avenue from Home Street to Franklin Street, Hall Street from Division Avenue to
Madison Avenue, Highland Street from Division Avenue to Madison Avenue, Jefferson Avenue
from Hall Street to Highland Street, and Madison Avenue from Adams Street to Delaware
Street, collectively Contract Nos. 8 - 12. In order to accomplish the construction of Phase II,
Contract Nos. 8 – 12 of the East Side CSO Control Program, it is recommended that Black &
Veatch be authorized to proceed with the design engineering services for Contract Nos. 8 - 12.

The attached resolution authorizes Black & Veatch to proceed with design engineering services
for Contract Nos. 8 - 12 projects in connection with the East Side CSO Control Program at a cost
of $1,282,600 with total expenditures not to exceed $1,505,000, which includes the costs of
Black & Veatch’s professional engineering services (including its subconsultants’ services,
reimbursable expenses, and an allowance for testing), public information program,
administration, and an approximate twelve percent allowance for contingencies. The aforesaid
costs will be financed by the Sewer System Fund Revenue Bonds for which a budget
amendment will be required.

RDV/DH/dv
Attachment

cc:      Corky Overmyer
         Randy Fisher
         Chuck Schroeder
t:\cd06\increase\CD ESCSO Contracts 8-12
082906
#95067
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution authorizing Black & Veatch Ltd. of Michigan to proceed with design engineering
services in connection with Contract Nos. 8 - 12 of the East Side Combined Sewer Overflow
(CSO) Control Program.


                                               _____________________________________

    CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                          _____________________________________
   DEPARTMENT OF LAW


                                               _____________________________________
                                               COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, on August 14, 2001 (Commission Proceeding No. 68934) the City approved a
professional services agreement with Black & Veatch Ltd. of Michigan (Black & Veatch) for the
Eastside Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Program and authorized Black & Veatch to
provide preliminary design engineering phase services in connection therewith; and

WHEREAS, the Eastside Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Program will be constructed
in four separate phases, Phase I consisting of those projects that will be constructed between
the period 2002 through 2006; Phase II for those projects constructed between 2007 through
2014; Phase III for those projects constructed between 2015 through 2016, and Phase IV for
those projects constructed between 2017 through 2019; and

WHEREAS, the aforesaid agreement provides for the City to authorize Black & Veatch to
proceed with the design engineering services for the East Side CSO Control Program at the
City’s option; and

WHEREAS, on August 6, 2002 (Commission Proceeding No. 70250) the City authorized Black &
Veatch to provide design engineering phase services in connection with Phase I of the Eastside
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Program (Phase I) which is scheduled for completion
by year end, 2006; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to proceed with the design engineering services for a portion of
Phase II, specifically Contract Nos. 8 - 12 of the East Side CSO Control Program; therefore
RESOLVED:

1.       That Black & Veatch Ltd. of Michigan (Black & Veatch) be authorized to proceed at this
         time with design engineering services in connection with Contract Nos. 8-12 of Phase II of
         the East Side Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Program at a cost of $1,282,600
         with total expenditures not to exceed $1,505,000, which includes the costs of the aforesaid
         professional services (including subconsultant services, reimbursable expenses, and an
         allowance for testing), public information program, administration, and contingencies. Said
         amount of $1,505,000 to be charged to Code No. 4490532-986-215902.

2.       That the City Engineer is hereby authorized to execute the necessary change order to
         the agreement with Black & Veatch for the aforesaid professional services.

3.       That the City Comptroller is hereby authorized and directed to make payment, in amounts
         and to said payees, as the City Engineer requests in connection with the aforesaid
         construction engineering/inspection phase services.

4.       That the City, pursuant to Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations promulgated
         pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, declares its intent to
         reimburse itself the costs of the aforesaid professional services and other related costs
         as referenced herein in an amount not to exceed $1,505,000 (Sewer System Fund)
         through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds.

5.       That a copy of this resolution be available for inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 2nd
         Floor, City Hall, 300 Monroe Avenue, N.W., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503.
This resolution was drafted by Rick DeVries, P.E., Acting City Engineer
t:\cd06\increase\CD ESCSO Contracts 8-12
082906
#95067
                                                                                     Yeas                      Nays

                                                                                     _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                     _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                     _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                                     _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                     _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                     _____   White             _____

                                                                                     _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                          Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                          Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
                                       SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS

                                                   for

                          Design Engineering Services in connection with
                   East Side Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Program –
                             Contract Nos. 8 - 12 (a portion of Phase II)



              Design Engineering Services (including subconsultant
              services and reimbursable expenses and an allowance
              for testing) for a portion of Phase II – Contract Nos. 8 - 12   $1,282,600

              Administration/Public Information Program                          65,180

              Sub-Total                                                       $1,347,780

              Contingencies (12%)                                               157,220

              TOTAL                                                           $1,505,000




t:\cd06\increase\CD ESCSO Contracts 8-12
082906
#95067
                                                     EXHIBIT A



                          UPDATE OF PROJECT COST IN THE MASTER PLAN
                                 FOR CSO ELIMINATION BY 2019


             Master Plan project cost in year 2000 dollars                                $100.0 million
             Inflation                                                                    $ 24.0 million 1
             Street lighting/conduit system/traffic signal                                $ 7.7 million 2
             Storm sewer design criteria revision                                         $ 12.3 million 3
             Revised Master Plan project cost (year 2006 dollars)                         $144.0 million



         1
             The $100 million cost estimate was in year 2000 dollars which, for year 2006 dollars, equates
             to $124 million. The inflationary cost increase of $24 million is based on Engineering News
             Record Construction Cost Index and corresponds to an annual inflation rate of 4.4%.


         2
             The estimated Master Plan project cost was for storm sewers and infrastructure improvements.
             Infrastructure improvements include costs for sanitary sewer relocation/rehabilitation, new
             watermains, street improvements and sidewalk replacement as required to install new storm
             sewers. The cost estimate for these improvements was based on knowledge gained from the
             West Side Sewer Separation program. During the design of East Side Sewer Separation
             Program, an additional infrastructure improvements component consisting of street lighting/
             conduit system/traffic signal is required - a component not needed during the West Side Sewer
             Separation Program. The estimated project cost for this additional component is $7.7 million.


         3
             The estimated Master Plan project cost was for storm sewers to convey a 10-year 1-hour storm
             with Grand River at a 10-year flood stage. During design it was decided collectively among the
             consultants and City staff to upgrade sewers design criteria to a 25-year, 1-hour storm with
             Grand River at a 100-year flood stage.




t:\cd06\increase\CD ESCSO Contracts 8-12
082906
#95067
DATE:                       August 23, 2006

TO:                         Eric DeLong
                            Deputy City Manager

FROM:                       Rick DeVries, P.E.
                            Acting City Engineer

SUBJECT:                    Improvements to the Northeast Corner of Division Avenue and
                            28th Street (M-11) Intersection (Gateway Project)

The above-captioned project generally consists of the beautification of a vacant parcel of land
(Michigan Department of Transportation Right-of-Way) located at the Northeast corner of
Division Avenue and 28th Street. Site work involves grading, landscaping, modular block
retaining wall, flag pole, irrigation and electrical.

The attached resolution provides for the approval of an agreement with the Michigan Department
of Transportation (MDOT) and the authorization of expenditures in connection with the above-
captioned project. The agreement with MDOT sets forth the financial responsibilities of the
parties and the conditions under which the work will be constructed.

MDOT received bids for this project on August 4, 2006. The Engineer’s estimate is $91,249.00
and Kamminga & Roodvoets, Inc. (K&R) submitted the low bid of $81,561.95. Estimated total
expenditures ($112,000.00) required for this project, which includes the construction contract,
allowance for Consumers Energy force account work, water connection fees, testing, public
information program, engineering/inspection, administration, and an approximate twelve percent
allowance for contingencies, are being financed by a combination of Enhancement Grant funds
($42,000.00) and local funds ($70,000). The local share of the project will be financed by
Neighborhood Ventures, Inc. A Financing and Maintenance Agreement between Neighborhood
Ventures, Inc. and the City for said project was previously approved by the City Commission on
March 21, 2006 (Commission Proceeding No. 74809), and a portion of funds from Neighborhood
Ventures, Inc. are already on deposit with the City of Grand Rapids. A budget amendment in the
Street Fund will be necessary for the remaining portion of funds from Neighborhood Ventures, Inc.
RDV/RJB/dv
Attachment
cc: Jay Steffen                     Joellen Thompson
    Jim Parr                        Tracy Hover
    Pat Bush                        Alex Thomas
Reviewed by E.O.D.
t:\cd06\MDOT\CD NE corner Division and 28th
082906
#05009
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution approving an agreement with the Michigan Department of Transportation and
authorizing expenditures in connection with Improvements to the Northeast Corner of Division
Avenue and 28th Street (M-11) Intersection (Gateway Project)


                                               _____________________________________

     CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                          _____________________________________
     DEPARTMENT OF LAW


                                               _____________________________________
                                               COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, It is necessary to enter into an agreement with the Michigan Department of
Transportation (MDOT) in connection with the Improvements to the Northeast Corner of Division
Avenue and 28th Street (M-11) Intersection (Gateway Project)and to authorize expenditures in
connection therewith; and

WHEREAS, Bids were received on August 4, 2006 by the Michigan Department of
Transportation for the aforesaid project and Kamminga & Roodvoets, Inc. submitted the low
bid of $81,561.95 for which the Engineer’s estimate is $91,249.00; therefore

RESOLVED:

1.     That the City enter into an agreement with the Michigan Department of Transportation in
       connection with the aforesaid project and that, upon approval by the City Attorney, the
       Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City.

2.     That expenditures for the local share of costs for the aforesaid project be authorized
       in an amount not to exceed $70,000 which includes the construction contract, allowance
       for Consumers Energy force account work, water connection fees, testing, public
       information program, engineering/inspection, administration, and contingencies. Said
       amount of $70,000 to be charged to Code No. 2260405-986-215560.
3.       That the City Comptroller is hereby authorized and directed to make payment, in amounts
         and to said payees, as the City Engineer requests in connection with the aforesaid project.
This resolution was prepared by Rick DeVries, P.E., Acting City Engineer
t:\cd06\MDOT\CD NE corner Division and 28th
082906
#05009
                                                                                      Yeas                      Nays

                                                                                      _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                      _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                      _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                                      _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                      _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                      _____   White             _____

                                                                                      _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                           Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                           Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
                                              BID TABULATION

                                                     for

                      Improvements to the Northeast Corner of Division Avenue
                        and 28th Street (M-11) Intersection (Gateway Project)
                                               (August 4, 2006)


                 Kamminga & Roodvoets, Inc                            $81,561.95

                 Spring Valley Contracting, LLC                       $86,983.50

                 Diversco Construction Company, Inc                  $104,279.70


                 Engineer’s Estimate                                  $91,249.00




t:\cd06\MDOT\CD NE corner Division and 28th
082906
#05009
                                      SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS

                                                     for

                      Improvements to the Northeast Corner of Division Avenue
                        and 28th Street (M-11) Intersection (Gateway Project)



              City of Grand Rapids Share                                  $ 70,000.00
              Enhancement Grant Share                                       42,000.00
              Total Estimated Project Cost                                $112,000.00



                                       Breakdown of Grand Rapids’ Share


              Construction Contract                                        $44,731.95
              Allowance for Consumers Energy Force Account Work               600.00
              Water connection fees                                          3,955.00
              Testing/Public Information Program                              480.00
              Engineering/Inspection/Administration                         12,753.05
              Sub-Total                                                    $62,520.00
              Contingencies (approximately 12% of total
              project costs including federal grant share)                   7,480.00
              TOTAL                                                        $70,000.00




t:\cd06\MDOT\CD NE corner Division and 28th
082906
#05009
DATE:                       August 23, 2006

TO:                         Eric DeLong
                            Deputy City Manager

FROM:                       Rick DeVries, P.E.
                            Acting City Engineer

SUBJECT:                    Curb Replacement in Buckley Street from Sheldon Avenue (East) to
                            Jefferson Avenue, Lafayette Avenue from Sycamore Street (North) to
                            Pleasant Street, Prospect Avenue from Hall Street to Highland Street,
                            and Jackson Street from Lane Avenue to Jackson Place

Bids were received on August 15, 2006 for the above-captioned project. The Engineer’s estimate
is $292,984.50 and Dykema Excavators, Inc. (Dykema) submitted a bid of $276,694.00 (low
discounted bid of $262,859.30). Reference the attached Equal Business Opportunity –
Construction Worksheet regarding the applicable bid discounts for this project.

The attached resolution provides for the award of the construction contract for this project to
Dykema in the amount of $276,694 with total expenditures not to exceed $359,000, which
includes the costs of the construction contract, engineering/inspection, testing, public
information program, administration, and an approximate twelve percent allowance for
contingencies.

This project is being financed by Community Development Block Grant funds ($337,000) and
the Sidewalk Fund ($22,000).

RDV/RJB/dv
Attachment

cc:      Pat Bush
         Darrell VanderKooi
         Scott Buhrer
         Perry Diep
         Alex Thomas

Reviewed by E.O.D.
t:\cd06\bidaward\CD curb replacement 2
082906
#06032
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution awarding a contract to Dykema Excavators, Inc. for Curb Replacement in Buckley
Street from Sheldon Avenue (East) to Jefferson Avenue, Lafayette Avenue from Sycamore
Street (North) to Pleasant Street, Prospect Avenue from Hall Street to Highland Street, and
Jackson Street from Lane Avenue to Jackson Place.


                                               _____________________________________

     CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                          _____________________________________
     DEPARTMENT OF LAW


                                               _____________________________________
                                               COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, bids were received on August15, 2006 for the following project:
     Curb Replacement in Buckley Street from Sheldon Avenue (East) to Jefferson Avenue,
             Lafayette Avenue from Sycamore Street (North) to Pleasant Street,
                    Prospect Avenue from Hall Street to Highland Street,
                  and Jackson Street from Lane Avenue to Jackson Place
and Dykema Excavators, Inc. submitted a bid of $276,694.00 for which the Engineer’s
estimate is $292,984.50; therefore

RESOLVED:

1.     That the bid of Dykema Excavators, Inc. be accepted and that, upon approval by the
       City Attorney, the Mayor be authorized to execute the contract documents for the
       aforesaid project on behalf of the City.

2.     That total expenditures for the aforesaid project be authorized in an amount not to
       exceed $359,000 to cover all the necessary costs including the construction contract,
       engineering/inspection, testing, public information program, administration, and
       contingencies. Said amount of $359,000 to be charged as follows: $337,000 to Code
       No. 3570200421-974 and $22,000 to Code No. 2260256-818.
3.       That the City Comptroller is hereby authorized and directed to make payment, in amounts
         and to said payees, as the City Engineer requests in connection with the aforesaid
         project.

This resolution was drafted by Rick DeVries, P.E., Acting City Engineer
t:\cd06\bidaward\CD curb replacement 2
082906
#06032

                                                                                     Yeas                      Nays

                                                                                     _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                     _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                     _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                                     _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                     _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                     _____   White             _____

                                                                                     _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                          Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                          Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
                                         SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS

                                                    for

                 Curb Replacement in Buckley Street from Sheldon Avenue (East)
                          to Jefferson Avenue, Lafayette Avenue from
                           Sycamore Street (North) to Pleasant Street,
                      Prospect Avenue from Hall Street to Highland Street,
                     and Jackson Street from Lane Avenue to Jackson Place



                 Construction Contract                                $276,694

                 Testing and Public Information Program                  5,800

                 Engineering/Inspection/Administration                  38,185

                 Sub-Total                                            $320,679

                 Contingencies (12%)                                    38,321

                 TOTAL                                                $359,000




t:\cd06\bidaward\CD curb replacement 2
082906
#06032
Project: Curb Replacement in BUCKLEY ST - Sheldon Ave to Jefferson Ave, LAFAYETTE AVE, PROSPECT AVE, JACKSON ST


                                                            EBO - Construction Worksheet
T:\Bid Tab\06032.xls

                                                                          DYKEMA                LODESTAR         DIVERSCO
                                                                                                              CONSTRUCTION CO,
                                                                       EXCAVATORS, INC      CONSTRUCTION, INC
                                                                                                                    INC
                                      Original Bid Amounts (Total)       $276,694.00           $284,616.00       $318,860.00

                                              Supplier Diversity (A)

                                             Total MBE Participation MBE - 26.1%            MBE - 29.3%           MBE - 26.2%
                                                                      BURNS - 26.1%          BURNS - 29.3%         BURNS - 26.2%

                                               MBE Discount Points           5.0                   5.0                   5.0

                                             Total WBE Participation WBE - 0.0%             WBE - 0.0%            WBE - 0.0%

                                               WBE Discount Points           0.0                   0.0                   0.0
                              SUMMARY:
                                              Supplier Diversity (A)         5.0                   5.0                   5.0
                                            Workforce Diversity (B)
                                              Economic Vitality (C)
                                        Community Partnership (D)            1.0                                         1.0
                                                  Environment (E)                                                        1.0
                                        TOTAL DISCOUNT POINTS                6.0                   5.0                   7.0
                                   Allowable Discount Points                 5.0                   5.0                   5.0
                                                 Discount Amount $              16,601.64   $         14,230.80   $         22,320.20
                                  Allowable Discount Amount          $          13,834.70   $         14,230.80   $         15,943.00
                                                 DISCOUNTED BID $             262,859.30    $       270,385.20    $       302,917.00
                                          Discounted BID Ranking              1                     2                     3
  Project: Curb Replacement in BUCKLEY ST - Sheldon Ave E to Jefferson Ave, LAFAYETTE AVE, PROSPECT AVE, JACKSON ST                                                            Bids Rec'd 8/15/06 at 11:00 am at the City Engineer's Office

  T:\Bid Tab\06032.xls




ITEM                                                                                                  ENGINEER'S                              DYKEMA                              LODESTAR                              DIVERSCO

                                                                                                        ESTIMATE                          EXCAVATORS, INC                     CONSTRUCTION, INC                   CONSTRUCTION CO, INC

NO.    ITEM                                                         UNIT       QUAN            UNIT PRICE         TOTAL              UNIT PRICE         TOTAL             UNIT PRICE         TOTAL              UNIT PRICE         TOTAL


 1     Mobilization, Max. $13,000                              Lump Sum              1     $      13,000.00   $     13,000.00    $      13,000.00   $     13,000.00   $      13,000.00   $     13,000.00    $      13,000.00   $     13,000.00
 2     Remove meter pit                                        Each                  2     $         500.00   $      1,000.00    $         500.00   $      1,000.00   $         350.00   $        700.00    $         800.00   $      1,600.00
 3     Remove concrete curb and gutter                         Lin Ft             2300     $          12.00   $     27,600.00    $          15.50   $     35,650.00   $          10.00   $     23,000.00    $          18.00   $     41,400.00
 4     Remove medina stone curb                                Lin Ft            2,400     $          14.00   $     33,600.00    $          15.50   $     37,200.00   $          15.00   $     36,000.00    $          26.00   $     62,400.00
 5     Remove concrete sidewalk                                Sq Ft              8805     $           1.50   $     13,207.50    $           1.00   $      8,805.00   $           3.00   $     26,415.00    $           2.00   $     17,610.00
 6     Remove concrete driveway and approach                   Sq Ft              3800     $           2.00   $      7,600.00    $           1.00   $      3,800.00   $           3.50   $     13,300.00    $           2.50   $      9,500.00
 7     Remove concrete alley and approach                      Sq Ft               460     $           2.20   $      1,012.00    $           1.00   $        460.00   $           4.00   $      1,840.00    $           3.00   $      1,380.00
 8     Concrete sawing, full dept                              Lin Ft              300     $           4.00   $      1,200.00    $           3.00   $        900.00   $           2.75   $        825.00    $           5.00   $      1,500.00
 9     Remove tree, 19" - 36"                                  Each                  3     $         900.00   $      2,700.00    $         900.00   $      2,700.00   $         500.00   $      1,500.00    $       1,000.00   $      3,000.00
 10    Adjust curb stop and box to grade                       Each                 20     $         150.00   $      3,000.00    $         100.00   $      2,000.00   $          50.00   $      1,000.00    $         200.00   $      4,000.00
 11    Furnish curb box                                        Each                 20     $         150.00   $      3,000.00    $         125.00   $      2,500.00   $          60.00   $      1,200.00    $         100.00   $      2,000.00
 12    Adjust catch basin casting to grade                     Each                 11     $         450.00   $      4,950.00    $         450.00   $      4,950.00   $         150.00   $      1,650.00    $         500.00   $      5,500.00
 13    Furnish catch basin casting, per detail S -3 or S - 4   Each                 11     $         500.00   $      5,500.00    $         500.00   $      5,500.00   $         375.00   $      4,125.00    $         500.00   $      5,500.00

 14    Flat top, modified, 48 inch                           Each                      2   $        450.00    $        900.00    $         500.00   $      1,000.00   $        500.00    $       1,000.00   $         500.00   $      1,000.00
 15    Adjust manhole casting to grade                       Each                      1   $        450.00    $        450.00    $         450.00   $        450.00   $        150.00    $         150.00   $         500.00   $        500.00
 16    Furnish manhole casting                               Each                      1   $        500.00    $        500.00    $         500.00   $        500.00   $        240.00    $         240.00   $         500.00   $        500.00
 17    Adjust oversize manhole casting to grade              Each                      2   $        500.00    $      1,000.00    $         600.00   $      1,200.00   $        250.00    $         500.00   $       1,000.00   $      2,000.00
 18    Furnish oversize manhole casting                      Each                      2   $        600.00    $      1,200.00    $       1,000.00   $      2,000.00   $        600.00    $       1,200.00   $       1,000.00   $      2,000.00
 19    Adjust valve box to grade                             Each                      7   $        250.00    $      1,750.00    $         250.00   $      1,750.00   $        100.00    $         700.00   $         300.00   $      2,100.00
 20    Furnish valve box                                     Each                      7   $        200.00    $      1,400.00    $         150.00   $      1,050.00   $        100.00    $         700.00   $         150.00   $      1,050.00
 21    Rebuild Existing manhole, valve chamber or catch      Vert Ft                  12   $        150.00    $      1,800.00    $         200.00   $      2,400.00   $         50.00    $         600.00   $          50.00   $        600.00
       basin
 22    Combined curb and gutter (18" pan), per Detail P - 5, Lin Ft              4700 $              14.00    $     65,800.00    $         11.60    $     54,520.00   $         12.00    $     56,400.00    $         10.00    $     47,000.00
       including pavement restoration
 23    4" concrete sidewalk, including ramps and restorationSq Ft                6785 $               3.50    $     23,747.50    $           3.00   $     20,355.00   $           3.00   $     20,355.00    $           3.00   $     20,355.00

 24    6" concrete sidewalk, including ramps and restorationSq Ft                2020 $               4.00    $      8,080.00    $           3.20   $      6,464.00   $           3.25   $       6,565.00   $           3.25   $      6,565.00

 25    7" concrete sidewalk, including restoration       Sq Ft                    250      $           4.50   $      1,125.00    $           3.60   $        900.00   $           3.50   $        875.00    $           3.50   $        875.00
 26    6' concrete driveway and approach                 Sq Ft                   5200      $           4.50   $     23,400.00    $           3.20   $     16,640.00   $           3.25   $     16,900.00    $           3.25   $     16,900.00
 27    7' concrete alley pavement and approach           Sq Ft                    250      $           5.25   $      1,312.50    $           3.50   $        875.00   $           3.50   $        875.00    $           3.50   $        875.00
 28    Maintaining traffic (estimated 40 days)           Lump Sum                   1      $       9,000.00   $      9,000.00    $      15,000.00   $     15,000.00   $       4,000.00   $      4,000.00    $       5,000.00   $      5,000.00
 29    Clean and remove manhole, valve chamber, or catch Each                       1      $         500.00   $        500.00    $         600.00   $        600.00   $         650.00   $        650.00    $       1,000.00   $      1,000.00
       basing, per detail P - 23B
 30    Protect catch basin                               Each                      17      $         100.00   $      1,700.00    $         125.00   $      2,125.00   $         150.00   $      2,550.00    $         100.00   $      1,700.00
 31    Catch basin, per Detail S - 3                     Each                       1      $       1,400.00   $      1,400.00    $       2,000.00   $      2,000.00   $       1,500.00   $      1,500.00    $       2,000.00   $      2,000.00
 32    Remove bituminous pavements (cold milling)        Ton                      500      $          15.00   $      7,500.00    $          15.00   $      7,500.00   $          20.00   $     10,000.00    $          25.00   $     12,500.00
 33    Temporary gravel pavement                         Ton                      650      $          18.00   $     11,700.00    $          15.00   $      9,750.00   $          30.00   $     19,500.00    $          15.00   $      9,750.00
 34    Temporary bituminous pavements                    Ton                       40      $          60.00   $      2,400.00    $         100.00   $      4,000.00   $          75.00   $      3,000.00    $         100.00   $      4,000.00
 35    4" topsoil, including see, fertilizer and mulch   Sq Yd                   2100      $           3.00   $      6,300.00    $           2.50   $      5,250.00   $           5.00   $     10,500.00    $           5.00   $     10,500.00
 36    Soil erosion and sedimentation control            Lump Sum                   1      $       1,600.00   $      1,600.00    $       1,000.00   $      1,000.00   $         551.00   $        551.00    $         500.00   $        500.00
 37    Tilia Cordata "Chancellor," Chancellor Littleleaf Each                       3      $         350.00   $      1,050.00    $         300.00   $        900.00   $         250.00   $        750.00    $         400.00   $      1,200.00
       Lindens, 2 inch

                             Original Bid Amount (TOTAL)                   0          0                     0 $    292,984.50                       $    276,694.00                      $    284,616.00                       $    318,860.00
                               Allowable Discount Points                                                                                                 5.0                                  5.0                                   5.0
                              Allowable Discount Amount                                                                                             $     13,834.70                      $     14,230.80                       $     15,943.00
                                        DISCOUNTED BID                                                                                              $    262,859.30                      $    270,385.20                       $    302,917.00
                                  Discounted BID Ranking                                                                                                  1                                    2                                     3




                                                                                                                   Page 1 of 1
DATE:                       August 23, 2006

TO:                         Eric DeLong
                            Deputy City Manager

FROM:                       Rick DeVries, P.E.
                            Acting City Engineer

SUBJECT:                    Reconstruction of Indian Mill Creek Sanitary Sewer
                            in Tamarack Avenue, Public Easement (N.W.), and
                            Public Easement (N.W.) Erickson Court (Pvt.), and
                            Remembrance Sanitary Lift Station Improvements

The attached resolution provides for the acceptance of three Public Utility and Access Easements
and the authorization of payments for said Public Utility and Access Easements and for three
temporary grading permits (total amount of $26,496.56) in connection with the above-captioned
project, which is scheduled for construction in 2006 and 2007. The City’s compensation amounts
for the Public Utility and Access Easements and temporary grading permits were based on a
comparative market study prepared by John Sabin of the Sabin Valuation Group. The aforesaid
compensation amounts will be financed by the Sewer System Fund Revenue Bonds.

Sixteen Public Utility and Access Easements and a Deed of Easement were previously accepted
on March 21, 2006 and August 15, 2006, and eminent domain proceedings were also authorized
for seven Public Utility and Access Easements on August 15, 2006. Special legal counsel, Law,
Weathers & Richardson, and the right-of-way acquisition contractor, Land Matters, LLC, are
working together with Engineering Department staff to resolve easement acquisition issues for
the remaining Public Utility and Access Easements (approximately 36) necessary for this project,
including following through with the eminent domain proceedings if negotiations are not
successful. The acquisition of the remaining Public Utility and Access Easements will be
presented to the City Commission for its consideration at a future date.
RDV/CEB/dv
Attachment
cc:      Rick DeVries
         Breese Stam
         Corky Overmyer
         Randy Fisher
         Chuck Schroeder
t:\cd06\rightway\CD IMC 3
082906
#02128
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution accepting three Public Utility and Access Easements and authorizing payments for
said Public Utility and Access Easements and three temporary grading permits in connection
with Reconstruction of Indian Mill Creek Sanitary Sewer in Tamarack Avenue, Public Easement
(N.W.), and Public Easement (N.W.) Erickson Court (Pvt.), and Remembrance Sanitary Lift
Station Improvements.


                                               ______________________________________

     CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                          ______________________________________
     DEPARTMENT OF LAW


                                               ______________________________________
                                               COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, it is necessary to accept three Public Utility and Access Easements and to approve
payments for said Public Utility and Access Easements and three temporary grading permits in
connection with Reconstruction of Indian Mill Creek Sanitary Sewer in Tamarack Avenue, Public
Easement (N.W.), and Public Easement (N.W.) Erickson Court (Pvt.), and Remembrance
Sanitary Lift Station Improvements; therefore

RESOLVED:

1.     That the City accept Public Utility and Access Easements from the following property
       owners for the compensation amounts noted, in connection with the aforesaid project.
                  Koetje Properties, L.L.C.                           $6,399.30
                  547 Baldwin Street
                  Jenison, Michigan 49428
                  Creek View Enterprise, LLC                          $1,968.03
                  499 Fonger
                  Sparta, Michigan 49345
                  Betz Industries, Inc.                               $14,093.75
                  2121 Bristol Avenue, N.W.
                  Grand Rapids, Michigan 49544
2.       That the City authorizes payments to the following property owners for temporary
         grading permits for the compensation amounts noted, in connection with the aforesaid
         project.
                            Koetje Properties, L.L.C.                                $2,276.00
                            547 Baldwin Street
                            Jenison, Michigan 49428
                            Creek View Enterprise, LLC                               $354.45
                            499 Fonger
                            Sparta, Michigan 49345
                            Betz Industries, Inc.                                    $1,405.03
                            2121 Bristol Avenue, N.W.
                            Grand Rapids, Michigan 49544

3.       That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record the aforesaid Public Utility
         and Access Easements with the Kent County Register of Deeds.

4.       That the City Comptroller is hereby authorized and directed to make payments, in such
         amounts and to said payees, as the City Engineer requests in a total amount not to
         exceed $26,496.56 in connection with the acquisition of the aforesaid Public Utility and
         Access Easements and temporary grading permits. Said amount of $26,496.56 to be
         charged to Code No. 4490532-986-215903.

5.       That the City, pursuant to Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations promulgated
         pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, declares its intent to
         reimburse itself the costs of the acquisition of the aforesaid Public Utility and Access
         Easements and temporary grading permits and other related costs as referenced herein
         in an amount not to exceed $26,496.56 (Sewer System Fund) through the issuance of
         tax-exempt bonds.

6.       That a copy of this resolution be available for inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 2nd
         Floor, City Hall, 300 Monroe Avenue, N.W., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503.
This resolution was drafted by Rick DeVries, P.E., Acting City Engineer
t:\cd06\rightway\CD IMC 3
082906
#02128
                                                                                     Yeas                      Nays

                                                                                     _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                     _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                     _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                                     _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                     _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                     _____   White             _____

                                                                                     _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                          Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                          Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
DATE:                        August 23, 2006

TO:                          Eric DeLong
                             Deputy City Manager

FROM:                        Rick DeVries, P.E.
                             Acting City Engineer

SUBJECT:                     Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to serve Huntington Ridge
                             Condominiums – Phase IV

The attached resolution provides for the acceptance of an easement and the approval of a
construction agreement for the construction of the above-captioned project.

The construction agreement provides that construction will be done in accordance with Grand
Rapids' Standard Construction Specifications, including insurance requirements. Field
inspection will be done by Moore & Bruggink, Inc. on behalf of the City of Walker in accordance
with Section 27 of the Grand Rapids' Standard Construction Specifications. The costs of the
watermain and sanitary sewer will be paid for by the developer, Grand Valley Land Development
Corporation. The City will be reimbursed the costs of services (administration, etc.) associated
with the project.

This project is located south of Leonard Street and east of Wilson Avenue within the service
area of the City of Walker and has been previously approved in concept by City staff. This
project involves providing sanitary sewer and watermain facilities to serve the fourth phase
of a condominium development.

WDY/dv
Attachment

cc:      Joellen Thompson
         Corky Overmyer
         Chuck Schroeder



t:\cd06\privdev\CD Huntington Ridge
082906
#06023
YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE recommends adoption of the following
resolution accepting an easement and approving a construction agreement between the City
of Grand Rapids, the City of Walker, and Grand Valley Land Development Corporation for the
construction of sanitary sewer and watermain facilities.


                                               _____________________________________

     CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                          _____________________________________
     DEPARTMENT OF LAW


                                               _____________________________________
                                               COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to adopt
the following resolution:

WHEREAS, it is necessary to accept an easement and approve a construction agreement
between the City of Grand Rapids, the City of Walker, and Grand Valley Land Development
Corporation for the construction of Sanitary Sewer in Public Easement (N.W.) Barrington Drive
(Pvt.) and Kensington Drive (Pvt.) from 1,405 feet South to 1,645 feet South of Leonard Street
and from 800 feet West to 1,160 feet West of Kinney Avenue; and Watermain in Public Easement
(N.W.) Barrington Drive (Pvt.) and Kensington Drive (Pvt.) from 1,405 feet South to 1,645 feet
South of Leonard Street and from 800 feet West to 1,160 feet West of Kinney Avenue
(Huntington Ridge Condominiums - Phase IV); therefore

RESOLVED:

1.     That the City of Grand Rapids accept an easement for the construction and maintenance
       of public utilities from:
             Grand Valley Land Development Corporation
             A Michigan Corporation
             0-699 Tallmadge Woods Drive, N.W., Suite B
             Grand Rapids, Michigan 49544

2.     That the aforesaid construction agreement be approved and that, upon approval by the
       City Attorney, the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the
       City.
3.       That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record the aforesaid easement
         with the Kent County Register of Deeds.
This resolution was drafted by Rick DeVries, P.E., Acting City Engineer
t:\cd06\privdev\CD Huntington Ridge
082906
#06023
                                                                                     Yeas                      Nays

                                                                                     _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                                     _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                                     _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                                     _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                                     _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                                     _____   White             _____

                                                                                     _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                          Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                          Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
DATE:              August 21, 2006

TO:                Kurt Kimball, City Manager
                   Executive Office

FROM:              Todd Tofferi
                   Office of Special Events

SUBJECT:           2006 Celebration on the Grand -
                   Adoption of Special Events Code
                   September 6 - September 10, 2006

Chapter 53 of the Code of the City of Grand Rapids enables the City, in cases of major special
events, to define the event boundaries and to provide the event organizers the authority to
manage activities within the boundaries. Attached is a resolution adopting the Special Events
Code.

The attached resolution defines the event boundaries and allows only animals assisting
disabled persons within the boundaries as designated by the Celebration on the Grand
Committee. The 2006 boundaries have changed from the 2005 event.

The boundaries for this years’ event has been expanded north of the old boundary (Bridge
Street bridge) to Sixth Street Bridge and includes the riverwalk area on the west side of the
river, Fishladder Park, and Sixth Street Park on the east side of the Grand River.

The boundary change is a result of the fireworks being staged and launched from the Bridge
Street bridge. In previous years, the Gillett Bridge was used as the fireworks staging site.

Special Event staff have worked with organizers in developing this document and recommend
approval of the same.

JDS/kc
Attachments
cc:   Lt. Pat Dean
      2006 Celebration on the Grand Committee
       YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution
designating the “2006 Celebration on the Grand” as an event subject to Chapter 53 of the City
Code, and designating regulations to apply to conduction of activities for the event, as
authorized by Chapter 53.


                                                      __________________________________


                                                      __________________________________


                                                      __________________________________


                                                      __________________________________


                                                      __________________________________


                                                      __________________________________


                                                    __________________________________
                                                 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

       Com._____________________, supported by Com.________________, moved
adoption of the following resolution:

      WHEREAS, Chapter 53 of Title IV of the Code of the City of Grand Rapids provides for
the adoption of a resolution establishing rules and regulations to control certain activities
associated with a given special event, and

       WHEREAS, the City Manager, through his designee, has determined that the special
event, sponsored by the City of Grand Rapids and the Celebration on the Grand Board called
the “2006 Celebration on the Grand” which is scheduled to be held September 6 through
September 10, 2006, is of general interest and importance to the community, and

       WHEREAS, “2006 Celebration on the Grand” requests the establishment of certain
rules and regulations to control certain activities associated with the event, in order to ensure
to the greatest extent possible, that the objectives of the special event are achieved, consistent
with the public health, safety and welfare, therefore
RESOLVED:

1.   That the Special Event sponsored by the City of Grand Rapids and the
     Celebration on the Grand Board, called “2006 Celebration on the Grand”,
     scheduled for September 6 – September 10, 2006, be and is hereby made
     subject to the provisions of Chapter 53 of Title IV of the Code of the City of Grand
     Rapids for the time period beginning at 4:00 p.m. September 6 and continuing
     through 5 a.m., September 10.

2.   That the event boundaries and event areas of the “2006 Celebration on the
     Grand” are specifically described as follows:

     Event Boundaries:

     Starting at the northwest corner of the intersection of Newberry Street and
     Scribner Avenue; the area is bounded on the west by the western edge of the
     west sidewalk traveling south along Scribner to Pearl Street, Pearl Street
     traveling east along the southern edge of the south sidewalk to Monroe Avenue,
     Monroe Avenue traveling south along the western edge of the west sidewalk to
     Louis Street, Louis Street traveling southeast along the southern edge of the
     south sidewalk to Ottawa Avenue, Ottawa Avenue traveling northeast along the
     eastern edge of the east sidewalk to Monroe Center Street, Monroe Center
     Street traveling southeast along the southern edge of the south sidewalk to
     Division Avenue, Division Avenue traveling north along the eastern edge of the
     crosswalk to the northern edge of the north sidewalk of Monroe Center Street,
     Monroe Center Street traveling northwest to Ottawa Avenue, Ottawa Avenue
     traveling north along the eastern edge of the east sidewalk to Pearl Street, Pearl
     Street traveling west along the northern edge of the north sidewalk to Monroe
     Avenue, Monroe Avenue traveling north along the eastern edge of the west
     sidewalk to Newberry Street, Newberry Street traveling west along the northern
     edge of the north sidewalk to the point of beginning.

3.   That the following rules and regulations will apply to the Special Event as
     described in the previous paragraphs:

     a)     No vendors or transient merchants, including commercial and promotional
            advertising activity, will be allowed within the event boundaries other than
            those specially authorized by both the City Clerk’s Office and the
            Celebration on the Grand Board.

     b)     No dogs or other animals potentially posing threats to health and public
            safety, will be allowed within the event boundaries. (Dogs assisting
            disabled persons are allowed and welcome.)

     c)     No person shall ride or operate within the event boundaries any bicycle,
            unicycle, tricycle, moped, rickshaw, roller skates or skateboards. Nothing
           herein shall prevent the use of strollers or carriages for infants, or manual
           or electric wheelchairs for persons needing such appliances for mobility.

     d)    No motor vehicles, except emergency vehicles assisting with emergencies
           within the event, authorized news media vehicles, or those authorized by
           the Celebration on the Grand Board for necessary deliveries, shall be
           permitted within the barricaded portions of the streets within the event
           boundaries.

     e)    No person shall land a hot air balloon, parachute from an airplane, or drop
           items from an aircraft, building, or overpass into event boundaries unless
           they have been approved in writing by the Celebration on the Grand
           Board. The person shall have any such approval upon their person during
           the event.

     f)    No food preparation grills or other food dispensing apparatus are allowed
           within the event boundaries except those operated by vendors as
           authorized by the City Clerk and the Celebration on the Grand Board.

4.   That pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 53 of the City Code, this resolution
     shall be published in its entirety.
DATE:              August 21, 2006

TO:                Kurt Kimball, City Manager
                   Executive Office

FROM:              Todd Tofferi
                   Office of Special Events

SUBJECT:           Grand Valley American Indian Lodge Pow Wow
                   Adoption of Special Events Code
                   September 8 - 11, 2006


Chapter 53 of the Code of the City of Grand Rapids enables the City, in cases of major special
events, to define the event boundaries and to provide the event organizers the authority to
manage activities within the boundaries. Attached is a map indicating the boundaries for 2006,
along with a resolution adopting the Special Events Code. The event boundaries are
unchanged from the 2005 event.

The event at Riverside Park is located near the bandshell/restroom building. The 2006
resolution defines the event boundaries and allows only animals assisting disabled persons
within the boundaries as designated by the Grand Valley American Indian Lodge Pow Wow
Committee. Dogs brought to the Pow Wow by registered and approved traders are excluded
from the ban. The dog must be fully restrained on a leash not exceeding eight feet long. Staff
recommends that traders keep dogs in an approved kennel during the Pow Wow.

Special event staff has worked with organizers in developing the attached resolution and
recommends approval.


JDS:kc
Attachment
cc:   Lt. Patrick Dean
      GVAIL Pow Wow 2006 Committee Chairperson (Lori Shustha)
      YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution
designating the “2006 Grand Valley American Indian Lodge Pow Wow” as an event subject to
Chapter 53 of the City Code, and designating regulations to apply to conduction of activities for
the event, as authorized by Chapter 53.

                                                     __________________________________



                                                     __________________________________



                                                     __________________________________



                                                     __________________________________



                                                     __________________________________



                                                     __________________________________



                                                     __________________________________

                                                       COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

     Com. ____________________, supported by Com._______________,
moved adoption of the following resolution:

      WHEREAS, Chapter 53 of Title IV of the Code of the City of Grand Rapids provides for
the adoption of a resolution establishing rules and regulations to control certain activities
associated with a given special event, and

        WHEREAS, the City Manager, through his designee, has determined that the special
event sponsored by the Grand Valley American Indian Lodge Pow Wow Committee and the
City of Grand Rapids called the "2006 Grand Valley American Indian Lodge Pow Wow ", which
is scheduled to be held September 8 through 11, 2006 is of general interest and importance to
the community, and

       WHEREAS, the Grand Valley American Indian Lodge Pow Wow Committee requests
the establishment of certain rules and regulations to control certain activities associated with
the event, in order to insure to the greatest extent possible, that the objectives of the special
event are achieved, consistent with the public health, safety and welfare;

        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Special Event sponsored by the Grand
Valley American Indian Lodge Pow Wow Committee and the City of Grand Rapids called the
"Grand Valley American Indian Lodge Pow Wow ", scheduled for September 8 and 11, 2006,
be and is hereby made subject to the provisions of Chapter 53 of Title IV of the Code of the
City of Grand Rapids for the time period beginning at 5:00 p.m., September 8 and continuing
until 8:00 a.m., September 11, 2006.

      BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the boundaries of the "Grand Valley American Indian
Lodge Pow Wow ” are specifically described as:

             Beginning at the southwest corner of the Bandshell parking lot, traveling
             northeast along the parking lot to the southwest edge of the drive, then northwest
             along the edge of the grassy area traveling along the curve; then traveling
             southwest along the edge of the grassy area between the baseball diamond and
             the Riverbend shelter parking lot; curving to a point perpendicular to the radius of
             the Riverbend Shelter parking lot entrance; then traveling southeast across the
             grass and connecting to the southwest edge of the right field corner post then
             traveling northeast along the fenceline to the intersection of the right and left field
             fences then south to the point of beginning.

      BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following rules and regulations will apply to the
Special Event as described in the previous paragraphs:

             1.     No dogs or other animals potentially posing threats to public health and
                    safety, will be allowed within the event boundaries. (Dogs assisting
                    disabled persons are allowed and welcome.) Dogs brought to the Pow
                    Wow by registered and approved traders are excluded from the ban. The
                    dog must be fully restrained on a leash not exceeding eight feet long.
                    Staff recommends that traders keep dogs in an approved kennel during
                    the Pow Wow.
             2.     No vendors, including commercial and promotional advertising activity, will
                    be allowed within the event boundaries other than those specifically
                    authorized by the Grand Valley American Indian Lodge Pow Wow
                    Committee.

       BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 53 of the
City Code, this resolution shall be published in its entirety.
DATE:              August 18, 2006

TO:                Mayor and City Commissioners

FROM:              Mary Therese Hegarty
                   City Clerk

SUBJECT:           LIQUOR LICENSE TRANSFER REQUEST –
                   AMWAY HOTEL CORPORATION


Amway Hotel Corporation is requesting to transfer all stock interest in the 2006 Class C
licensed business with Dance-Entertainment Permit located at 245 Monroe NW, and the
2006 B-Hotel licensed business with Dance-Entertainment Permit located at 177-191-199
Monroe NW, through a four (4) step process to Alticor Corporate Enterprises, Inc.

Inspection and review of the premises to be licensed have been completed and approved
by the Assessor, Building Inspection, Fire, Zoning and the Kent County Health
Departments. The City Treasurer and Income Tax Administrator have confirmed that all
personal property taxes and all other debts due and owing to the City have been paid.
Criminal history has been checked by the Police Department and there is no indication that
the applicant cannot serve the public in the licensed area in a fair, honest and open
manner. Therefore, the attached resolution is recommended for your approval.


Attachment
YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following
resolution approving the request from Amway Hotel Corporation to transfer all stock
interest in the 2006 Class C licensed business with Dance-Entertainment Permit located
at 245 Monroe NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503, Kent County, and the 2006 B-Hotel
licensed business with Dance-Entertainment Permit located at 177-191-199 Monroe
NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503, Kent County through the following four (4) steps: (Step
1) Transfer all stock interest from Amway Properties Corporation through transfer of
100,000 shares of stock to new stockholder, Alticor, Inc., (Step 2) Transfer all stock
interest from Alticor Inc. through transfer of 100,000 shares of stock to new stockholder,
Alticor Enterprises, Inc., (Step 3) transfer all stock interest from Alticor Enterprises, Inc.
through transfer of 100,000 shares of stock to new stockholder, Alticor Investments,
Inc.,, (Step 4) transfer all stock interest from Alticor Investments, Inc., through transfer
of 100,000 shares of stock to new stockholder, Alticor Corporate Enterprises, Inc.


                                            _____________________________________
    CORRECT IN FORM

 _____________________                      _____________________________________
   DEPARTMENT OF LAW


                                            _____________________________________


                                            _____________________________________


                                            _____________________________________


                                            _____________________________________


                                            _____________________________________
                                                 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Com.                                       , supported by Com.
     ,
moved adoption of the following resolution:

RESOLVED that the request from Amway Hotel Corporation to transfer all stock interest
in the 2006 Class C licensed business with Dance-Entertainment Permit located at 245
Monroe NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503, Kent County, and the 2006 B-Hotel licensed
business with Dance-Entertainment Permit located at 177-191-199 Monroe NW, Grand
Rapids, MI 49503, Kent County through the following four (4) steps: (Step 1) Transfer
all stock interest from Amway Properties Corporation through transfer of 100,000 shares
of stock to new stockholder, Alticor, Inc., (Step 2) Transfer all stock interest from Alticor
Inc. through transfer of 100,000 shares of stock to new stockholder, Alticor Enterprises,
Inc. (Step 3) Transfer all stock interest from Alticor Enterprises, Inc. through transfer of
100,000 shares of stock to new stockholder, Alticor Investments, Inc., (Step 4) Transfer
all stock interest from Alticor Investments, Inc., through transfer of 100,000 shares of
stock to new stockholder, Alticor Corporate Enterprises, Inc. be approved.



Drafted by: Mary Therese Hegarty, City Clerk




                                                            Yeas                        Nays

                                                            _____   Bliss               _____

                                                            _____   Jendrasiak          _____

                                                            _____   Lumpkins            _____

                                                            _____   Schmidt             _____

                                                            _____   Tormala             _____

                                                            _____   White               _____

                                                            _____   Mayor Heartwell     _____

                                                            Yeas:   _____        Nays: _____

                                                            Adopted: _____       Failed: _____
DATE:              August 16, 2006

TO:                Mayor and City Commissioners

FROM:              Mary Therese Hegarty
                   City Clerk

SUBJECT:           Temporary Authorization for Temporary Outdoor Service –
                   Cottage Bar & Restaurant


The Cottage Bar & Restaurant is requesting temporary authorization for a Temporary
Outdoor Service Permit to be used in conjunction with their annual “Chili Cook-Off” to be
held on September 16, 2006, on LaGrave Avenue south of Fulton Street.

Inspection and review of the premises to be licensed have been completed and approved
by the Assessor, Building Inspection, Fire, Zoning and the Kent County Health
Departments. The City Treasurer and Income Tax Administrator have confirmed that all
personal property taxes and all other debts due and owing to the City have been paid.
Criminal history has been checked by the Police Department and there is no indication that
the applicant cannot serve the public in the licensed area in a fair, honest and open
manner. Therefore, the attached resolution is recommended for approval by the City
Commission.


Attachment
YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following
resolution approving the request from Cottage Bar & Restaurant, Inc., for Temporary
Authorization for a Temporary Outdoor Service Permit to be used in conjunction with
their annual “Chili Cook-Off” to be held on September 16, 2006, on LaGrave Avenue
south of Fulton Street.


                                               _____________________________________
     CORRECT IN FORM

 _____________________                         _____________________________________
    DEPARTMENT OF LAW


                                               _____________________________________


                                               _____________________________________


                                               _____________________________________


                                               _____________________________________


                                               _____________________________________

                                                     COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


Com.                                     , supported by Com.
moved adoption of the following resolution:

RESOLVED that the request from Cottage Bar & Restaurant, Inc., for Temporary
Authorization for a Temporary Outdoor Service Permit to be used in conjunction with
their annual “Chili Cook-Off” to be held on September 16, 2006, on LaGrave Avenue
south of Fulton Street, be approved.



Drafted by: Mary Therese Hegarty, City Clerk
Date:         August 29, 2006

To:           Kurt F. Kimball, City Manager

From:         Gregory Sundstrom, Chief Services Officer
              Jay Steffen, Parks and Recreation Director

Subject:      First Addendum to the Restated Management Agreement with
              DP Fox Sports and Entertainment L.L.C.

   Last year, the City of Grand Rapids did not budget for the ice skating program at Rosa
Parks Circle. We were fortunate to have sponsors provide funding to retain the program. DP
Fox Sports and Entertainment LLC, the Downtown Alliance, and our Parks and Recreation
Department worked cooperatively to open the skating program at Rosa Parks Circle.
   Our three sponsors, the Downtown Development Authority ($40,000), LaSalle Bank
($12,500), and Centennial Wireless ($12,500) provided $65,000, while the revenues from the
reduced $1 admission charge provided nearly $21,000. Finally, DP Fox Sports and
Entertainment LLC, the Downtown Alliance, and the City provided in-kind support. As in past
years, the Grand Rapids Griffins Youth Foundation lent free ice skates. DP Fox Sports and
Entertainment LLC managed the operations successfully within the $75,000 budget.
   At our April 11, 2006, season-ending briefing with the City Commission, we stated that we
would seek an ordinance that would ban playing ice hockey at Rosa Parks Circle except by
permit, investigate changes to the condenser systems to save energy and water costs, and
establish hours to ban unsafe skating activities when the park is closed and without lights.
Additionally, we reported that we were negotiating contract amendments with DP Fox Sports
and Entertainment LLC to add managing ice skating operations at Rosa Parks Circle to their
current responsibilities at Griff’s IceHouse at Belknap Park.
    We successfully concluded our negotiations. Contract amendments outline responsibilities
for DP Fox Sports and Entertainment LLC and the City to continue an ice skating program at
Rosa Parks Circle. I support this restated management agreement. To the extent permissible
by law, it provides protection to the City with ample incentive to DP Fox Sports and
Entertainment LLC to provide superior management. DP Fox Sports and Entertainment LLC’s
record of customer service, protecting our assets, and returning profits to the Belknap Ice
Arena Capital Fund led to a successful season at Rosa Parks Circle.

attachments

cc: Stan Milanowski, City Comptroller
    Tim Gortsema, Vice President, DP Fox Sports and Entertainment LLC
    Lynn Rabaut, Executive Director of the Grand Rapids Griffins Youth Foundation
    Jay Fowler, Executive Director, Downtown Development Authority
    Sharon Evoy, Executive Director, Downtown Alliance
       YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends the adoption of the following
resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a First Addendum to Restated
Management Agreement between the City and DP Fox Sports & Entertainment, L.L.C., related
to the management and operation of the Rosa Parks Circle Ice Rink.




                                                      Committee of the Whole


  Commissioner __________________, supported by Commissioner __________________,
moved the adoption of the following resolution:

   WHEREAS, because of budgetary constraints, the City determined that it was unable to
manage and operate the Rosa Parks Circle ice rink (the "Ice Rink") during the 2006 fiscal year;
and

   WHEREAS, subject to the availability of certain operating funds, DP Fox Sports &
Entertainment, L.L.C. ("DP Fox") has offered to manage and operate the Ice Rink in
conjunction with its operation and management of the Belknap Ice Arena, a/k/a Griff's
Icehouse at Belknap Park; and

   WHEREAS, the City of Grand Rapids Downtown Development Authority has pledged
$40,000 and private contributions totaling $25,000 have been made to cover costs of operating
the Ice Rink; and

  WHEREAS, the City and DP Fox have determined to enter into an agreement related to the
management and operation of the Ice Rink for the 2006 fiscal year skating season.
   RESOLVED:
   1. That the First Addendum to Restated Management Agreement (the "First Addendum")
      between the City and DP Fox related to the management and operation of the Ice Rink
      in substantially the form presented at this meeting is approved with such modifications
      as are not materially adverse to the City, approved as to content by the City Manager
      and as to form by the City Attorney or special counsel.

   2. That the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized and directed to execute the First
      Addendum for and on behalf of the City.

   3. That all resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict herewith shall be and the same
      are hereby rescinded.




Prepared by: Richard A. Wendt, Dickinson Wright PLLC




                                                                        Yeas                      Nays

                                                                        _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                        _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                        _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                        _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                        _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                        _____   White             _____

                                                                        _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                             Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                             Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
DATE:               August 23, 2006

TO:                 Eric R. DeLong
                    Deputy City Manager

FROM:               Susan Shannon
                    Economic Development Director

SUBJECT:            Resolution to Approve an Industrial Facility Tax Exemption Certificate
                    under P.A. 198 - Vi-Chem Corp.

Passage of the attached resolution would grant final approval of the application for an
Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate filed by Vi-Chem Corp.

Vi-Chem. Corp., 55 Cottage Grove SW, compounds vinyl with products of its operations,
supplying vinyl plastics compounds to international markets. Products are sold to plastic
processors, extruders, blow molders, and injection molders for use in the automotive, furniture,
appliance and building industries.

The $2,650,000 project will allow the company to expand their capacity both in machinery and
building space. Approximately $700,000 will be for building improvements and $1,950,000 will
be for machinery and equipment.

Vi-Chem. currently employs 106 and is expecting to create 4 new jobs with this current project.
Since their last project in 1998, the company has grown from 82 employees to 106, an
increase of 24 jobs. The project can produce $448,000 in new taxes over 12 years with
$269,000 being paid and $179,000 abated. The City portion of the abatement is $80,000 with
$40,000 being paid and $40,000 abated. Starting wage at Vi-Chem is $9.30 per hour or
approximately $20,000 per year. Four new jobs can generate $800 in new income tax per
year or $9,600 over 12 years.

There are no known environmental or zoning violations. The taxes are current and the
company has an approved Affirmative Action Plan.

This is the final step of a six-step process to approve an Industrial Facilities Tax Exemption
Certificate.

SS/DSO/kad

Attachment
YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution
approving the application of Vi-Chem Corp. for an Industrial Facilities Tax Exemption Certificate.




  CORRECT IN FORM


_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF LAW




                                                             COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE




Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED:

    1. That this City Commission finds as follows:

           a. That the commencement of the project occurred not earlier than six months before
              the filing of the application.
           b. That the application relates to a project whose real and personal property when
              completed shall constitute a New Facility within the meaning of Act 198, and which
              is situated within a Plant Rehabilitation District.
           c. The facility is calculated to have the reasonable likelihood to create employment,
              retain employment, or prevent a loss of employment in the City.
           d. That the granting of the certificate, considered together with the aggregate amount
              of certificates previously granted and currently in force, will not have the effect of
              impeding the operation of the City of Grand Rapids or impair the financial
               soundness of the taxing units in the government unit in which the facility is located
               or is to be located.
            e. That the limitations restricting the District, in the Resolution by which it was
               established by proceeding number 40478 on June 15, 1982, to the project being
               considered at that time, is confirmed and hereby waived.

    2. That the application of Vi-Chem Corp. for an Industrial Facilities Tax Exemption Certificate
       be and is hereby approved.

    3. That the date of completion of the Vi-Chem Corp. facilities located at 55 Cottage Grove
       SW subject to the Industrial Facilities Tax Exemption Certificate shall be December 30,
       2008.

    4. That the cost of the real property is estimated at $700,000.

    5. That the cost of the personal property is estimated at $1,950,000.

    6. That the certificate shall be approved for a period of twelve (12) years after completion,
       pursuant to Act 38, P.A. 1978, amendment to Act 198, P.A. 1974, based on the jobs
       created, increased revenue due to the increased value of the SEV as currently projected,
       and the economic value to the community as stated in the hearings. If there is any
       decrease in the SEV or in the economic value or in the projected jobs created, the years
       may be reduced by action of the City Commission.

    7. That the City Manager, or Deputy City Manager or designee, is authorized to sign the
       memorandum of understanding for Vi-Chem Corp., as approved by the City Attorney.



This resolution was drafted by Daniel Oegema, Economic Development Coordinator II.
DATE:               August 23, 2006

TO:                 Eric R. DeLong
                    Deputy City Manager

FROM:               Susan Shannon
                    Economic Development Director

SUBJECT:            Resolution to Approve an Industrial Facility Tax Exemption Certificate
                    under P.A. 198 - Swift Printing Company

Passage of the attached resolution would grant final approval of the application for an
Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate filed by Swift Printing Company.

Swift Printing, Inc. located at 400 – 404 Bridge St. NW was established in 1955 and is a full
service commercial print shop, printing everything from simple business cards to beautiful color
annual reports. This current project which is under consideration is to replace an old Meihle
vertical press with a new state-of-the-art printing press.

The total project is expected to cost $440,000 and will create up to one to two new jobs. The
average wage for these new jobs is estimated at $30,000 per year. Therefore, two new jobs
can produce $600 in new income tax per year or up to $7,200 in 12 years..

Since the project is a replacement of an old machine the State Equalized Value (SEV) for the
existing press will be frozen for 12 years and the taxes on the new press will be calculated
based on the frozen SEV.

There are no known environmental or zoning violations. The taxes are current and the project
is below the minimum threshold for an Affirmative Action Plan.

This is the final step of a six-step process to approve an Industrial Facilities Tax Exemption
Certificate.

SS/DSO/kad

Attachment
YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution
approving the application of Swift Printing Company for an Industrial Facilities Tax Exemption
Certificate.




  CORRECT IN FORM


_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF LAW




                                                            COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE




Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED:

   1. That this City Commission finds as follows:

          a. That the commencement of the project occurred not earlier than six months before
             the filing of the application.
          b. That the application relates to a project whose personal property when completed
             shall constitute a Rehabilitated Facility within the meaning of Act 198, and which is
             situated within a Plant Rehabilitation District.
          c. The facility is calculated to have the reasonable likelihood to create employment,
             retain employment, or prevent a loss of employment in the City.
          d. That the granting of the certificate, considered together with the aggregate amount
             of certificates previously granted and currently in force, will not have the effect of
             impeding the operation of the City of Grand Rapids or impair the financial
                soundness of the taxing units in the government unit in which the facility is located
                or is to be located.

    2. That the application of Swift Printing Company for an Industrial Facilities Tax Exemption
       Certificate be and is hereby approved.

    3. That the date of completion of the Swift Printing Company facilities located at 400 - 404
       Bridge Street NW subject to the Industrial Facilities Tax Exemption Certificate shall be
       December 30, 2007.

    4. That the cost of the personal property is estimated at $440,000.

    5. That the State Equalized Value (SEV) of the personal property within the district,
       excluding land (400 - 404 Bridge Street NW), of the obsolete industrial property for the tax
       year 2005 is $400.00.

    6. That the certificate shall be approved for a period of twelve (12) years after completion,
       pursuant to Act 38, P.A. 1978, amendment to Act 198, P.A. 1974, based on the jobs
       created, increased revenue due to the increased value of the SEV as currently projected,
       and the economic value to the community as stated in the hearings. If there is any
       decrease in the SEV or in the economic value or in the projected jobs created, the years
       may be reduced by action of the City Commission.

    7. That the City Manager, or Deputy City Manager or designee, is authorized to sign the
       memorandum of understanding for Swift Printing Company, as approved by the City
       Attorney.



This resolution was drafted by Daniel Oegema, Economic Development Coordinator II.
DATE:              August 23, 2006

TO:                Eric R. DeLong
                   Deputy City Manager

FROM:              Susan Shannon
                   Economic Development Director

SUBJECT:           Creston Library Development


On August 15, 2006, the City Commission tabled a resolution to extend a contract with Greg
Gilmore to develop the former Creston Library property. Commissioners asked for the item to
be tabled for two weeks to give them an opportunity to meet with neighbors and Mr. Gilmore to
discuss the project.

Commissioner Bliss, Commissioner Tormala, Eric Soucey and I met with representatives of the
Creston Neighborhood and Business Associations and Greg Gilmore on Wednesday, August
23rd. Mr. Gilmore explained his investment to date (see attachment) and the options for
developing the site. He has started construction to make code improvements, paint the
building, upgrade the bathrooms, etc. He is awaiting architectural estimates to build out the
site as a coffee shop and/or restaurant. He will have the numbers in approximately four to six
weeks.

The neighbors agreed they would prefer the City give an extension to Mr. Gilmore until March
2007 to complete the project. It was also decided to reconvene the group in six weeks to
discuss the results of the costs estimates and options for the development. Thereafter, Mr.
Gilmore has agreed to meet periodically with the neighborhood to keep them updated and
involved in the project.

Attached is the original memo and resolution to extend the Development Agreement for
Creston Library with Greg Gilmore and to increase the performance bond guaranteeing the
development from $20,000 to $30,000.

SS/EWS/kka/kad

Attachment
YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution
approving and authorizing execution of the Third Amendment to Purchase and Development
Agreement related to the sale of the former Creston Branch Library.


                                             _____________________________________
    CORRECT IN FORM

_____________________                        _____________________________________
   DEPARTMENT OF LAW

                                             _____________________________________


                                             _____________________________________


                                             _____________________________________


                                             _____________________________________


                                             _____________________________________
                                             COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

       WHEREAS, the City and Creston Building Co., LLC, a Michigan limited liability
company (“CB Co.”), entered into a Purchase and Development Agreement (the “Agreement”)
dated May 13, 2003, related to the purchase and development of the former Creston Branch
Library located at 1431 Plainfield Avenue, N.E., in the City (the “Property”); and

       WHEREAS, an initial extension of time for project completion was memorialized and
approved February 3, 2004, Commission Proceeding #72146, which granted a time extension
for completion until March 31, 2005 as contained within a First Amendment to Purchase and
Development Agreement dated February 3, 2004; and

      WHEREAS, a second extension of time for project completion was memorialized and
approved December 13, 2005, Commission Resolution #74497, which granted a time
extension for completion until July 1, 2006; and

       WHEREAS, CB Co. has requested a third extension time until March 31, 2007 to make
the required capital investment of $200,000 and to complete the development and restoration
of the Property; and

      WHEREAS, the City is agreeable to such extension subject to the terms of a Third
Amendment to Purchase and Development Agreement (the “Third Amendment”).

       RESOLVED, that the Third Amendment in a form to be approved by the City Attorney or
special counsel as to content with such minor modifications that are not materially adverse to
the City, shall be approved.

      FURTHER RESOLVED, that the performance bond be increased from $20,000 to
$30,000 within two weeks of the adoption of the resolution.

      FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized and directed to
execute the Third Amendment for and on behalf of the City.

       FURTHER RESOLVED, that all resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith
shall be and the same are hereby rescinded.

Resolution drafted by Eric Soucey, Economic Development Office




                                                                            Yeas                       Nays

                                                                            _____   Bliss             _____

                                                                            _____   Jendrasiak        _____

                                                                            _____   Lumpkins          _____

                                                                            _____   Schmidt           _____

                                                                            _____   Tormala           _____

                                                                            _____   White             _____

                                                                            _____   Mayor Heartwell   _____

                                                                 Yeas:      _____           Nays:     _____

                                                                 Adopted:   _____           Failed:   _____
DATE:                August 23, 2006

TO:                  Eric R. DeLong
                     Deputy City Manager

FROM:                Susan Shannon
                     Economic Development Director

SUBJECT:             Resolution to Approve a City Commission Policy which Establishes
                     Guidelines to Approve Various Exemption Certificates for Qualifying
                     Companies Located Within an Existing Renaissance Zone


Renaissance Zones were established to encourage the redevelopment of disinvested and blighted areas
or properties by offering a virtually tax free environment. The concept was that the tax savings would
encourage companies or property owners to reinvest in the property and/or business. The initial Zones
were created in 1997 and will start to phase out in 2009 and return to full tax liability after 2011.
Additional properties were added in 2001, 2002, and 2003.

Since the full benefit of the Renaissance Zones will only be available for a few more years, companies
are beginning to request incentive programs such as P.A. 198, P.A. 146 and P.A. 328 as an overlay on
the existing Zones. This would allow the companies to receive the normal program benefits as the
Zones phase out.

Attached is a policy developed by the Economic Project Team which establishes criteria by which these
requests will be evaluated on a case by case basis. The requesting party will be asked to provide a
statement regarding outcomes that have been achieved as a result of the Renaissance Zone benefits, such
as the number of years in the Zone, total investments to date, employment number before the
Renaissance Zone started and current employment figures.

In addition, staff will determine the difference between the new project’s tax savings under the
Renaissance Zone and the savings from a tax abatement to determine if the additional assistance is
warranted. This analysis, along with the companies’ track record of investment as a result of
Renaissance Zone benefits, will be used to make a recommendation to the City Commission relative to
these requests.

The attached resolution would establish a policy for review of requests from companies, which are in
Renaissance Zones, for assistance under other incentive programs.

SS/DSO/kad
YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution to
approve a City Commission Policy entitled “Approval of Various Exemption Certificates for
Qualifying Companies Located Within an Existing Renaissance Zone.”




  CORRECT IN FORM


_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF LAW




                                                                     COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE




Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED that the attached City Commission Policy entitled “Approval of Various Exemption
Certificates for Qualifying Companies Located Within an Existing Renaissance Zone” is hereby
approved.



This resolution was drafted by Daniel Oegema, Economic Development Coordinator II.
SUBJECT:       APPROVAL OF VARIOUS EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES FOR QUALIFYING
               COMPANIES LOCATED WITHIN AN EXISTING RENAISSANCE ZONE

PURPOSE:
               1) To encourage the renovation and expansion of manufacturing and qualified high tech
                  companies located within a Renaissance Zone.
               2) To encourage the investment in personal property and the creation of new jobs.
               3) To encourage the rehabilitation of obsolete structures.
               4) To provide guidance in determining the number of years a Certificate would be
                  approved.

POLICY:

BACKGROUND
The City established various Renaissance Zones in the City of Grand Rapids. These Zones provide a
great benefit to companies located in the Zone by abating almost all of the real and personal property
taxes, and corporate City income tax along with the State’s Single Business Tax.

The Zones were approved for 15 years and the six original Zones will expire 2011 with a phase out
period that begins in 2009. The second series of Zones will expire 2017 with a phase out period that
begins in 2015.

CURRENT SITUATION
Since the phase out period is only a few years away, some companies that qualify for P.A. 198, P.A. 146
or P.A. 328 are requesting to be approved under the Acts so they might receive the partial benefits
during the phase out period and the full benefit of the Acts after the Zone expires for the remaining life
of the Certificate.

PROGRAM
The City Commission will consider the exemption request if the applicant has met these two
requirements:
    1. The applicant will supply a statement of Renaissance Zone outcomes, which include the number
        of years that the applicant has been in the Zone, the total investment in the property and
        building, the investment in personal property, the employment at the start of the Zone and the
        company’s current employment.
    2. The applicant qualifies under the appropriate City Commission Policy 900-09, 900-38, or 900-
        42.

When an applicant has met these two requirements, City staff will analyze the company’s tax savings.
  1. Renaissance Zone Tax Savings
      Based on the company’s location in the Renaissance Zone, City staff will estimate the City
      property tax savings related to the current project for the remaining years of the Zone.
  2. P.A. Tax Exemption Savings
      City staff will estimate the City property tax savings produced by the exemption as if the project
      were not in the Renaissance Zone. This estimate will be considered the maximum amount of
      City property tax benefit that the company could receive.
  3. City staff will then compare the two estimates. The Renaissance Zone benefit will be credited
      against the P.A. Tax Exemption’s maximum benefit (either P.A. 198, P.A. 146, or P.A. 328).
   The City Commission could then approve the Exemption Certificate for a limited number of years,
   which would allow the company to receive the established maximum benefit of the Exemption
   Certificate.

EXAMPLE – CITY PROPERTY TAX SAVINGS
Maximum benefit for the appropriate Exemption Certificate abatement if not in Zone is: $15,000
Renaissance Zone benefit remaining for expansion project in Ren. Zone is:              $ 7,000
Remaining maximum benefit:                                                             $ 8,000

The number of years approved for the exemption would allow the remaining benefit of $8000 to be
realized over the approved term. In this case, the Exemption Certificate would be approved for less than
the usual 12 years.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Other factors that can be taken into consideration include:
           1. Will there be significant new jobs created or brought to the City?
           2. Job retention.
           3. Length of time that property was vacant.
           4. Will the project be a catalyst for other development?
           5. What are the barriers to reutilizing the property?
           6. Will the project have an impact on other businesses?
           7. Has there been continued disinvestment in the area?
           8. Are other incentive programs being used?
           9. Other information pertinent to the project.

Attachment A to this policy further outlines these considerations and other factors that may be used to
analyze the project.

POLICY WAIVER
The City Commission may waive this policy or any portion of it, when the Commission deems it in the
best interest of the City.
                                    ATTACHMENT A

                    Exemption Certificate - Renaissance Zone Overlay
                                    Project Analysis



A.   History
     1. Number of years applicant has been in Zone.
     2. Total investment to date.
     3. Number of jobs prior to Zone occupancy.
     4. Number of jobs added since occupancy.

B.   Financial Analysis
     1. What is the amount of investment of the current project?
     2. What is the projected Renaissance Zone City property tax savings for the new investment
        for the remainder of the Renaissance Zone program?
     3. What are the estimated City property tax savings of a 12-year abatement, either P.A. 198,
        P.A. 146 or P.A. 328, as if the project were not in a Renaissance Zone?
     4. Is the Exemption Certificate value higher than the Renaissance Zone value?
     5. If the answer to number four is yes, then the time period for the Exemption Certificate
        will be adjusted.

C.   Other Considerations
     1. What are the barriers to reutilizing the property?
     2. Will there be significant new jobs created or brought to the City?
     3. Job retention.
     4. Length of time that property was vacant.
     5. Has there been continued disinvestment in the area?
     6. Will the investment spur other development?
     7. Will the project have an impact on other businesses?
     8. Are other incentive programs being used?
     9. Other information pertinent to the project.
DATE:               August 23, 2006

TO:                 Kurt Kimball
                    City Manager

FROM:               Eric R. DeLong
                    Deputy City Manager

SUBJECT:            Recommendation of the 201 Market Steering Committee and the
                    Public Service Center Relocation Team

The City Commission authorized preparing the 201 Market property for sale on January 10,
2006. This set in motion the formation of two work groups.

•   An internal work group was formed to determine the cost of relocating facilities currently
    located on the 201 Market property.

•   An external work group, the 201 Market Steering Committee, was convened in January and
    worked to develop a process for marketing the site. Members of the 201 Market Steering
    Committee are listed on Attachment A to this memo. They recommended the use of a
    flexible, two-stage process with the first stage consisting of advertising a Request for
    Letters of Interest to secure information about interest in the site and the qualifications of
    those interested parties. The second stage would require detailed and comprehensive
    responses to a Request for Proposals. This two-stage process was detailed to the City
    Commission in a memo dated March 15, 2006, that was prepared for their consideration at
    the March 21, 2006, Committee of the Whole meeting. The Letter of Interest document is
    clear that a two-stage process would be followed.

The costs of marketing the property have been financed by the City’s Economic Development
Corporation (EDC). The EDC allocated $125,000 for this project. To date, $65,500 has been
spent or encumbered.

Both processes will be reviewed in more detail below.


201 Market Steering Committee / Letters of Interest

On March 22, 2006, following City Commission authorization on March 21, the 15.8 acre 201
Market property was put on the market through the issuance of a Request for Letters of
Interest. The asking price for the property was set at $35 million based upon an independent
appraisal. The Request for Letters of Interest was made available to developers both locally
and nationally through direct mail, placed advertisements, earned media and professional
organizations. The Request for Letters of Interest required interested parties to present a
statement of interest, their vision for the site, their experience in developing similar types of
projects, and their financial capability.

Responses were received from three interested parties on May 19, 2006. The three parties
that responded to the Request for Letters of Interest are Moch International, Grand Rapids
Development Corporation, and Barnes/Stevens Redevelopment.

The Steering Committee reviewed the three Letters of Interest on May 25, 2006. Their review
resulted in a request for additional information from each of the three interested parties. This
information was received in June and the Steering Committee met again on August 2, 2006, to
review this supplemental information.

Consistent with the provisions of the Request for Letters of Interest, the Steering Committee
had the option of recommending that the City Commission accept or reject any or all Letters of
Interest or to adapt the process as necessary to achieve the development goals outlined in the
Request for Letters of Interest. The Steering Committee reviewed and accepted a framework
to guide their decisions (Attachment B).

The Steering Committee found that each of the three interested parties had effectively
conveyed a sense of their vision for the redevelopment of the 201 Market property. The
Steering Committee also found that the interested parties performed less well when it came to
the categories of experience and financial capability. The Steering Committee placed
significant weight on these two categories and, ultimately, judged each of the responses
generally insufficient.

Therefore, the 201 Market Steering Committee recommended:

   •   That the marketing of the 201 Market property proceed to the Request for Proposal
       stage;
   •   That the RFP process be open to all interested parties; and,
   •   That each of the three interested parties from the Letter of Interest stage be encouraged
       to continue in the RFP process.

The requirements of the RFP process will be demanding, will require the investment of
significant resources, and will include, but not be limited to, submission of very precise and
detailed information on the following:

           Written and illustrated proposals with preliminary site plans and elevations to
           convey the urban and architectural concepts describing the intent of the proposal
           Details on the uses
           Amount of investment/economic impact
           Partners in the project, including national retail/commercial development interests
           Timing
           Thorough financial disclosure
           The nature of the proposed transaction
           Detailed plan of financing for the development
Interested parties will require several months to prepare a full and complete proposal.

Public Service Center Relocation Team

The Public Service Center Relocation Team has completed and filed their report entitled, “City
of Grand Rapids Public Service Center Relocation Study – Needs Assessment and Preliminary
Programming.”

The PSC Relocation Study was commissioned to, “identify facility criteria and plan a program
for the successful and smooth transition of the Public Service Center and its activities from the
Market Avenue campus to future permanent locations.”

The Team worked with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr and Huber, Inc., to inventory current uses,
establish space requirements and parameters, analyze internal and external space
relationships, determine required infrastructure, develop location evaluation factors and
establish costs for relocation and transition. Their priorities included providing effective and
efficient spaces equal to or better than current levels, meeting both current and potential future
needs, building in flexibility, improving customer service and creating LEED certified
environments. Study parameters were based on a ten-year needs projection and included
implementing combined and shared functions whenever possible to improve facilities, save
space and reduce costs.

Functions present on the 201 Market property and dealt with in the PSC Relocation Study
include Motor Equipment, Engineering Field Services, Public Works (Streets and Sanitation
and Central Stores), Parks and Recreation, Information Technology and City Clerk Elections
System and Storage. These functions currently occupy 293,459 square feet and house 247
staff members on 15.8 Acres.

The PSC Relocation Study confirmed that synergies will be achieved by creating a campus
environment that would include Motor Equipment, Parks and Recreation Operations and Public
Works (Streets and Sanitation and Central Stores). Separate locations, perhaps in existing
City facilities, would be found for Parks and Recreation Administration, Engineering Field
Services, Information Technology and City Clerk Elections System and Storage. Information
Technology would need to be located on or near the City’s fiber loop.

Functions located on the future campus would require 251,906 square feet and would house
176 staff members on up to 20 acres of land depending on site design and reservations for
future activities. Allowances have been made for housing all of the operating and support
equipment associated with the functions to be housed on the future campus (Motor Equipment,
Parks and Recreation Operations and Public Works [Streets and Sanitation and Central
Stores]).

Another 34,031 square feet would be required to house Parks and Recreation Administration,
Information Technology, City Engineer Field Services and City Clerk Elections System and
Storage in off-campus locations.

The combined on-campus and off-campus square footage requirement is 7,522 square feet
less than the current space on the 201 Market property.
The land area requirement for the future campus is projected at up to 20 acres. The increase
in site size from the current 15.8 acres is due to programming for 100% single story buildings,
accommodating all employee parking on the new campus, providing for modern stormwater
detention and environmental design, providing adequate setbacks in site design, providing for
improved equipment circulation and allowing for potential future activities on the site.

The estimate of probable relocation costs in 2008 dollars is as follows:

Future Campus                     $53,940,000
Off-Campus Relocations            $ 9,950,000

Total                             $63,890,000

The estimate of probable relocation cost includes site acquisition, limited off-site
improvements, new building construction, relocation services, professional services, and
contingencies. The estimate also includes an allowance of $4,000,000 for acquisition of
replacement Information Technology operating equipment to ensure that operations are not
interrupted. It should be noted that the Off-Campus relocation estimates are based on new
construction. Use of existing City facilities would reduce these costs.

No site has been selected at this time pending continued progress in marketing the site
through the Letter of Interest / Request for Proposal process. Adequate sites exist within the
City of Grand Rapids for the future campus.

The Executive Summary of the Public Service Center Relocation Study is included as
Attachment C to the memo.

Relocation Financing

The financial model for paying the cost of relocation demonstrates that the combination of
proceeds from the sale and tax increment revenues is capable of financing a project within this
scope. The model relies on two key elements, the sale price of 201 Market and the use of the
Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Act through tax increment revenues generated from the
sale and development of the site, to finance the relocation of public facilities for economic
development purposes. At a relocation cost of $64 million, the successful investor must create
taxable value of a minimum of $55 million three years after closing and $70 million five years
after closing.

The first portion of this taxable value will be created through the sale of the property. The
current taxable value of the 201 Market property is zero due to its tax exempt status. At the
proposed sale price, the taxable value created through a successful transaction would equal
an estimated $15.0 million.

The next portion of the required taxable value would be created through new investment on the
site. The proposed taxable investment of each of the interested parties in the Request for
Letters of Interest stage ranged from a low of approximately $80 million to a high of
approximately $420 million. Two of the three interested parties proposed levels of taxable
investment that would produce taxable values likely to meet the target investment amount.
Recommendation

The Public Service Center Relocation Team has completed their initial work by formulating a
plan that has developed the requirements and expected cost for efficiently relocating City
facilities currently stationed at 201 Market. The financial model for the relocation has proven to
be adequate to finance relocation expenses.

The 201 Market Steering Committee has recommended that the process move forward with
the marketing of the property through a detailed Request for Proposal process that includes
those parties who responded to the Request for Letters of Interest stage and all other
potentially interested parties. A resolution authorizing the process to proceed in this manner is
attached as Resolution A. Discussion during the August 15, 2006, Committee of the Whole
meeting pointed to interest among members of the City Commission to consider limiting
participation in the RFP process to parties that had responded to the Request for Letters of
Interest stage. A resolution authorizing the process to proceed in this manner is attached as
Resolution B.

It is further recommended that the Steering Committee process be maintained through the next
stage of the process and that membership be expanded to include up to three members of the
City Commission (Commissioner White and up to two additional members to be appointed by
the Mayor) and other community stakeholders for a total of 14 members. The next task of the
expanded Steering Committee would be to review and recommend a final Request for
Proposals document.

ERD/nlm
Attachments
                                                                             Resolution A

YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution
authorizing proceeding with a Request for Proposal process for property located at 201 Market
(commonly referred to as the Public Works Island).


                                 _____________________________________
     CORRECT IN FORM



_____________________            _____________________________________
    DEPARTMENT OF LAW



                                 _____________________________________



                                 _____________________________________



                                 _____________________________________



                                 _____________________________________



                                 _____________________________________

                                     COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED that the Report of the Public Service Center Relocation Team is received; and

RESOLVED that the 201 Market Steering Committee is authorized to proceed with the marketing
of the 201 Market property (commonly referred to as the Public Works Island) through a Request
for Proposal process that includes those parties who responded to the Request for Letters of
Interest and all other potentially interested parties; and

RESOLVED that the 201 Market Steering Committee membership be expanded to include a total
of fourteen members, and that the Mayor be authorized to appoint up to three members of the
City Commission to sit on this Committee.
Drafted by: Eric R. DeLong
                                                                           Resolution B

YOUR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recommends adoption of the following resolution
authorizing proceeding with a Request for Proposal process for property located at 201 Market
(commonly referred to as the Public Works Island).


                                 _____________________________________
     CORRECT IN FORM



_____________________            _____________________________________
    DEPARTMENT OF LAW



                                 _____________________________________



                                 _____________________________________



                                 _____________________________________



                                 _____________________________________



                                 _____________________________________

                                     COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Com. _____________________, supported by Com. _____________________, moved to
adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED that the Report of the Public Service Center Relocation Team is received; and

RESOLVED that the 201 Market Steering Committee is authorized to proceed with the marketing
of the 201 Market property (commonly referred to as the Public Works Island) through a Request
for Proposal process by inviting those parties who responded to the Request for Letters of
Interest to submit a full Proposal; and

RESOLVED that the 201 Market Steering Committee membership be expanded to include a total
of fourteen members, and that the Mayor be authorized to appoint up to three members of the
City Commission to sit on this Committee.
Drafted by: Eric R. DeLong
                                ATTACHMENT A



201 Market Steering Committee

         David Cassard

          Rick Chapla

           Brian Craig

          Mike DeVries

          Kayem Dunn

          Lisa Haynes

          Pat Lonergan

            Sam Ojo

    Commissioner James White
                                                                                             ATTACHMENT B

                                   201 Market Review Process Flow Chart
                                          Letters of Interest (LOI)


                                                   Review
                                              Letters of Interest




               Recommend to
                    request                                                 Recommend
               proposals from                                               all LOIs are
               1, 2, or all LOIs                                            insufficient




                  Issue RFP                                Remarket by                     Reevaluate site
                                                         issuance of RFP                    marketability




                                   Recommend one
                                     or none be
                                      selected




* All recommendations will be made to the City Commission for final approval.

Document1
                                           ATTACHMENT C




       CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER RELOCATION STUDY
 NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND PRELIMINARY PROGRAMMING
              CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS PSC RELOCATION STUDY


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Grand Rapids selected Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. (FTC&H) to assist city staff in
preliminary space programming and facilities planning for the potential relocation of the Public Services
Center (PSC) from its current location at Market Avenue to a future campus location to be determined.

The relocation team included the following participants: Patrick Bush, Eric DeLong, Gail Gofoe,
Marie A. Gowell, Mary Therese Hegarty, Greg Kremarik, Thomas A. McQuillan, Rick Mickam,
Gary Reimer, Mark A. Roberts, Darrell Vander Kooi, Eric Soucey, Greg Sundstrom, Clay Williams,
Thomas M. Zelinski, Jay D. Steffen, ASLA, Charles Tejchma, Daniel E. Durkee, AIA, LEED® AP,
Jeffrey J. Chick, AIA, and David S. Shull, AIA.

MISSION STATEMENT
To identify facility criteria and plan a program for the successful and smooth transition of the Public
Services Center and its activities from the Market Avenue campus to future permanent locations. Services
to be accommodated include Motor Equipment, Engineering Field Services, Public Works, Parks &
Recreation, Information Technology and City Clerk Elections Systems & Storage.

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
In the study of relocation requirements for the PSC, the following criteria will be established:
● General space requirements and parameters
● Internal space relationships
● External space relationships
● Infrastructure requirements
● Physical and logical security requirements
● Location evaluation factors
● Establish costs for relocation and transition

In implementing relocation for the PSC, the following will be priorities:
● Create a safe secure environment
● Provide effective and efficient spaces equal to or better than current levels
● Plan for current and future needs
● Maintain flexibility to adapt to future changes in need such as consolidation
● Keep public / community customers satisfied
● Create LEED certified environments

STUDY PARAMETERS, PROCESS AND OBSERVATIONS
Study information was developed from evaluating existing facilities, interviewing facility users and
comparison to a separate space needs assessment performed in 2000. The team based needs on the
following parameters:

●   Ten year projection of growth.
●   New replacement facilities of comparable construction to existing facilities.
●   LEED certified design and construction.
●   New common campus for Motor Equipment, Parks and Recreation Operations, and Public Works.
●   New campus will consist of a departmental facility complex with combined/shared common functions.




J:\06149\CORR\REPORT - PSC RELOCATION STUDY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 080106.DOC
                                                                                                       1
             CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS PSC RELOCATION STUDY


●   New locations at separate sites for City Clerk, Engineering Field Services, Information Technology,
    and Parks and Recreation Administration.
●   Relocation of existing fixtures, furnishings and equipment where possible.
●   New built-in equipment where required for departmental functions.
●   Estimates of probable cost are based on construction in 2008.
●   New facility in close proximity to outlying support functions.
●   Information Technology to be located on fiber net loop.

Interviews of department representatives and review of existing facilities were conducted individually with
each department. Through these interviews and evaluations, it was determined that there are limited
expectations of growth over the next 10 years.

After review of departments, it was confirmed that synergies are achieved by a campus environment for
some departments while others can be located at other sites as appropriate. The following chart
represents this distribution.




                                                   New campus of services

                                                        Public Works                         Motor
                                                                                           Equipment
                                                      Streets & Sanitation
                        Future Growth                       Forestry
                                                             Refuse
                                                           Recycling
                                                                                            Parks &
                                                          Stockroom                        Recreation
                                                                                           Operations

                                                   Locations to be determined


                                             Services at other potentially separate locations

                             Engineering         City Clerk Election         Information          Parks &
                            Field Services       Systems & Storage           Technology          Recreation
                                                                                                Administration


                                                        Locations to be determined




The services that do not need to be relocated with the campus can be integrated with other city services
or established at sites of their own depending on city priorities. It should be noted, however that the
Information Technology services will need to be located on the existing city fiber loop. Additionally,
relocating Information Technology will require an investment in approximately $4,000,000 of new
equipment to assure that city services are not interrupted. This cost has been included in the estimated
costs for this report. Currently, Information Technology has a needs study underway, looking at specific
relocation items and costs.




J:\06149\CORR\REPORT - PSC RELOCATION STUDY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 080106.DOC
                                                                                                                 2
             CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS PSC RELOCATION STUDY


People and space requirements established through this study are outlined as follows:

PEOPLE REQUIREMENTS

                                            Current Campus                     Future Location
                                           Full     Seasonal         Full     Other   Seasonal Change
Parks and Recreation - Operations           26       100              28        -        100        2
Parks and Recreation - Administration       14         -              -         16        -         2
Public Works                               112        10             112        -         10        0
Motor Equipment                             34         -              36        -         -         2
Information Technology                      46         -               -        48        -         2
City Clerk                                   8       525-800*          -          9      525-800*   1
Engineering Field Services                   7         -               -          8       -         1
Totals                                     247       110+            176        81       110+      10

* Temporary staffing for election events



SPACE REQUIREMENTS

                                            Current    Future       Other       Net
                                            Campus    Campus       Location    Change
Parks and Recreation - Operations            47,553    47,426            -         (127)
Parks and Recreation - Administration        13,697        -         13,768          71
Public Works                                130,263   122,293            -       (7,970)
Motor Equipment                              55,877    56,635            -          758
Shared / Support Spaces                      28,858    25,552            -       (3,306)
Information Technology                       12,271        -         13,250         979
City Clerk                                    3,851        -          5,874       2,023
Engineering Field Services                    1,089        -          1,139          50
Totals                                      293,459   251,906        34,031      (7,522)



The existing campus to be replaced is approximately 15.8 acres. (See Existing Site Aerial photograph.)
The future Public Services Center campus size is projected to be approximately 20 acres. (See
Conceptual Replacement Site Diagram.) The increase in site size needed is due to the following factors:

●   All new buildings are assumed to be on one level.
●   Additional on-site parking will be required, in part to accommodate for current off-site parking which
    the city currently leases for administrative functions on a site adjacent to the existing PSC.
●   New site will most likely require storm water detention as this is a development requirement for most
    areas of the city. The existing PSC site, being immediately adjacent to the river, does not require or
    provide for storm water detention.
●   Setback from site boundaries may be required that are not in effect at the existing PSC.
●   Site is assumed to include more standard circulation allowances than the existing PSC.
●   Departments that are moving to other locations than the proposed campus are a minor component of
    the overall program requirements and do not fully offset the items noted above.
●   Future expansion of facility complex.




J:\06149\CORR\REPORT - PSC RELOCATION STUDY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 080106.DOC
                                                                                                        3
              CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS PSC RELOCATION STUDY


LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (LEED):
The relocation provides an opportunity to incorporate environmental design priorities. The services to be
relocated to various sites should be evaluated for opportunities on a case by case basis. As a campus
program, a New Public Services Center provides a clear opportunity for demonstrating leadership in
environmental planning and design. A preliminary review suggests that this campus could be planned to
qualify for a LEED rating of certified or higher.

There are a number of sustainable design features which could be considered in the design of a new
facility. Included among them is a vegetative or “green” roof which can reduce heating and cooling costs,
protect the roof membrane from ultraviolet radiation and substantially extend its life expectancy, and
reduce storm water detention needs as a result of capturing and utilizing rain water.

ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS
Estimate of probable costs include site acquisition, limited off-site improvements, on-site improvements,
new building construction, professional services, relocation services and project reserves. Costs below
are estimated high-end projections in 2008 construction dollars.


                                                Future             Other
Department                                       Campus          Location            Total
Parks and Recreation - Operations              $ 8,220,000              -         $ 8,220,000
Parks and Recreation - Administration                   -      $ 2,390,000+       $ 2,390,000
Public Works                                  $23,110,000               -         $23,110,000
Motor Equipment                               $16,310,000               -         $16,310,000
Shared / Support Spaces                       $ 6,300,000               -         $ 6,300,000
Information Technology                                  -      $ 2,640,000+       $ 2,640,000
Information Technology Equipment                               $ 4,000,000+       $ 4,000,000
City Clerk                                              -      $ 740,000+         $ 740,000
Engineering Field Services                                     $ 180,000+         $ 180,000
Totals                                        $53,940,000       $9,950,000+       $63,890,000

 +    Assumes new site acquisition, new site improvements and new facility construction. Existing
     available locations could reduce these costs.




J:\06149\CORR\REPORT - PSC RELOCATION STUDY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 080106.DOC
                                                                                                       4
DATE:                 August 23, 2006

TO:                   Mayor and City Commissioners

FROM:                 Kathleen M. Black, Assistant to the City Clerk

SUBJECT:              Primary Election - August 8, 2006



Attached is the report from the Kent County Board of Canvassers certifying the results of the
Primary Election - August 8, 2006.

Received and filed.

KMB/slp

cc:           Kurt F. Kimball, City Manager
              Philip A. Balkema, City Attorney


Attachments
DATE:               August 23, 2006

TO:                 Eric R. DeLong
                    Deputy City Manager

FROM:               Susan Shannon
                    Economic Development Director

SUBJECT:            Information for Public Hearing to Consider Application for Obsolete
                    Property Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate Under P.A. 146 –
                    Stratus Properties LLC


On August 29, 2006 the City Commission will consider application for tax abatement under
P.A. 146, filed by Stratus Properties LLC.

Stratus Properties LLC is in the process of purchasing 345 State St. SE. The property has
been used for office space and had previously been the location for the City's Neighborhood
Improvement and Inspection Services Department.

The entire project is still being developed, but this part would remodel and upgrade the office
areas and parking deck of the structure. The remodeling would include Barrier Free Design,
HVAC, electrical system upgrade, roof, windows, and other interior office and exterior repairs.
In addition to the Rehabilitation project, Stratus is also seeking zoning approval to add two new
floors to the structure, which would be outside the abatement project.

At this point the renovation is expected to cost $1,065,000 and provide space for at least 12
new jobs. The project can produce up to $216,000 in new taxes over the next 12 years of
which $146,000 would be paid and $72,000 would be abated. The City portion of the above is
$38,000 which would be abated. 12 new jobs could generate $4,440 in new income tax per
year and $53,280 over the 12-year term. Since the end user is not known at this time, the
income estimate is based on a median of $37,000 for all jobs in the Grand Rapids area.
Therefore, income tax per job is estimated at 1% of the $37,000 or $370.00 per job per year.

This is the fifth step of a six-step process to approve an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation
Certificate.

SS/DSO/kad
DATE:               August 23, 2006

TO:                 Eric R. DeLong
                    Deputy City Manager

FROM:               Susan Shannon
                    Economic Development Director

SUBJECT:            Information for Public Hearing to Consider Application Under
                    P.A. 198 – Hansen-Balk Steel Treating Company


On August 29, 2006 the City Commission will consider application for tax abatement under
P.A. 198, filed by Hansen-Balk Steel Treating Company.

Hansen-Balk Steel Treating Company, 1230 Monroe Avenue NW, was founded over 50 years
ago. The company is operating in a 80,000 square feet facility with 60 furnaces to provide high
quality heat treating service to a wide variety of industries including aerospace, automotive,
mechanical instruments, die cutting, etc.

This $3,678,610 project includes the instalation of additional furnaces and material handling
equipment. The two main furnaces are state of the art vacuum two chamber furnaces.

Hansen-Balk currently employees 48 and is expanding to add up to 5 new jobs as this project
expands. The new equipment can provide $500,000 in new taxes of which $300,000 would be
paid and $200,000 would be abated. The City's portion of the above is $90,000 of which
$45,000 would be paid and $45,000 would be abated. The company estimates the average
wage of the new jobs at $12.00 per hour. Therefore, these 5 new jobs can generate $1,250
per year or $15,000 over 12 years in new income tax.

This is the fifth step of a six step process to approve an Industrial Facilities Exemption
Certificate.

SS/DSO/kad
                                    SUSPEND THE RULES

DATE:               August 24, 2006

TO:                 Kurt Kimball
                    City Manager


FROM:               Scott Buhrer
                    Assistant City Manager, Fiscal Services


SUBJECT:            Confirmation of Special Assessment Roll No. 8630 for the
                    Downtown Improvement District Service Enhancements

The enclosed resolution is to confirm Special Assessment Roll 8630, an assessment to
provide funding for the Downtown Improvement District Service Enhancements, including the
snowmelt operation from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007. On Tuesday, August 29, 2006, the
City Commission will sit as the Board of Review for this Special Assessment Roll. The total
cost for maintenance and other service enhancements is $667,449.33, of which $505,326.49 is
for maintenance, beautification, marketing and neighborhood improvement. The remaining
$162,122.84 will cover the operating cost of the snowmelt system along Monroe Center.

In order to provide timely billings and continuation of the program, staff is requesting that the
City Commission suspend the rules and confirm Special Assessment Roll No. 8630
immediately following the August 26, 2006 Board of Review Hearing. If approved, the billing
date for this special assessment would be September 1, 2006




SB/mar



Attachments



cc:           Glen Beekman
              Jay Fowler
              Al Mooney
                             CITY COMMISSION RESOLUTION


                                   SUSPEND THE RULES


     Com. ______________________, supported by Com. _________________________
moved the adoption of the following resolution:

       RESOLVED that the City Commission, after due and legal notice to all interested
parties, has duly met as Board of Review for the purpose of reviewing the Downtown
Improvement District Special Assessment Roll prepared by the Assessor for the purpose of
assessing the share of the cost of maintaining the Downtown Area Service Enhancements to
be borne by the parcels of property in special assessment district #8630; and

      RESOLVED that said special assessment roll has been open to review before the City
Assessor for the length of time required by Chapter 10 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Grand Rapids, the charter of the City of Grand Rapids, and the laws of the State of Michigan;
and

       RESOLVED that the City Commission, acting as such Board of Review, has given
opportunity to all persons interested in and affected by said special assessment roll to appear
before said Board of Review, has carefully considered all objections and appeals made
thereto, and has made such corrections and changes in such special assessment roll as in its
judgment ought to be made; and

        RESOLVED that the City Commission is of the opinion that said special assessment
roll, as so corrected and changed, results in the special assessment spread and levied thereon
to be in accordance with the advantages which each parcel of property in said district is
benefited by the maintaining of such improvements therein, and that said special assessment
roll is in all respects fair, just, and equitable, and results in the assessment levied being in
proportion to the benefits to be derived.

      AND RESOLVED as follows:

1.           The City Commission, sitting as a Board of Review, is satisfied with the said
             special assessment roll, is of the opinion that such special assessment roll
             results in the assessments being levied in accordance with the benefits to be
             derived by the maintaining of such separate, respective public improvements,
             and has caused, and does hereby cause, such determination to be entered upon
             its minutes.

2.           The following described special assessment roll, as prepared by the Assessor
             and as reviewed, corrected, and changes by the City Commission acting as a
             Board of Review, is hereby ratified and confirmed in the following amounts and
             shall bear the following number, which corresponds to the respective number of
             special assessment district as herinbefore set forth:
                           SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL #8630

                       DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
                           July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007


     Cost of Maintenance                            $     667,449.33

     Special Assessment District Share              $     505,326.49


3.         Said special assessment roll shall be due on September 1, 2006. In the event
           that any special assessment shall not be paid within one month of the due date
           thereof, penalties shall thereafter be charged and added to such past due
           assessment as follows:

                 One percent (1%) per month for each month or fraction thereof thereafter
                 until paid or until the sale of such unpaid special assessment. There shall
                 also be added on the first of March next following a collection fee in
                 addition to such penalties. The collection fee shall be four percent (4%) of
                 the total then due or the amount provided by State Law for such collection
                 fees for counties making such collection fees, whichever amount shall be
                 greater. Such penalties and collection fees shall be collected at the same
                 time and in the same manner as the special assessment and interest
                 thereon are collected. The entire assessment may be paid during the first
                 month after the due date thereof without interest.


           As provided by Section 1.435 of Chapter 10 of Title I of the City of Grand Rapids,
           a lien is hereby established as follows:

                 “All special assessments and nuisance special assessment contained in
                 any special assessment roll, including any part thereof deferred as to
                 payment and such administrative charge as may be applicable thereto,
                 shall from the date and time of receipt thereof by the City Treasurer
                 constitute a lien upon the respective lots or parcels of land assessed, and
                 until paid shall be a charge against the respective owners of the several
                 lots and parcels of land. Such lien shall be of the same character and
                 effect as the lien created for City taxes and shall include accrued interest
                 and penalties. No judgment or decree, nor any act of the City Commission
                 vacating a special assessment shall destroy or impair the lien of the City
                 on the premises assessed for such amount of the assessment as may be
                 equitably charged against the same.”

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:29
posted:6/14/2012
language:
pages:275