[4:25] Can I do a roll call, please? Deron >> here.

[4:30] » Howard >> here.

[4:31] » Miller >> here.

[4:33] » Here. >> Blackburn.

[4:35] » Absent. Hagerman. >> Mc Alexander

[4:39] » here. >> All right.

[4:41] Approval of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

[4:45] » I make a motion to approve the agenda. I'll second.

[4:57] » Okay. >> Any discussion?

[5:02] » None. >> Any disc

[5:03] » any discussion? >> No.

[5:06] » Okay. >> We do. All

[5:08] » in favor? >> Yeah.

[5:10] » We approve. >> Okay. [laughter]

[5:13] Okay. >> I All right.

[5:18] And then approval of regular council meeting minutes from July 27th. Is there

[5:23] a motion and a second? >> I move to approve the minutes of uh July

[5:29] 27th. >> Is there a second?

[5:35] » You can't. >> I'll second.

[5:38] » My turn already. Don't look at me. [laughter]

[5:44] » Approved. Yes. Hi.

[5:47] » Okay. >> All right. Is there any public comments

[5:51] for items not on the agenda? >> Yeah, please take it.

[5:56] » Hi, my name is Ken Daniels. I'm on Henry Hall Lane. Just wondering what the uh

[6:02] update is for the Ballards on Timber Trail, which you voted on graciously on

[6:06] May the 18th with photos from Mark Milner, who's an architect, was

[6:10] approved, and I still see those ugly yellow ballards and police tape on the

[6:14] other lane. and getting tired of it. So, just wondering what the update is.

[6:18] » Be great. >> Thanks.

[6:20] » Thank you.

[6:26] » Can say something? >> Yeah.

[6:27] » Okay. So, the the I'm Brad Shappler, Roen Clark. Um the final design has been

[6:32] sent to the builder that is going to construct what we what was ultimately

[6:38] decided on. We're waiting to get his final cost to us along with us and

[6:42] package to us. So everything has been set and decided. It's just waiting on

[6:46] him to deliver the final package, final cost and everything like that so we can

[6:50] get to Jamie. >> So that's where we're at.

[6:55] » Do you have any idea of timing? Is this like we're not going to get to winter

[6:59] time? >> I hope not. I mean it's it's

[7:02] » up to it's up to him. It's not really out of our control at this point unless

[7:07] you want me to push him. >> Not pushing.

[7:09] » Okay. [clears throat] I'll remind him. I'll keep reminding him, but we're not

[7:12] building it. So, I you know, >> kind of at his mercy. He's works in the

[7:17] village, so I would hope you'd want to take care of the village.

[7:20] [clears throat] >> Yep.

[7:20] » Who is the builder? >> Uh Jerry Johnson, right?

[7:23] » Oh, yeah. >> Oh, yeah. I may see Jerry in a day or

[7:26] two. >> Okay. You remind him, too.

[7:29] » You will. >> Thank you, Brad.

[7:35] Any other public comments for items on the

[7:40] agenda? All right, discussion topics. Police

[7:44] Department monthly report. >> Good evening. And I believe all of you

[7:49] have my report. Is there any questions on the report itself? [clears throat]

[7:58] » Does not appear. So, um I want to let people know that there's going to be uh

[8:03] an educational event. We've partnered with Bingham Farms Mobile Watch uh on

[8:09] September 10th at 7 p.m. and we're going to be discussing ebikes, escooters,

[8:14] electric motorcycles. We're trying to educate the public on the laws and

[8:18] safety because uh that has kind of exploded all over all over the place

[8:23] with you know parents buying their kids uh those devices which are a lot of fun

[8:27] but they're also very dangerous. So again that'll be on September 10th 7

[8:32] p.m. at the Franklin uh library. And again thanks for mobile watch for

[8:37] supporting us with that. Uh and as all of you know uh thankfully the millillage

[8:42] passed in Franklin, one of the few police uh millages that passed in

[8:46] Oakland County. So we're very thankful and happy and uh that mill is for a

[8:50] period of five years. >> Any questions?

[8:54] » Sure. >> I the mobile or the excuse me the

[8:58] ebikes. >> Yes. There are still there's no

[9:01] legislation about safety and protocols to follow, age restrictions on who can

[9:07] ride them in the street. >> So there there is a state law that that

[9:11] that talks about it. Um, what a lot of jurisdictions are doing, I think the

[9:15] latest was Berkeley, is they're going farther than the state law and limiting

[9:19] them limiting them in like the downtown areas, uh, where they can't be on

[9:24] sidewalks or they have to walk their their ebikes or scooters if there's a

[9:28] lot of people in the road, things like that. But if you look at, um, uh, like

[9:34] electric motorcycles, they can't be driven on sidewalks. And if you're the

[9:38] between the age of 14 and 18, you have to wear a helmet and you have to have a

[9:41] motorcycle endorsement. And a lot of kids that are getting these bikes from

[9:45] their parents, they have no idea. So, we're just trying to educate. If we see

[9:49] someone that's driving carelessly or recklessly, we will write them a ticket,

[9:53] but we're trying to educate at this point.

[9:55] » Yeah. Which is always a good idea. >> Are the vehicles are they legal to drive

[9:59] on the streets? I mean, they don't have a lot of them don't have lights or

[10:03] » they they have to be street legal. Um, if it's [clears throat] an electric

[10:06] motorcycle, has to have a license plate. It has to have registration.

[10:09] » You see a lot just there's no registration.

[10:11] » Nice to stop for those stop signs. >> There's a spect it's everywhere from

[10:14] pedal things all the way to motorcycles >> with mopeds in between.

[10:19] » So the ebikes and there's three different classifications. I don't want

[10:22] to get too much into the weeds, but the class 3 go up to almost 30 miles an

[10:25] hour. So >> yeah. Well, I have two little ones,

[10:29] adorable little boys, eight, and they're out cruising up and down the street. and

[10:34] he stopped to say hi and I said you do know you have to observe all traffic

[10:38] laws. He gave you that what [laughter]

[10:42] » exactly? >> Whoa. You know, this is you got to stop

[10:48] at stop signs. You know, all the things that you have to do.

[10:52] » It's dangerous. >> And then the last thing I'll throw out

[10:54] there is uh you know, we have Kevin is our new interimm fire chief and he's

[10:59] been great to work with. And I have got along great. Had several meetings

[11:02] already, so my hats off to him. >> Good. You

[11:05] » Thanks, Chief.

[11:12] Good evening. Good evening everyone. >> Uh my report or Tony's last report was

[11:18] included in the packet. >> You'll get my first one next month.

[11:22] » Okay. >> Hopefully it's just as good. Um there

[11:25] any questions on the report?

[11:29] » Okay. Um couple of runs of note that we've had in the last month in the uh

[11:34] commercial district up and down telegraph here. We had a uh uh a fire

[11:40] and some air handling equipment up on the roof which um charged the whole

[11:44] four-story building with smoke. Uh we worked with the uh maintenance of the

[11:50] building to help evacuate all the smoke. We used some positive pressure fans so

[11:55] we're able to return that building to normal operating uh status. And another

[12:02] one up the road, we had a burned up belt on an HVAC unit which also filled the

[12:07] building with smoke and uh were able to uh ventilate that building and make it

[12:12] safe. Um other than that, it's been a little

[12:17] quiet. >> Yes.

[12:18] » Uh I have a neighbor on Outland Trail. >> Yes.

[12:22] » Who a week ago, Sunday, I guess this past Sunday, had a house fire at like we

[12:27] hours of the morning. And she said initial investigation attributed to an

[12:33] extension cord that was plugged in on one side into the outlet but not into

[12:37] anything else. Then the second inspection she said attributed it to you

[12:42] know you have those >> spray bottles with round power sprayer

[12:47] » and there's a little battery in the power sprayer.

[12:50] » Is it really the case with that fire that you're aware of?

[12:55] » That's what the insurance investigator determined was the cause. It wasn't the

[12:58] extension cord um that was there. He he eliminated that

[13:03] in his investigation. >> How viable. I mean, I I've counted eight

[13:08] sprayer bottles >> right after that in my garage.

[13:11] » Yeah, exactly. [laughter] >> Yeah, that's the first one I've ever

[13:14] heard of. if if that indeed was the cause.

[13:18] » Um I I take his word for it because he's an expert, but uh we kind of go with

[13:24] what the insurance company says because it's there, you know.

[13:27] » So, do [clears throat] we have to take precautions about those things,

[13:29] especially if I leave my garage for 6 months over the winter or whatever?

[13:33] » Like I said, that's the first time I've ever heard of that. So, I have several

[13:36] at my house. I'm not >> I'm not really concerned about it. I

[13:40] mean, it could be a fluke or a one-off, >> but I have not I've not heard in any

[13:44] other community of of that happening. So,

[13:49] » Chief, I I I had a I have a request and and that is I'm on mobile watch as well

[13:54] as council and there have been two incidences. This one where it's it's

[14:02] really unknown. I mean, nobody's committing to it being the roundup

[14:07] battle, the spray, but that it's being considered. And the other one was in

[14:13] Franklin, the house fire where it was the plug on the extension cord was

[14:18] underneath the sofa. >> Yes.

[14:21] » Yes. >> In the basement.

[14:23] » Right. I think that would be good material to put in our newsletter.

[14:27] » I've I've been addressing some of these issues as they come up with with my

[14:31] weekly newsletter. So I think I have the height one this week or was that the

[14:36] walking? >> Yeah.

[14:37] » Yeah. I think we need to start including this type of information for all

[14:42] residents in the village that they be made aware that these have occurred and

[14:46] to please take precautions. >> All right. Thank you.

[14:50] » Yep. I've been trying to address some of the the items that have been coming up

[14:52] at both village councils and incorporating that into my newsletter.

[14:56] » Good. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions?

[15:00] » All right. Have a good evening. Thank you.

[15:04] [clears throat]

[15:08] » All right. Uh, village manager report. My report was in the packet. I don't

[15:13] have anything else to add unless there were any questions.

[15:17] » All right. So, I'll turn it over to Yav. >> Um, likewise, you have my written report

[15:22] and I'm happy to take any questions if there audience. Yes, you made a

[15:26] reference to our previous study session um on the Bingham Ridge project

[15:34] » and uh were there notes taken from that study session?

[15:38] » Um I mean I took notes as part of just the discussion we were doing but no not

[15:43] like minutes style notes because historically we've never done that with

[15:46] study sessions. >> So minutes are not required.

[15:50] Okay. Since no decisions are made by council at study sessions, that's why

[15:53] we've historically never done that either.

[15:55] » Okay. But we had certain action items that came out of that study session. Can

[16:00] you update us on those action items? >> Um I mean not right this instance

[16:04] because I don't have any of those notes in front of me right now, but um I can

[16:08] certainly take a look at them tomorrow and um send out an update email. Well,

[16:12] not implying that we have poor memories, but it would be nice to get written

[16:17] updates that remind us of things that we've discussed and action items that we

[16:23] want to make sure we address. That would be very helpful if we could get that.

[16:28] Thank you. >> Well, Mike, you're you're working with

[16:31] the developer. >> Yes.

[16:33] » On trying to come to an agreement on what's red.

[16:36] » Yes. I can give you a quick update on that. Would you please? So,

[16:39] » if I could segue, >> um,

[16:43] we prepared pretty extensive redline proposed edits based to that draft that

[16:50] you saw based upon the study session, the comments, the areas of concern, the

[16:55] issues that were listed. Um, those went out. Mary Kacher went through those

[17:02] after I prepared them. She did some mod modification, sent him over to the

[17:08] developer. Uh the developer is now included an attorney. Um and I believe

[17:15] it, yeah, he's got an attorney. Then the owner is using an attorney who we

[17:19] haven't dealt with. So that attorney, John Bieber, has gone through and done

[17:24] his own red lines and sent that back. Um, I got back from vacation and when I

[17:30] got my head above water, took a dive into that and have made some further

[17:36] changes to his. He's he his were pretty extensive. So, um,

[17:42] Mary and I are going to go through those in the next day or so and then probably

[17:46] get on a call with him and actually talk through where we're at on some of these

[17:50] things. It's probably time to just do that, but there have been extensive

[17:54] edits shared back and forth. Are these small legalities and phrasing or are

[17:59] these major issues that are >> res of it is clean up and there's a few

[18:03] things that are few areas that I'd rather not

[18:07] » discuss right now but areas that you would want to have uh negotiated.

[18:14] » Okay. Should we be >> at what point do we actually are I was

[18:18] going to say made aware of this? Yeah, I well I as I committed before I want to

[18:24] I'll share something with you well before we come back to a meeting with

[18:28] the document that you're going to be looking at. So we'll share you share

[18:31] with you a red line and sort of summarize I think how we got there. It's

[18:34] probably the best approach. >> Okay. Don't give away the story.

[18:40] [laughter]

[18:42] » We're trying.

[18:46] Has the subject of trees come up?

[18:50] » Yes. >> And

[18:56] » um we're going back and forth on that issue a little bit and that'll be an

[19:01] item of discussion about >> um

[19:06] » Eric, I know you had an issue as well, a question about how to handle that and

[19:10] we're working on that. >> Yeah. probably it's going to have

[19:13] another um study session I guess.

[19:17] » Yeah. >> As the appropriate time, too. So,

[19:20] » okay. >> Well, that was part of the

[19:22] » That was part of the action plan. >> Action plan. Yeah.

[19:25] » Okay. >> Do you have if at your convenience you

[19:28] could just go back to your notes and sort of recap those action items and

[19:31] just drop us an email as to this? >> Okay.

[19:37] » Yeah, that's about it right now, though. Mhm. But

[19:39] » yeah, I think it that study session that we talked about will be helpful and

[19:43] we'll >> you'll see how we got from where we were

[19:46] at last time to where we're at now. You'll have a red line. It'll all be

[19:48] real clear. >> Okay.

[19:53] » All right. Do we want to move on to any new business?

[19:57] » Rose, we've got Brad here. Sorry. Oh, sorry.

[20:04] » Did we already get through? Sorry. Sorry. Board and committee updates. Any

[20:07] other board committee updates? >> I I'll say that Wednesday morning at

[20:13] 8:00 is our next strategic planning meeting with fire department. So if

[20:16] anybody's interested, it'll be at 8:00 at the fire department Wednesday

[20:20] morning.

[20:23] We're done.

[20:32] [laughter] >> All right. Then we'll move on to the

[20:36] Rose project phase three. >> All right.

[20:39] » Are we going to have a discussion of some kind before the presentation on

[20:43] this material? >> There's no presentation. This is just a

[20:46] proposal for your consideration. >> Okay.

[20:51] Yeah, it's up to you if you want to listen to him first and then ask

[20:54] questions. Yeah. >> Well, um we were uh HRC was asked to uh

[21:00] write a proposal to begin the discussions on phase three to kind of

[21:04] keep the momentum uh going for the road programs in in the village of Bingham

[21:08] Farms. Um we don't want I mean everyone's paying the millillage. So we

[21:13] want to make sure that we don't forget about last phase of this that we have to

[21:17] do just to keep it on everyone's minds I guess. So we were asked to raise a

[21:20] proposal. Um, I thought based on what we learned from phase one and two, the

[21:25] discussions from the roads advisory council that we should probably be good

[21:28] to maybe have more of a study phase for this one to relook at the scope. um have

[21:34] more discussion, have more time essentially during during the between

[21:37] when we get topographic survey and when we start the design process and during

[21:41] the design process to really nail down exactly what we want to do, what we

[21:45] don't want to do, and why we want to do those things and come up with a a a good

[21:50] scoping document at the end to kind of justify why we made the decisions that

[21:54] we did based on what discussions, based on what decisions, based on what

[21:57] background research. That's really what this this proposal is. is kind of a

[22:01] study phase but also to get the topographic survey done because the

[22:04] topographic survey will be done will be good for years to come. Nothing much

[22:09] changes in the roadway in terms of grades and things like that. So whether

[22:14] you do it you want to do it next summer or the summer 28 or the summer 20 2030

[22:18] whatever that topographic survey will still be good. It's not something that's

[22:21] going to be wasted. >> So that's the big thing about this

[22:23] proposal is the topo >> is the too. Yeah. And that's that's much

[22:28] of the budget as well. And we didn't do that when we were doing all the work.

[22:32] » So we did selective topo and because we're we what we did was we looked at

[22:36] the drainage areas. We we looked at the drainage found the areas that we thought

[22:40] were the areas that we wanted to correct and did too in those areas. And then it

[22:44] turns out it kind of burns us in the back end because there were other areas

[22:47] that people wanted to get done that we didn't have too with. So we were taking

[22:49] too multiple times. just it it ended up I don't think it cost us more money, but

[22:54] it just didn't it didn't it's easier if you have everything all at once and all

[22:57] there and then you can justify why we did well why we made this decision and

[23:00] why we didn't make this decision. So rather than trying to do trying to be

[23:05] too smart for our own good, right, and just do too in areas that we think are

[23:09] the problem, too the entire thing, get the whole lay of the land, figure out

[23:13] where the areas are that need work. Why there's areas that we didn't um propose

[23:19] improvements on and justify why we didn't. So when people come and say, "I

[23:22] have an issue," to be like, "Well, here's why we didn't decide to do

[23:25] something here." And try to keep that budget tight.

[23:28] I think you know from from my perspective of course I was involved

[23:32] with the women's committee and I think everybody will recall that was here then

[23:36] this is this is the part of the project that's going to be by far the most

[23:41] expensive or at least potentially by far the most expensive. Um you guys proposed

[23:47] before a complete reconstruction. My memory is pretty good. It seemed like it

[23:52] was north of $4 million I believe. um

[23:57] part and this was a big part really a very significant part of the road

[24:01] committee discussion because of the price tag and the discussion about why

[24:05] it couldn't be something similar to what we were doing

[24:09] in phase one milling fill versus a complete reconstruction.

[24:14] So and and I know even the council at the time said let's get moving on phase

[24:19] one but phase two will be for the uh for the next council to work on and probably

[24:25] just because there was still maybe some amount of controversy, maybe a lot, and

[24:30] because of the price tag. There is no question that we need to do the roads,

[24:34] and you're right, there's been a millage assigned to do that. There's been

[24:38] special assessments, at least on the people that are involved already. Um,

[24:44] but I I don't I for me because I'm driven a lot by the financial health and

[24:51] condition of the of the village, which is good right now. Very good right now.

[24:55] I I'm not sure. I'm not sure we're I'm not sure we know when we can

[25:00] um when we might be financially ready to do this. Maybe it's in two years, three

[25:04] years. Back to your point, I'm not for me, I'm not sure we need the to do the

[25:09] too right now until we may have a better understanding of when this project may

[25:16] occur. I maybe the too is good for years to come, but right now based on what was

[25:24] studied a lot, um this is a $4 million project.

[25:29] » That's fair. Again, that's why this is for your consideration. Uh we want to

[25:34] make sure we we capitalize on the lessons learned from the previous. The

[25:36] longer we wait, the more we forget. >> Right.

[25:39] » Right. So again, it's just for your consideration.

[25:42] » Well, in in light of what Eric just said and in light of a review of how valuable

[25:49] the previous road advisory committee was to our understanding of this immense

[25:55] project. And third, in viewing that what will be probably the most expensive

[26:02] project in the history of Bingham Farms, I make a motion to establish a phase

[26:08] three road advisory committee comprised of village council members and community

[26:13] volunteers for the purpose of conducting thorough research and making project

[26:18] recommendations to the village council for their final approval.

[26:24] And then there's one other motion on its tail. I make a motion to require a

[26:29] minimum of two competitive vendor quotes for all services in excess of $25,000

[26:36] pertaining to the phase three roads project.

[26:41] We talked about the need to begin aggressively getting multiple vendor

[26:46] quotes for large projects. I mean we, you know, we love our vendors, but we

[26:51] need to ourselves see the different approaches to projects from various

[26:57] vendors. And with that in mind, I'll repeat, I

[27:02] make a motion to require a minimum of two competitive vendor quotes as a

[27:07] minimum of for all services in excess of $25,000 pertaining to the phase three

[27:14] roads project. So I guess I have two motions on the floor. Madame chair,

[27:19] would you take each motion and call a vote on that?

[27:24] » Second. >> I have a second. Second that.

[27:27] » Okay. >> So we can make a vote a few comments

[27:30] now. [clears throat] the discussion. So >> you're

[27:36] » so the the first motion on the road advisory committee um

[27:42] I I don't know how many advisory committees the village has used

[27:45] historically. I thought that particular one was was really good. I think it was

[27:51] worthy. I think people were serious about it. Uh we it went for several

[27:56] months. There was a number of presentations done and I think it really

[27:59] helped people understand uh the magnitude of the

[28:04] project and how to finance it and when to do it and so forth uh and prepared

[28:08] people that it was going to be a tax increase property tax increase.

[28:13] » So I think there was a lot of value that came out of it. This this next phase of

[28:17] the project phase three um I think a road advisory committee is

[28:23] a good idea actually >> and I think and we're going to talk a

[28:26] little bit more maybe about how we get volunteers from the I don't know how you

[28:31] got in it last time. You guys will have to tell me. How'd you get people to even

[28:34] say, "Yeah, we're willing to do this." But we really need to try to encourage

[28:38] however we can. Um the residents that live on Bristol Lane and all the

[28:46] associated courts, >> huh,

[28:49] » the resident Jim Burley was the one, >> well, Jim Burley was actually on the

[28:52] committee at the time. There may have been others from Bristol Lane, but he

[28:54] was the one I remember. Um, and point being is as a council

[29:01] member, I wouldn't be comfortable I'm not sure I'd be comfortable either

[29:05] way, but I'm not sure I'd be comfortable voting on something without knowing that

[29:10] the people on that in that road and the courts, Bristol Lane and the courts knew

[29:17] exactly what was being proposed and why because because again it's a big big

[29:21] project. So the project needs to be done. I'm not

[29:26] sure we know the best way to do it. You probably probably think think you know

[29:30] the best way to do it. Um I think a a advisory group is is a good

[29:37] idea and I think we need to work hard to at least get people that you live over.

[29:43] We're signing you up. >> To be a big part of this discussion. So

[29:48] that's kind of that's kind of my >> Yeah,

[29:51] » I would I would agree with your assessment.

[29:54] I think about it as like it okay this is like I guess I wasn't here last month if

[29:59] there was discussions but I don't think there was

[30:02] » um but it's like okay time to talk about phase three and and how do we want to do

[30:07] that this is a >> you know a basic

[30:11] » these kind of things need to happen this suggestion yes starting to topographic

[30:16] survey and this is if we were going to do it in two years a kind of timeline

[30:19] that we'd be looking at I think big yeah to to

[30:23] Hey, let's get people together and talk about how do we want to do this? Even

[30:28] $61,000 is a big chunk of stepping into how do we want to move forward.

[30:33] » Um that may be the right first step, but I think we can talk about it some more.

[30:44] You know, we had talked about continuing the road committee

[30:50] because we're always going to have areas of all our roads susceptible to some

[30:57] form of degradation or damage. In my investigation of other

[31:02] communities, I found that many of them have a standard road committee. I mean,

[31:07] Bloomfield Township, granted, they're monolithic compared to our size, their

[31:13] road committee meets twice a month. They have a lot of roads, but we would that

[31:20] would be overkill >> unless you served wine and cheese.

[31:24] [laughter] But, you know, I think it's really

[31:27] important that we pay attention to the the ongoing costs to our residents and

[31:34] roads is one of them. And I would suggest that we have a more permanent

[31:40] committee because it is a constant issue and not that they have to meet every

[31:47] month. Our planning commission doesn't meet every month but when there are

[31:53] incidences then I think giving a record of that would be very handy.

[32:00] So that's something else to consider.

[32:06] Oh, for sure. I think we're going to be we're going to be into phase three for a

[32:10] while. So, if we have some people getting together and talking about this,

[32:14] we're set for a while. When we're done with phase three,

[32:16] » then we decide, do we want to keep going >> over wine and cheese?

[32:20] » Yeah. >> Okay. Of course. [laughter]

[32:22] » Of course. >> White wine, too.

[32:24] » Yes. [snorts] >> Yeah. So, that's my take on it.

[32:32] Jim, do you have a discussion point or anything you want to add?

[32:35] » I'm thinking through the financial aspects of the

[32:38] » Well, let's do the first one first. >> Yeah.

[32:40] » Well, I guess you're saying the financial of the this one or just phase

[32:44] three >> or just phase three overall? Yeah. Okay.

[32:46] » Phase three overall and then phase four, five, six, and seven in the future.

[32:52] We're going to have to fix the roads forever,

[32:55] » pay for them. And the way we're doing it so far is is sort of halfhazard and uh

[33:03] contentious and we fix the roads south of 13 mile. Are are we going to only

[33:08] assess those people south of 13 mile for for this $4 million or is the rest any

[33:16] part of north of 13 mile going to pay for any of this? So this whole uh idea

[33:22] that we we have to always have spend money or save money every year towards

[33:27] fixing roads, I think that should be permanently part of our

[33:32] » our budget and >> baked into baked into our our finances

[33:38] somehow.

[33:43] » What do you think? >> Well, I mean I agree. We've been, you

[33:47] know, from the time that I've been on, um, when I came on board, we did the

[33:53] increase of the 1 mill towards the taxable base to put towards the roads.

[33:58] Uh, when we had surplus, we would move over $150,000 a year. upon council's

[34:04] approval to move it over. That was a lot by Trusty Jones that pushed that

[34:08] initiative for upkeep and maintenance and repairs of the road so that they

[34:13] didn't degrade further than what their paser rating was.

[34:16] » Um, but yeah, I mean it's a it's a lot of money. I mean, Eric, you had

[34:20] indicated 4 million. I recall it was probably the top end of 4 million

[34:24] depending upon which way we did it. I know Bill West was here and talked about

[34:28] the base and also if I recall correctly sitting in on the road committee and

[34:34] listening to a lot of things that HRC said I think there's more issues correct

[34:38] me if I'm wrong Brad with the drainage >> that has to be taken care of on Bristol

[34:43] » um than >> other areas of the village. So, I don't

[34:46] know how much of a increase to the cost that that does, but we uh you know, as

[34:51] we're finishing up phase two, uh we are going to be looking at uh we have our

[34:57] auditor coming in to close out the year and start the fieldwork for the audit.

[35:02] Once we get all of that in the regular buckets and any adjustments that need to

[35:06] be made to close out, um obviously you guys want to know where we're at as far

[35:11] as what we have in the hopper in order to do that. And then we all kind of know

[35:16] we already have one SI uh SIB loan. >> I've already confirmed with the state

[35:20] that we can have two. >> That's a that was a good really big

[35:24] question. Good point that we can have two, but it was you can have two if you

[35:29] can financially afford it and your financial statements have the

[35:34] wherewithal to be able to repay it. >> Um, you know, I've been talking a little

[35:37] bit with Brad as well. You know, we've got that 2 million that we got from the

[35:41] SIB loan. we pay uh another nine years of 20 call it $235,000 a year. That

[35:49] funding doesn't has to come from somewhere. It comes from the funds that

[35:52] we set aside within the road funds. So, we've got that. We've got the

[35:56] maintenance that comes on board and we all know we only have maybe four levers

[35:59] to pull, right? You finance it through your fund balance and what we put in the

[36:04] uh through the tax base on the 1 mill. You can get outside financing through

[36:08] the SIB loan, which we substantiated that we could have more than one loan at

[36:12] a time concurrently going. >> Second loan capped at $2 million.

[36:16] » Uh it would it depends. What she said is they come out with rules every year as

[36:20] far as what it is. >> Start taking a look at that.

[36:22] » Yes. And it also again depends. It says up to but again you're if you are a very

[36:27] small village and you don't have the wherewithal, they're not going to loan

[36:30] you $2 million if you don't have the ability to repay.

[36:34] » Right. The other one is um which we've done right SAD or increasing the mill

[36:40] from 1 mil to something higher than 1 mil. And the last one is of course B

[36:46] municipalities bonded. So those are basically the levers that we have to

[36:50] pull in order to be able to finance that we can't go out as a village and

[36:53] actually just borrow money other than the sanction of the state infrastructure

[36:58] loan. You just can't go to a regular bank and like a business or private or

[37:02] private entity right and say we want to borrow money for it. We can't do that as

[37:06] a village. So it is going to be important and a lot of it too as we

[37:10] start going through and looking at what it is is going to be based upon the cost

[37:15] which I hope that we'll have some I mean it's different if we say all right if we

[37:19] do a mill and fill it's going to be 2.8 8 million versus if we rip it all up, do

[37:24] the base and do a brand new, you know, buildup forklift replacement, it's going

[37:28] to be five million. So that's $3 million spread. That's a lot of That's a lot of

[37:33] money. >> That's a lot of money.

[37:34] » So, do we do that first? >> Do we look at the finances to know at

[37:40] what point we're going to have that much money and then schedule

[37:46] » things? You know what I mean? >> Maybe maybe a little hard to say what

[37:49] comes first. It's a good question. >> Yeah.

[37:52] » I think we have to go along >> parallel work now and get get the quote

[37:55] and then can't do it for five years is you know the quot

[37:59] anyway. >> I my opinion would be we have a good

[38:02] enough idea >> if we could

[38:05] » like Bill was saying let's close out phase two. We got to close out phase one

[38:08] too. >> Correct.

[38:09] » We got to close out the first phase. first phase, second phase, understand

[38:13] what if anything's left over and then make some type of model that suggests

[38:19] what inflation is going to look like, >> right?

[38:22] » Property taxes are going to look like, >> correct?

[38:24] » Is this PUD really going to be built and how much that might deliver?

[38:28] » Correct. >> And then there's the other side of,

[38:30] well, we haven't really >> funded the fire department like they've

[38:34] been asking. police and fire have uh you know have u

[38:40] you know at least 5 year 10 year forecast that would suggest their costs

[38:43] are going to go up 7 8 n 10% a year >> right

[38:47] » um fire trucks are two times more expensive than they used to be that's

[38:52] even a big debate in the US Congress right now

[38:55] » right >> so anyway point being I think we got a a

[38:59] good enough idea to at least put us in a place where if you look at all the

[39:03] variables >> we could probably.

[39:06] » Yeah, >> I would feel better about at least make

[39:08] having some thoughts on when we could do it and how we do it.

[39:11] » Right. [clears throat] That's the thing I want to just make sure that you're

[39:14] cognitive in the mind because as I think back and look at it, right, it's like,

[39:17] okay, we know what we're paying for fire. We know what they're going to be

[39:20] asking. You have a better idea over the next five years. That gap right there,

[39:24] » it's a big gap >> is a big gap, right?

[39:26] » Because you know, we're already >> last year and this year we had a deficit

[39:30] budget, >> right? Correct. Correct. We were

[39:32] fortunate that actuals came in better than we thought. But um but back to

[39:38] Jim's point, I mean, the village has been in a position to be able to finance

[39:41] these things in the past because they always have a surplus. And the days of

[39:44] surpluses, I'm afraid, >> right? And if we look at the mills that

[39:48] we assess, I mean, I'm not saying that it's like really light, but compared to

[39:51] other municipalities, it's I mean, it was at 9%.

[39:55] » It was 9% for like 5 years before we raised it one, right? The other thing

[40:00] that we have to think about is obviously inflation. If we decide to do this

[40:05] starting in 2028, that's election year. Administrations are going to change. We

[40:10] don't know what effect that's going to have on pricing and cost of, you know,

[40:15] hot mix asphalt or the other, you know, labor. So, there's a lot of there's

[40:19] always going to be um variables that are in there that we need to consider, but I

[40:23] think we kind of do have to do it kind of like in parallel where we find out

[40:27] where we're at as far as what we have projections of what we think we're going

[40:31] to be bringing on a revenue basis and then of course what the cost is and what

[40:35] direction the village wants to go as far as do we just I don't want to call it a

[40:39] patch, but do we do a lighter road recovery and rebuild or we do a ground

[40:44] uplift and just do it from a buildup >> bill? That decision is not we seven

[40:49] people on council. It's the people who live on Bristol Lane.

[40:52] » Correct. Correct. >> They have got to be involved a lot

[40:55] sooner in the game as as Eric mentioned earlier

[40:58] » and to be part of the decision- making monetarily if if they're going to get an

[41:04] SAD, it could be significantly higher than the existing SI sad if we go

[41:10] through a really expensive project. That may be the only way that it gets paid

[41:14] for is through special assessment combinations with village help.

[41:19] » And literally Bristol Lane is uh you don't go down Bristol Lane to get

[41:25] anywhere unless there you live there or you're a peeping town. You know,

[41:31] » I I think it's all saying that we Yeah, we we need time because it's a big big

[41:35] discussion. the time is probably good to say, okay, it's time to start thinking

[41:39] about >> and citizenship.

[41:41] » I'm sure I would be >> supportive of spending money at this or

[41:45] even approving to spend money at this very moment.

[41:50] » So, do we go back to the motions on the floor?

[41:53] » I I just want to say something. I think the decision you need to make is do you

[41:56] want to build the project around the budget or the budget around the project?

[42:00] » That's a big decision that you guys need to make.

[42:02] » I agree. I agree. Um and then one of the lessons learned talking about

[42:06] stakeholder engagement was um you know we we provided the opportunity for

[42:11] residents to look at plans and all that beforehand. I think this round it would

[42:16] be who project to seek out comments >> go doortodoor things like that. It all

[42:22] costs more money. But I think that we need to seek out that involvement rather

[42:26] than try and have them because it was it was all available but some people can't

[42:30] get here or forget about it and stuff like that and we needed to be a little

[42:32] more boots on the ground out there say hey we're doing something in front of

[42:36] your house this is what we're going to do so you know here's why here's why I

[42:39] made a decision do you have any input and seek it out rather than let them

[42:44] come to you >> so those are couple again that what

[42:47] that's part of the proposal but fair if you don't want to do it I understand

[42:51] » it was just asked of us to present at today's meeting

[42:54] » to approve what's before us >> because we need a lot more research and

[42:59] homework and expert opinion besides us to say which direction should we go with

[43:06] this. >> Yeah,

[43:07] » it's fair. That's why I was presented. >> Yeah,

[43:10] » it's good information and good to start thinking about it. Good to Yep. no time

[43:14] to talk about this and and I think yeah we started with the roads discussion and

[43:18] do we want to have a roads committee but really it's also the the budget

[43:22] committee >> or others start talking about the kinds

[43:26] of things you guys just talked about which is yeah where do we see ourselves

[43:30] » between now and five and 10 years from now financially yeah

[43:33] » and how does this fit into it and then to the which comes first there's a

[43:36] chicken and an egg there but we got to do both it's it's we got to talk about

[43:42] both of those very seriously. >> Okay.

[43:45] » Yes. Are we going to vote? >> Yeah.

[43:47] » Well, we have a motion on the floor. We have to take action on what's on the

[43:50] floor.

[43:56] » Well, which are we voting on? >> The first one.

[43:59] » Well, you on the first one. We have a second.

[44:01] » Yeah. >> You second.

[44:03] » So, yeah. Take a motion to establish phase three. Yeah.

[44:06] » Yep. >> Okay. Blackburn

[44:09] » absent. Howard >> I.

[44:11] » Yes. Miller. >> Hi [clears throat]

[44:18] » Mc Alexander. >> Hi

[44:21] » J. >> Hi.

[44:24] » The second motion. >> Second motion.

[44:26] » Well, can we have discussion on that one? So I think

[44:31] » the well the roads committee and then also a discussion around finances can

[44:37] get in because this to me is um this is more of a budget planning and how do we

[44:43] run the budget and how do we get things versus the specific to the roads. Um so

[44:49] I think that is that just something finance committee should talk about and

[44:54] propose back to the council. I am a member of finance committee.

[44:58] » Okay. >> All right. Well, [laughter]

[45:01] » as I'm looking at the finance committee here.

[45:04] » All right. Well, >> right now I made the motion pertaining

[45:07] to phase three project as a working you know an initial procedural for all other

[45:15] future projects. But you know we've got snow plowing services. We've got, you

[45:21] know, all kinds of other village services that we contract

[45:25] and getting competitive bids in this day and age is almost a fade of complete is

[45:31] that's how you do business. >> Well, we used we did

[45:34] » I believe this is already our process. Yes.

[45:37] » You're talking about for professional services.

[45:39] » Yeah. >> Not just contractual services.

[45:42] » That's right. >> Damn.

[45:44] » Will this be quality based >> services? Fire.

[45:48] » That's exactly what we're doing. We just went through.

[45:50] » That's exactly what we went through. >> Oh, yeah. Our going through. Yes.

[45:54] » We we we had a look. >> Yeah.

[45:58] » We just can't say we love you and just automatically sign the re.

[46:01] » Well, I think I think that's another thing is requiring a minimum of two

[46:06] versus it being a topic that has to be talked

[46:09] about because we may decide, oh, no, that, you know, is that one worthy of a

[46:15] second bid or not? Well, the dollar amount is what was specified

[46:20] » is what this is saying. >> Yes.

[46:22] » Yeah. >> If it's so much money a year that we're

[46:25] investing in it, then we needed to get a second bid. I think it's really best

[46:31] practices in municipal um operation is that you want to know that you're

[46:40] getting >> I'm not saying I'm I'm [clears throat]

[46:42] just I'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm just kind of peeling apart the details

[46:45] of what's written here and understanding what it means

[46:48] » to Bill and to the for the office and what is normally done, what's commonly

[46:53] done, what your experience is, Bill, what your experience is,

[46:57] » Jamie and other places. >> You're shaking your head.

[47:01] » I I would ask around on on that >> other mun other municipalities.

[47:06] » Correct. >> There's different ways that they do it

[47:09] and there's different reasons why they do it that way. I guess my point I guess

[47:12] I stand on this one that it's worth talking about if [clears throat] we're

[47:16] going to I guess this this is a change that says we are going to

[47:22] I would change it to be we should make a motion to discuss and figure out how

[47:26] would we implement this what's the impact how many things are going to be

[47:29] affected um I guess that's the questions I have

[47:33] around >> well that's why I said pertaining to the

[47:36] phase three roads project Okay. >> I actually could I say something? I

[47:43] believe you're you have an ordinance that addresses this.

[47:46] » Yes. >> Specifically and does require this. It's

[47:49] not worded identically, but unless you wave out of it by five votes, I think.

[47:54] So, I think that's I think this is required anyway. And I think 25,000 may

[47:58] even be the >> contractual threshold.

[48:02] » Yeah. Is that what we're talking about? >> No.

[48:05] » I mean, it's just vendor. >> They're still contractual. I would still

[48:09] » it's still a contract and I think >> they're saying that if there was a a

[48:14] legal issue that they knew it was going to cost more than $25,000 they could go

[48:17] get competitive bids for it >> as well. Oh, well I do.

[48:22] » Yeah, >> like a project by project manage.

[48:26] » We did do that. >> We did look we did look at several law

[48:29] firms. We did look at what their costs were going to be. We did all of that.

[48:33] And we're just saying it needs to apply the project as well.

[48:37] » You know, it's it's a good business practice that we followed in the past.

[48:42] We're just saying we need to continue doing that.

[48:44] » And you did that 10 years ago when we came out. you want to offer general

[48:49] engineering services. >> Yeah.

[48:51] » And that's that's all I'm saying. I would I would I would ask around because

[48:54] there's pros and cons to each way of doing it.

[48:57] » So, I guess the other side of it is I don't think we're ready to approve the

[49:00] $61,000 here. So, I don't know if this matters

[49:04] today. >> Uh I

[49:07] » I don't I guess I would want to always look

[49:11] » at two proposals from two vendors and say what was the strength and what was

[49:16] the weakness with each one. Okay.

[49:20] Yeah, >> I think that's right. If there's a

[49:23] ordinance already in place and I don't know the hierarchy of a motion to a

[49:29] resolution to an ordinance to a >> charter, I don't know if there's

[49:34] something already in place that says, >> but we're only looking at one proposal

[49:38] over 25,000. That's only one. I guess I agree. So then if the ordinance would

[49:43] apply to everything, >> the ordinance speaks to contracts.

[49:46] That's right. And I I guess what we're saying here is these services fall under

[49:52] your overall >> contract overall contract with your

[49:55] engineering >> uh firm. So

[49:59] » um >> I I think

[50:01] » and you and you I'm I'm letting you are more than that's what you want to do

[50:05] then that's fine. If you want to go out for proposal for every single contract

[50:08] that's over $25,000 you by all means can do that. I'm just asking if you would

[50:12] talk to other municipalities and ask about the pros and cons of doing that

[50:16] and having different people in and out of your village.

[50:19] » But I think our ordinances would actually be more of a decision maker

[50:23] than what other villages are doing. We have our own interpretation.

[50:28] » I'd look at both. I Yeah, we should understand more of both. I think we

[50:31] should understand more too because there are nuances here and because maybe in

[50:36] listening carefully to what Brad's saying, maybe in the case of the roads

[50:39] is not getting competitive bids or anything more sort of services more than

[50:43] $25,000 because there could be a list of 500 services in

[50:48] one guy come dig a ditch and another guy come and put the gravel in the ditch. I

[50:53] guess you're going to use one contractor. Point being is we should get

[50:57] competitive quotes on the road project. That's

[51:02] » in totality, >> right?

[51:03] » Because somebody like HRC or whoever competes with HRC is going to

[51:10] provide all the engineering work that's required, all the drawings, all the

[51:14] topo, all the drainage, everything else, and they're then they're going to take

[51:17] it out to bed and uh and then the contract will be

[51:21] written with the village. And there

[51:25] » but but a big part of what Brad does the 61,000 is a tiny part of what he'll do

[51:29] on this project. >> The big part of what Brad's going to do

[51:32] this project is the engineering work and the project that

[51:38] » is that right? >> What any engineer would do. Yes.

[51:40] » Yes. >> But your any saying if you want to go

[51:43] out for competitive it would be that engineer that you hire. And again, you'd

[51:47] have if you want to do a study phase, you can hire a different one for the

[51:49] study phase, different one for the design, a different one for the

[51:51] construction engineering if you wanted to as well. You have every right to do

[51:54] that. >> Yeah. But yeah, but again, I think that

[51:57] goes back to the discussion because I think you're bringing up things that we

[52:00] really need to be careful with. >> Because I do I don't think the the

[52:04] process you describe is a good process. >> I agree, but I'm also biased. [laughter]

[52:11] » I'm biased, too, with what the kind of business I do. if you come, we're going

[52:15] to give you the whole we want to do the whole thing.

[52:21] » So, but I do think we agreeing and there's there we're agreeing that we're

[52:24] going to take the roads project out to bid. I'm not sure if that needs a motion

[52:28] or not, but if it does, we should vote on it.

[52:30] » And this one proposal for the roads project.

[52:34] I'm saying I'd like to, you know, you're our village engineer in

[52:40] general, but this is a specific project outside of the norm of running the

[52:45] regular village in my mind. And since this is a very specific project, that's

[52:50] why the motion is >> But you do understand now that there's

[52:55] » yes, >> there's already proposals out there for

[52:58] other people to come and be like, oh, I see they were going to charge this much.

[53:01] I'm going to go under this much. The whole road advisory committee has

[53:04] proposals and cost estimates and everything in it. Just there's a lot of

[53:08] information out there to make it kind of a little a little nuance there to bring

[53:13] other people in and say, "Okay, well, can can you beat this price

[53:16] essentially?" >> Well, I think we have to we have to act

[53:19] ethically, >> but uh we we would need to be careful

[53:24] there.

[53:27] » So, I don't know. I'm not sure where that puts us other than I think I think

[53:33] it'd be a good idea to study it a little more

[53:36] » while at least leaving with an agreement that we all think it's a great idea to

[53:39] make sure we get more than one. >> Do we want it on the agenda for next?

[53:44] » Yeah, let's do that. >> Yep.

[53:45] » Okay. So I will withdraw the motion that's sitting the second motion that is

[53:52] sitting on the floor [clears throat] requiring

[53:56] a minimum of two competitive entries. So I guess there will be no motion but we

[54:00] will create an agenda item to discuss this

[54:03] » the next at the next council meeting. >> Yeah.

[54:06] » Okay.

[54:10] » You get it with me? >> All right.

[54:16] All right, the next item is in our MMR. It's our insurance renewal. It's

[54:21] actually pretty good news because it's only up 2.3% which is actually pretty

[54:25] good right now. Um, so I would just look for a motion to renew that. You can see

[54:30] everything that is covered. They have added some data breach and cyber

[54:34] security coverage that we didn't have before, which is good. Um, and we also

[54:39] are going to get they call it a distribution, but it's sort of like a

[54:42] refund. So we'll get back about $7,000 when we renew. So that's always good

[54:47] too. So I would just >> Is that refund? Is that because of like

[54:50] a experience rate? Is that claim? >> Yeah. So every year you renew Oh,

[54:56] because it's a big number. We only pay what was it 15 or 16?

[54:59] » But if you don't renew, you don't get it. So but yeah, [laughter]

[55:03] it's just I bet they just pay $8,000 and not get a refund. [laughter]

[55:08] No teacher. >> It's based upon a pool and the pool of

[55:12] everyone that's in that it depends on the losses or what the payouts are on

[55:17] that and at the end they take it all and then they distribute it because it's

[55:20] claims based something like that happen somewhere [clears throat] owe money at

[55:25] the end of it. >> Have we've never as far as I've been on

[55:28] we've never Yeah. We've never own We've always got money back. It just varies

[55:32] from how much the distribution back to the village has been.

[55:36] » Oh my gosh. This is this is yeah specifically yeah

[55:39] » and this is a I think this is a pool it's we're self-insured through this

[55:44] » whatever it is m >> Jamie would this cover the uh incident

[55:51] that Franklin experienced where the clerical error resulted in a million

[55:55] » they did have it's my understanding I don't want to speak for them it's my

[55:59] understanding they did have mmma so yes yeah they had some coverage I don't want

[56:05] to speak to the amount that they covered But

[56:08] » what would this cover if we had the same million dollars flying out the window?

[56:12] » It said 2 and a half million I believe.

[56:17] » Yeah. >> Now Jamie, you recall we were on a we

[56:20] were on a call with them and Keith Pottery, we we after council had asked

[56:25] that we confirmed that it was two at the time 2 million is what we were told.

[56:30] » Yeah, it was 2 million. Now it's 2 million.

[56:32] » She wasn't trying to put you on it. >> That's okay. I can say in general terms,

[56:35] but it depends on what kind of cyber attack it is or what kind of fraud it is

[56:39] uh and what your policy says. >> So in this circumstance in Franklin, it

[56:44] did not cover the entire amount. It covered a smaller portion. Our

[56:48] deductible was 25,000. So they're still working through that at

[56:52] this point. >> So my question is, would that exact same

[56:56] incident be 100% covered by this policy? >> I haven't seen your policy. Yeah, it

[57:03] it's probably less a deductible also, right?

[57:08] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[57:10] » But if Franklin in the same self-insured pool that we're in.

[57:15] » Yes. >> So by default, their coverage would be

[57:18] the same. >> It would be the same. I would guess. I

[57:20] don't think we're customizing our our coverage.

[57:22] » Correct. >> So other than the changes from last

[57:26] year, this year >> just Yeah. Other than Yeah. The changes

[57:30] would be we have a little more coverage. There's a slight increase by $358 per

[57:35] annually. >> Yes.

[57:37] » I guess I don't understand if Franklin's in the same pool

[57:42] and there's just an increase from 2 million to 2 million five. Their loss

[57:47] was 1 million. >> Yeah, I don't want to speak about

[57:51] » I I just Well, whatever. But it was less than this max. So for them not to have

[57:57] full reimbursement, thus the deductible, it makes me concerned that there's a

[58:03] loophole in this policy. >> Yeah, I don't want to speak to them too

[58:08] much. Um I'm sure you're pretty familiar with MMA if you could chime into, but

[58:13] this is a very common >> Yeah, but I don't I'm not familiar with

[58:19] the loss in Franklin or what happened there. You would need an insurance

[58:23] specialist to read the policy and >> make a determination whether or not

[58:28] » you have coverage. Cyber security is a whole different ball game you see and

[58:34] that's [clears throat] what we're trying to see

[58:36] » how sophisticated this policy is in terms of this new world that we're

[58:41] living out there with with AI and cyber security and

[58:46] » there are other steps that we take too with like our IoT company right so like

[58:52] dual au like you know there there's lots of steps that we take

[58:56] » so should we I mean yeah I think we all agree

[58:59] you know, we need to go forward in approving of this.

[59:01] » Yeah. >> But maybe as a future item to talk more

[59:04] about, I know in the past you commented about stuff you're doing in the office

[59:07] and do those things. >> Maybe an information on hey, is there

[59:12] something else available? Would we want to [snorts] have the

[59:16] » whatever you want to, you know, >> umbrella.

[59:19] » That's exactly right. >> Some special some special rider or

[59:22] something. Is it worth understanding some more about at least

[59:26] » to understand what would it cover and what would it cost and we'll all go oh

[59:29] well we can't afford that one that's okay

[59:31] » and are [laughter] we as trustees covered

[59:33] » right right so I think it'd be worth it in future

[59:38] » well and again I think you're right exactly right Mike

[59:41] » uh so because it is a big deal I've personally been a victim of a ransomware

[59:45] attack and cyber fraud and it's no joking matter it's dead serious stuff

[59:50] and you're dealing with criminals Um, so and and uh you know it's hard to track

[59:55] these guys. This ransomware stuff is you know deep dark web North Korean people

[1:00:01] and it's it's uh it's crazy stuff. Um having said that I think the insurance

[1:00:08] is critically important and it's not for not for today but we really need to

[1:00:12] know. You mentioned multiffactor authentication. It could be how do we

[1:00:15] change passwords or set up passwords. It could be just training on how to recon

[1:00:21] because because we got hit because somebody clicked on a link in an email

[1:00:28] » and that's all it took >> and they were in our they were in our

[1:00:31] network >> and they sat in our network for months

[1:00:33] and months and months and we didn't know it.

[1:00:36] » So how do you recognize that? How do you report that? Anyway, it's it is serious

[1:00:42] and um >> you'll wake up one morning and there'll

[1:00:46] be a million dollars missing from the account and you'll never

[1:00:51] [clears throat] >> Well, that's disappointing. [laughter]

[1:00:56] » It's scary. >> It is scary.

[1:00:59] » It's a lot. >> It's terrifying.

[1:01:02] » So >> So anyway, even your um even your guest

[1:01:05] Wi-Fi, >> I don't know. Oh, is there any

[1:01:07] possibility if I'm on a guest Wi-Fi that I can get into a network? Okay. So, you

[1:01:11] guys do a lot of >> firewall.

[1:01:12] » Yeah, >> that's why it's a guest

[1:01:19] » right. So, there's a suggested motion. I would recommend

[1:01:23] » I I'll suggest that we approve the Bing and Farm September 30th renewal of the

[1:01:28] MMRMA and authorize the village manager to

[1:01:32] sign. >> I'll second that. Good idea. Okay.

[1:01:41] Do a roll call to Miller. >> Hi

[1:01:45] again. >> Hi. [clears throat]

[1:01:48] » Mc Alexander. >> Hi.

[1:01:50] » Hi. >> How?

[1:01:53] » Hi.

[1:02:02] » Good evening, council. My name is Eric Peach with Githles Webster, planning

[1:02:06] consultant for the village. Uh I'm here tonight to discuss with you and just

[1:02:10] give you a general update for the status of the master plan update. Um as you may

[1:02:15] be aware, the planning commission had been going through months of

[1:02:18] conversation and discussion about whether or not uh an update to the 21

[1:02:23] 2021 approved and adopted master plan uh was required or if there was any areas

[1:02:28] that would warrant uh significant updates. uh at their last planning

[1:02:33] commission in August uh a few weeks ago, um the planning commission did make a

[1:02:38] final determination to uh provide an amendment to the future land use section

[1:02:44] of the master plan um because um back in May of 2026, you may recall um the HOA

[1:02:51] for the Bingham Road Estates had called uh attention to uh the future land use

[1:02:56] section of the master plan uh where they believed uh there was unnecessary uh

[1:03:02] reference to their subdivision uh the Bingham Road estate subdivision. Um and

[1:03:08] so they requested the removal of a certain uh language within that

[1:03:13] paragraph um of the future land use. Uh so the copy of the master plan amendment

[1:03:19] that you have within your packet this evening uh is the actual language as

[1:03:23] it's currently proposed and it's simply to remove that language that was

[1:03:28] requested of the planning commission and now the village council. Um, so if you

[1:03:32] looked at page 45 of the of the master plan, uh, under future land use, the

[1:03:38] estate residential, formerly low density [clears throat] residential, that

[1:03:41] paragraph is the only section that's, uh, proposing a change. Um and the

[1:03:47] removal of the language uh is to state that the category uh for estate

[1:03:52] residential is also recommended for property abuing 14-mi road immediately

[1:03:57] west of Outland Trail to to assist in protection of the woodlands on this

[1:04:02] site. So that is the language that was requested to be removed uh from that

[1:04:06] paragraph. Uh that changes nothing within the intent uh behind that

[1:04:11] statement. So nothing is really changing. It's just the preference uh

[1:04:15] from the uh Bingham Road Estates subdivision to have that reference

[1:04:22] removed so that it wasn't um referencing their subdivision uh within that

[1:04:27] statement. Additionally, on the back of the front cover will be a disclaimer

[1:04:31] that when working with the village attorney, um that disclaimer states that

[1:04:37] the um that nothing within the master plan or the village ordinances

[1:04:41] supersedes um the deed restrictions of any um land within the community. Um and

[1:04:47] so those two amendments kind of work hand inand together. Um because again,

[1:04:53] nothing changes with the intention of the future land use. uh the area where

[1:04:59] the uh Bingham Road estates currently is um would still be um applicable to the

[1:05:07] uh master plan language. Um but again, the deed restrictions within that

[1:05:12] subdivision would not have any impact on the changes being made here. So,

[1:05:16] » but they would because our deed restrictions and it's

[1:05:21] been this way for more than 50 years. I have all the documentation and letters

[1:05:25] from Slaughter who was the kingpin behind all the legal action. Um you

[1:05:32] state that the maximum density proposed for this category is.7 dwellings per

[1:05:37] acre. >> Yes.

[1:05:39] » And our deed restrictions state that acreage has nothing to do with it. It's

[1:05:45] how many acres the property is. You can have one house,

[1:05:50] » right? >> That's it.

[1:05:52] » Yes. And so the section of the master plan that is being amended, so the um

[1:05:57] estate residential is laid on top of that area, but the

[1:06:03] deed restrictions of the um Bingham Road estates, those

[1:06:08] would be in place. So this doesn't have any impact over what that could be.

[1:06:13] » But why wouldn't they be reflective accurately of the area that is being

[1:06:20] discussed? the area is part of the HOA. It would be like Bingham Point. It would

[1:06:26] be like Bingham Woods. It would be like Woodland.

[1:06:29] » You can't just go in and state, "Well, you're part of Bingham Farms Woodland,

[1:06:34] so you're going to be uh 7 dwellings per acre."

[1:06:39] » The problem the problem was um that the master plan as written actually was

[1:06:46] referring to a property that's in the subdivision. It was actually referring

[1:06:52] to a platted lot in our subdivision. >> Uh, and that was troubling into itself

[1:07:00] because I'll use the words even developers have used in this room is

[1:07:04] that our master plan is advertising for them to come in build stuff.

[1:07:08] » Exactly. >> So, we're advertising in the in the plan

[1:07:11] as it sits today to come build on that property that's clearly referenced.

[1:07:17] Taking that out removes that, which in my opinion is a great really good thing.

[1:07:22] » The reference to the overall village doesn't bother me because now you have

[1:07:27] this other statement that says uh that that this master plan does not supersede

[1:07:33] any private deed restrictions. >> Okay.

[1:07:35] » So the deed restrictions by that language would would take part.

[1:07:40] » But it's not mentioned. Uh I I just the that we have deed restrictions on the

[1:07:49] maximum density property that they're talking about that there are

[1:07:54] there are deed restrictions on that lot. >> Well, I'm not sure. I mean, it doesn't

[1:07:59] say >> it just says that the master plan

[1:08:02] reflects the village's public use. Does not determine

[1:08:07] » Can I comment? >> Well, I there's one other question I

[1:08:10] have. Um and go ahead.

[1:08:14] » Oh um so what the Erics are trying to are both uh saying in different words is

[1:08:22] no we are not referencing the deed restrictions directly in the master

[1:08:25] plan. the um estate residential section of the future land use that Eric is

[1:08:31] talking about that language that pertains to the entire area on the

[1:08:35] future land use map that is highlighted for estate residential which includes

[1:08:39] way more than just Bingham Road estates um and it states that the maximum

[1:08:45] allowed density on that per the village future land use is that 0.7 which means

[1:08:50] in places without deed restrictions that is the maximum you can build in places

[1:08:55] with deed restrictions Again, per the disclaimer we added at the beginning

[1:08:59] of the master plan that states that the master plan does not supersede any deed

[1:09:04] restrictions. Any deed restriction enforcement is outside the scope of

[1:09:07] village planning and zoning. >> Yeah.

[1:09:09] » So, it just makes makes that separation clear. It does help, but I think it's

[1:09:14] the the fact that it doesn't have a direct reference to the property like

[1:09:20] you would get at Woodlands or any any other um HOA,

[1:09:26] » right? The master plan >> and it's a permanent injunction. It's

[1:09:30] not just a deed restriction, >> right? The the original language that

[1:09:34] was included was meant to protect that area. Um but by removing it, it doesn't

[1:09:39] really change anything. it just takes away the what the HOA felt was an

[1:09:43] unnecessary attention to that property or to that area uh of their subdivision.

[1:09:48] So by adding the uh disclaimer to the front, that's where the master plan

[1:09:54] draws connection to deed restrictions. So the deed restrictions are in place.

[1:09:58] The master plan has nothing to necessarily say about that. Um, so I

[1:10:04] don't know if you want to >> Well, one other thing um that I was

[1:10:08] going to get to was that in the past if

[1:10:14] somebody was going to build on a lot on Bingham Lane or um Bingham Road that is

[1:10:22] included in our HOA. Um those plans would have to be stamped

[1:10:27] approved by our HOA. They could not you would not send those

[1:10:33] plans or send the builder or developer homeowner to Southfield for a B building

[1:10:39] permit until we had stamped it. Is that true today?

[1:10:44] » Um well we haven't had a new build in that area in a while. So

[1:10:49] » we got one going on next door. >> Correct. But I was not involved in the

[1:10:53] intake of those documents at the time. So that's why I can't answer your

[1:10:57] question. That doesn't count because you needed to be. Somebody needed to be.

[1:11:01] » So, >> well, somebody was that was Ken. He's

[1:11:03] not here. So, until I review some stuff, I can't answer your question right now

[1:11:06] is what I'm saying. >> Ken's been gone how long?

[1:11:10] » A year. And that house started building being built two years ago. So, those

[1:11:14] plans went in two years ago. >> Two. Okay. Well, and we had the White

[1:11:17] House that at the end that was also Ken, >> correct?

[1:11:22] » So, but we want to make sure that these safeguards are in place. I don't want to

[1:11:27] assume. We need we need everybody to know that they need to to call Jim, our

[1:11:35] president, and make sure that he sees every plan that is involved on our HOA.

[1:11:42] » The other thing is that you're only responsible for enforcing the village

[1:11:47] rule. >> Correct.

[1:11:48] » Yes. But if a potential builder doesn't know that there's also another level of

[1:11:56] HOA rules, what onus falls on you to inform them or anyone? I mean, if you

[1:12:05] don't say anything, who will? >> It's CO

[1:12:09] HOA's responsibility to >> How does the HOA know somebody's coming

[1:12:14] to them to build a house? They don't know.

[1:12:16] » They come to the office. Well, we we're we're proactive. We we had all the plans

[1:12:20] for the two houses as an

[1:12:22] » HOA. We saw those >> and we were allowed to see them. And I'm

[1:12:26] not sure that that there was actually a stamp because that's the first time I've

[1:12:30] heard that was a good question. >> Yeah, we had in the past.

[1:12:32] » Uh but we actually got the the plans to both of those homes. I mean, I mean, the

[1:12:37] detailed drawings, everything. >> Well, there was construction plans. We

[1:12:41] saw the construction plans which gives you all the information you need in

[1:12:45] terms of >> my my view. But again, I may be wrong,

[1:12:47] but our HOA has to be proactive and and knowing that a property's been sold that

[1:12:53] it's going to be torn down, who the builder's going to be. I mean, the pro

[1:12:57] the the reference to that that was removed. We have had I've been here for

[1:13:03] 20 years and we've had three attempts to develop that property in the 20 years

[1:13:06] I've been here. And um

[1:13:09] » rather bizarre attempts. >> Yeah, some bizarre attempts. So anyway,

[1:13:12] um I do think the I think the obligation of the village and the planning

[1:13:18] commission is to at least be aware that there are deed restrictions in place and

[1:13:24] and there's a HOA involved. So at least at least they can say if somebody comes

[1:13:29] and says here's the plans go well have you talked to the HOA yet?

[1:13:33] » That's right. Communication generally do >> at least do that. Yeah, that would be

[1:13:37] very helpful if we could. I know that >> I did witness um prior counsel telling

[1:13:46] Ken that when I asked if they would let us know,

[1:13:50] he leaned over and said, "You don't have to tell her anything." And I thought,

[1:13:53] "Wow, that's rather bizarre." But it's nice if

[1:13:59] we can be cooperative. We can work together. Appreciate it. Thank you.

[1:14:04] And I can tell you that's how I represent Bloomfield Village, which is

[1:14:10] HOA on steroids. >> That's how it works with Bloomfield

[1:14:15] Township. I mean, they work hand in hand on on those things.

[1:14:18] » Yeah, it's it's a good thing. Thank you. So what's before you uh this evening

[1:14:24] then is um because we uh made reference to the Michigan Planning Enabling Act

[1:14:30] for the next steps. The planning commission at their last meeting uh

[1:14:33] forwarded uh the proposed amendments to the village council to approve moving

[1:14:38] the process forward. So everything from here on out would stay with the planning

[1:14:42] commission. Um, so by you approving what's proposed, um, that would start a

[1:14:49] 42-day period where, um, the surrounding communities would be notified of the

[1:14:54] minor amendment, um, utility companies and whatnot. Uh, and so my job would be

[1:14:59] to work with the staff to provide those notifications to go out. And so if

[1:15:03] everything stays uh, on time, um, the 42-day period would close roughly around

[1:15:09] the beginning of October. So then once that occurs then the planning commission

[1:15:13] will meet in October to establish a public hearing for November. So then

[1:15:18] they would hold a public hearing on November to receive any additional

[1:15:21] feedback from the public. Uh and if everything is um good to go, they could

[1:15:27] make the final uh um approvals and adoption at that time. It doesn't

[1:15:33] necessarily have to come back to the village council, but it can if you wish

[1:15:36] to have it come back for your adoption as well.

[1:15:40] But because it's such a minor amendment, it could stay with the planning

[1:15:43] commission to make the adoption. >> I just want to ask a general question

[1:15:48] about >> the numbers and the projections for how

[1:15:52] large or how small our community will be in the future. That's based on

[1:15:57] statistical census data. That's how old. >> The the data that we have is from the

[1:16:04] previous um master plan in 2021. So we can run some numbers to project what it

[1:16:10] currently would be. Um but I don't think it's changed significantly from what the

[1:16:14] current master plan >> because it has the population being

[1:16:17] reduced by 2030 when I see all these new young families

[1:16:22] » buying these houses with kids having more kids. Yeah.

[1:16:26] » Yeah. So that's why I was a little taken back

[1:16:30] » at the accuracy of these projections >> and if it's a different and also the

[1:16:35] average age >> of our community. It might have been 62

[1:16:41] back when but is it today? And that average age helps drive our decisions as

[1:16:48] council members. Do we want bike paths, t toddler playgrounds? I mean, you know,

[1:16:53] whatever. >> Yeah.

[1:16:55] » That influences. Yeah, master plan. >> Yeah, and we've had that conversation

[1:16:59] with the planning commission and I think the um implementation section of the

[1:17:04] master plan is something that we'll continue to work with staff on so that

[1:17:07] we can have those conversations with the planning commission um regarding, you

[1:17:11] know, housing, the commercial corridor, um and that sort of thing. Um to use the

[1:17:16] guidelines of the master plan to implement what the goals and objectives

[1:17:20] that are established in the approved 2021 plan are. Um and so they felt the

[1:17:24] planning commission that there was not a significant enough change to warrant an

[1:17:28] update. Um but we can certainly look at um projections you know through the the

[1:17:33] census um as we go through those implementation strategies.

[1:17:36] » The next review will be five years from now which will be a new census.

[1:17:40] » Yes. >> Exactly.

[1:17:41] » Because in 31 we'll review it but 30 there will have been a census.

[1:17:45] » That's right. And so maybe at that time it would be worthwhile to do a full

[1:17:48] update to the master plan instead of just a small amendment.

[1:17:52] » Yeah. >> Okay. So that was taken under

[1:17:53] consideration. >> Yes. Yeah. So they planning commission

[1:17:57] discussed every five years. Um and they wanted to get that on record now so that

[1:18:02] this will be established for 2026 and then going forward um you know with the

[1:18:06] new census in 2030 uh that they'll go through the update process again 2031.

[1:18:11] » Thank you. You're welcome.

[1:18:16] » So we're we're required to update it every five years.

[1:18:19] » Yes. And so if this minor amendment was not a consideration by the planning

[1:18:24] commission, they could have just readted the 2021 plan and it would have been

[1:18:29] acknowledged that that occurred in 2026 and then that process would reoccur in

[1:18:33] 2031. >> So this is just intuition. It just seems

[1:18:37] like after five years this is a ext may not change very much. I agree. Just

[1:18:43] seems like it's uh there should have there should have been more

[1:18:47] » more >> more more changes

[1:18:49] » more changes >> to reflect some of the things Diane was

[1:18:52] just saying. So yeah, I >> I don't know. Um I have to admit I've

[1:18:56] I've read through it. It's not a legal document. It's a guidelines.

[1:19:00] » Correct. >> Yeah. Well, there will be some changes

[1:19:02] in um you may be aware of the uh discussion about fences in the

[1:19:06] community. >> Exactly. That's exactly right. It's an

[1:19:08] or fencing is an ordinance. >> That's an ordinance. And so, you know,

[1:19:11] we'll use the master plan as guidance, which we've already done to a certain

[1:19:14] extent to say that if there is going to be a conversation about allowing fences

[1:19:18] within residential properties that it complies with what the master plan's

[1:19:23] guidelines are. >> And what if it doesn't?

[1:19:26] » If the fence ordinance doesn't comply with

[1:19:30] » Well, we would want to ensure that it does. And so, that's one thing that

[1:19:33] we're going to have to keep an eye on to make sure that there's a marriage

[1:19:36] between >> Let me ask that question a different

[1:19:38] way. What if the fence ordinance comes out and we all decide we really like it?

[1:19:41] That's a great idea. But but it wouldn't it doesn't conform? Can we

[1:19:46] » Does that mean we can't do the fence ordinance or

[1:19:48] » you can still pass it. It just >> it leaves you open to some argument that

[1:19:54] it's >> you know because it's not consistent

[1:19:56] with the master plan >> that

[1:19:58] » it depends how different it is from the master plan.

[1:20:01] » Right. And master plan says go that way and we're going to go that way. like

[1:20:05] [laughter] >> if it says absolutely no fences ever.

[1:20:08] » Yeah. [clears throat] >> Well, and for example, you know, as

[1:20:11] we've had this conversation with the planning commission up until this point,

[1:20:14] we've made reference to the current master plan to see, well, if we are

[1:20:18] going to take consideration for fences in the community, what does the master

[1:20:21] plan say? And it it's it's more or less silent to the fact, but what it does say

[1:20:26] is that the village wants to uphold the character of the community. And so that

[1:20:31] means if there's no fences to be seen, then what does that look like? If you

[1:20:35] then have an amendment to allow for fences, well, potentially landscape

[1:20:38] screening would be a requirement where you put a fence in a sideyard that if

[1:20:42] you have evergreen screening that would last throughout the year, even during

[1:20:46] the winter, so that you wouldn't be able to see the fence. That might be one way

[1:20:49] that you keep the uh ordinance and the master plan in sync with one another,

[1:20:53] even though you're kind of going against >> what president is currently, not

[1:20:57] allowing fences in the community. So, >> Eric, are you aware of communities that

[1:21:02] have sued because of something that was different in the master plan than what

[1:21:08] was going on in the community? So, you use it the master plan as the basis for

[1:21:13] a lawsuit. >> I'm not familiar with any um because

[1:21:16] that's mostly heavily reliant on the the zoning code primarily. Yeah, that would

[1:21:21] that would come up from time to time in zoning disputes where uh like a zoning

[1:21:27] request has been denied a variance and they would try and use the master plan

[1:21:33] where you've you know strayed from the master plan and deny their variance.

[1:21:38] Something like that comes up. It's an argument,

[1:21:43] » but it's you're your your your zoning ordinance is not required to be

[1:21:49] in strict conformity with the master plan. It's a it's a guide like I say.

[1:21:54] » So this reference to the aesthetic beauty within Bingham Farms. It is just

[1:22:00] totally impossible to litigate against those kind of terms though, isn't it?

[1:22:06] » Kind [clears throat] of why it's there. So unless the ordinance is really

[1:22:10] specific >> and enforcable by law with consequences,

[1:22:18] you know that it's it's for not, right? >> The ordinance. Yeah. If you want to be

[1:22:22] more specific with an ordinance if you can.

[1:22:24] » Yeah. >> Less vague,

[1:22:26] » right? [clears throat] >> But that's not the master plan,

[1:22:30] » right? >> Yeah.

[1:22:31] » Yeah. So if when we go through that process, we'll be looking at the master

[1:22:35] plan as it's currently written um to take that into consideration when we

[1:22:39] have those conversations with the planning commission what if any types of

[1:22:43] changes to the fence ordinance they would take into consideration. So, and

[1:22:47] right now what I see is maintaining the character of the community and to

[1:22:51] possibly entertain if they want to allowing fences um so long as what the

[1:22:57] master plan says about that is to maintain the character of the community

[1:23:01] to not have fences in your front yard and exposed and you know looking like a

[1:23:05] gated community so to speak. So um but again that's all speculation and a

[1:23:10] future conversation that we'll be having with the planning commission. So

[1:23:14] process-wise, right, this starts going forward from here, the next step is the

[1:23:19] 42-day window for for >> That's right. Yeah. So you're

[1:23:22] » and then if because now on one hand public's been aware that it's been in

[1:23:27] the planning commission, but now they made more aware of what's going on

[1:23:29] because it's coming here. If people are coming with questions about any part of

[1:23:32] it, Yeah. questions or comments and wants and desires to change.

[1:23:37] » Yes. >> Um it's not just about the change in the

[1:23:40] language. It's really the whole thing. If somebody comes in and has questions

[1:23:43] about all kinds of things, >> they can come and comment on it. And the

[1:23:46] planning commission takes that >> and says, "Okay, now what we do? Do we

[1:23:50] » there's all this public comment? What do we do now?"

[1:23:53] » Yeah, for sure. Yeah, that could be kind of just something that's not really

[1:23:56] foreseen at this point. And that the only change to the 2021 master plan is

[1:24:00] what's that minor um um portion that's taken out. Um, but if there becomes this

[1:24:07] conversation about something much larger during that 42-day period, then

[1:24:10] certainly that can be something that is taken into consideration. Um, and we'll

[1:24:14] just have to cross that bridge when we get there. But the 42 days allows for

[1:24:18] the surrounding communities to be notified. Um, and then for any public

[1:24:22] comment, but the last portion of it would be for the planning commission to

[1:24:26] offer another public hearing before the final adoption takes place in November.

[1:24:33] So again, what's before you today is just to allow for staff to release uh

[1:24:38] for notification or distribution, I should say.

[1:24:43] » And that's it. >> Good.

[1:24:45] » Thank you very much for explaining it. We appreciate it.

[1:24:58] » So we need a resolution. depending on I think is this a motion or

[1:25:03] » I didn't find anything that um stated that you technically have to have a

[1:25:06] motion but you can >> I think do you agree Mike?

[1:25:10] » Yeah I didn't think you needed a motion. >> I don't think so either. So, it's just a

[1:25:13] confirmation network to move forward with a plan.

[1:25:16] » Like a thumbs thumbs up. >> Thumbs up. Thumbs up. [laughter]

[1:25:19] » That works.

[1:25:28] » We can get the demographics. >> You want ahead?

[1:25:31] » Is that next on the agenda? Okay. So, um I requested uh have a discussion point

[1:25:37] on the agenda about how do we as a village inform and

[1:25:43] encourage our residents to be willing to be

[1:25:47] volunteers of any nature. Maybe it's a specific

[1:25:51] committee, maybe it's just a a one-off like a roads commission.

[1:25:57] Um if I remember correctly, we actually passed a motion for a deer committee

[1:26:01] months ago. That would be another one if we had some volunteers.

[1:26:05] » Maybe it's a a garden committee who how to keep the deer out of my garden

[1:26:09] committee. I don't know. >> But but my my personal feeling is I'm

[1:26:14] not even sure how people in Bingham Farms know that there's an opening on

[1:26:18] the council, much less anywhere else. So um because I don't I don't I don't sense

[1:26:26] that we're doing a lot of direct communication in that way. Now this now

[1:26:30] so those were some of the examples but coming up very soon the planning

[1:26:34] commission is going to have a number of openings.

[1:26:38] So as those openings occur and Jamie informed me that we don't have any

[1:26:44] volunteer applications on file at all. There's a there is a application online

[1:26:49] probably nobody takes the time to figure out if there's one there or not. Um

[1:26:55] uh and so we get in these situations at a council that you got to you need

[1:26:59] somebody to serve a uh a volunteer position for instance on

[1:27:05] the planning commission. And I guess I I don't know how you find it. Maybe you

[1:27:09] just call up your best friend and say, "Hey, will you help me out?" And sit on

[1:27:13] the planning commission. I don't know. That's that's probably how it works, I

[1:27:15] guess. I don't know. >> I I have a suggestion. I mean, I was

[1:27:19] criticized tonight for walking my dog five times a day, but every time I walk

[1:27:24] my dog, I have neighbors out that are walking their dog. They're just walking.

[1:27:28] And yesterday morning, I had a neighbor from Bingham Road

[1:27:33] wanting to know about the house. And so we discussed it briefly and he said,

[1:27:37] "Well, what can I do?" And I said, "Oh my god, [laughter]

[1:27:40] thank you. Yes, you can volunteer." I said, "Well, we would love to have you

[1:27:44] on a on a committee." So, he gave me his contact information and um he's retired

[1:27:52] head of design for Chrysler. I mean, he's got really good credentials. I

[1:27:56] think he'd be an asset to have working with um the village. So, and that's just

[1:28:03] an example. I mean, there there's a plethora of other people that have many

[1:28:07] skill sets that I think would help. >> I think that's and that's a good

[1:28:10] example. How do we find more of those people that might be willing to some

[1:28:14] people just don't want to commit to three years or four years or whatever it

[1:28:17] is? I get it. But they might be glad to commit to a a committee that's going to

[1:28:22] be formed and meet five times over the next three months and and and help us

[1:28:26] out. So >> yeah,

[1:28:28] » um >> we need to find we I guess my real point

[1:28:31] is we need to find a way to to inform residents that there are

[1:28:36] positions that we need volunteers to help us on. and if you would be willing

[1:28:41] to help. >> Yeah.

[1:28:42] » And at least have some applications or resumes or whatever it is in place so

[1:28:46] when the time comes we're not going well I don't know who's going to do that job.

[1:28:52] » Well I think one of the problems is we still don't have a database of all

[1:28:57] residents. So we have 500 homes. We have it for taxes. We don't have it

[1:29:06] for communication. We got addresses for everybody. You

[1:29:10] could do a direct. >> We don't have email or text.

[1:29:13] » Email or phones or text. >> We really need to broaden that and be

[1:29:18] more inclusive of all residents. And maybe investing in something like

[1:29:25] constant contact would be um a good tool to use.

[1:29:32] And um but any if if Yeah.

[1:29:38] » Are you aware of constant con? >> I I ran a business for 17 years. Yes, I

[1:29:43] know. I know it. >> Well, then you know the importance of

[1:29:46] being able to reach out to your audience.

[1:29:48] » Correct. Um the only concern I have about this and I'm going to let Mike

[1:29:53] speak to this because I think it's more of a legal issue. All of those services

[1:29:57] and contacting people via email and phone has to be voluntary on their end

[1:30:01] to provide that information. So if they choose to unsubscribe, much like our

[1:30:05] eblast, we can't forcibly keep sending emails or phone calls or texts to people

[1:30:10] if they say I don't want it. >> So So that's the only concern I have

[1:30:14] about having that kind of database, but on a volunteer basis, of course. And and

[1:30:18] we have our uh our eblast available already as kind of

[1:30:21] » what percentage of households do you have emails or a text number for? What

[1:30:28] percentage roughly? I don't know that I can give you that number because again I

[1:30:33] don't keep a phone and email database because I'm not aware of the legality of

[1:30:36] that. We have addresses the way we normally the way we traditionally

[1:30:40] contact all the residents in the village when we need to for example for large

[1:30:43] items to pick up is by USPS and we do have a database of everybody's address

[1:30:49] » but the e-class is >> what I guess that's [clears throat]

[1:30:53] emails >> that's email correct that's that's where

[1:30:56] people signed up through our website >> right is 20% or 80% is it

[1:31:00] » that's a hard number to guess because I think that

[1:31:03] » oh I guess if there's two in a household >> a similar question was posed back when

[1:31:07] Ken was manager and we we pulled up the eblast directory that we have on our

[1:31:11] website and there is a silly number of emails on there. I'm talking about like

[1:31:16] over 1,800 because what happens is >> the eblast has existed for years.

[1:31:21] Residents signed up that moved from the village their email is still rattling

[1:31:24] around there or residents got a new Gmail

[1:31:27] » they're not using their old one. >> So it's 200% is the answer.

[1:31:31] » Correct. So, so it's very hard to nail down how many percentage of active

[1:31:34] residents we have because of that overshot.

[1:31:37] » It's doable. It's just getting a plan together.

[1:31:39] » What about I mean I think we we as council members

[1:31:45] » we can all do our part. We can meet people on the street.

[1:31:47] » Y >> um you know I mean we can just throw all

[1:31:50] kinds of ideas out. >> Yep.

[1:31:52] » Of absolutely >> you know [clears throat]

[1:31:54] hey what if every one of us visits two people that we don't know.

[1:32:00] » Yeah. Well, the other thing >> it doesn't count when it's people, you

[1:32:02] know, and then let them know I this is this is what I do. Do you want to help?

[1:32:07] And do you have two other people that I can talk to or that they can talk to?

[1:32:12] » So, so that I was going to add my next comment. We're about to do the postcard

[1:32:16] mailing for the fall large item pickup. >> We're already tacking on the um fence

[1:32:21] ordinance survey uh onto that to get feedback from the residents. We can

[1:32:25] easily add a bullet point on there for villages. Always looking for a

[1:32:28] volunteers. Here's the link to that. Yes. A star somehow somewhere.

[1:32:31] » Absolutely. >> It's just hard for me to believe there's

[1:32:33] so there's so many retired people in this community, especially in

[1:32:38] » Yes. >> I know.

[1:32:41] [laughter]

[1:32:44] » On September 4th, I >> Yeah. [laughter]

[1:32:48] » September 4th of which year. >> I've said that every September 4th for

[1:32:53] the past [laughter] 20 years. >> Send your right.

[1:32:56] » But yes, there's a ton of knowledge. But there's just people I just think if they

[1:33:00] were encouraged and informed with we could get a dozen maybe that said.

[1:33:06] » Yeah. >> No, I think you're right. I think it's

[1:33:08] we're missing a a great opportunity to engage people that are so valuable to

[1:33:15] our village and I know that they would love to contribute too. So, it's just a

[1:33:19] matter of making that >> I don't I have to say I don't remember

[1:33:22] how the whole the roads committee had a good that was a good group of people.

[1:33:26] I'm not sure how the village I'm not sure how I found out about it.

[1:33:30] » Well, part of it is networking. >> Friends of friends, I think

[1:33:33] » they do. >> I have a friend on Bristol who knows all

[1:33:36] the other people on Bristol. [laughter] >> Well, yes.

[1:33:39] » And he went to Jim Burley and >> I think Lisa had people

[1:33:45] » Oh, yeah. >> I think so.

[1:33:46] » Yeah. >> Yeah. I think putting in in the mailing

[1:33:49] would be good. >> Yeah. I don't recall if we did a mailing

[1:33:51] for the roads committee, but I know we definitely did an eblast and I think we

[1:33:55] did like a news uh posting on our website as well in addition to

[1:33:59] » go back and just look and say this is what we did because I somehow the word

[1:34:03] got out. >> I can go back and look some of the news

[1:34:05] notifications time out after their deadline. So obviously I can't pull up

[1:34:09] something that's no longer there, but >> six.

[1:34:15] » Oh, >> that's right. Okay. So yeah, we included

[1:34:18] it in the special roads newsletter then too that we were looking for volunteers

[1:34:21] for the road committee because I think Yeah, that's right. The first newsletter

[1:34:24] went out before the committee. [clears throat] Second one went out

[1:34:26] after the committee. >> Are police and fire departments? They

[1:34:28] have pretty good like social media. >> That be a great place to latch on to

[1:34:34] their >> social

[1:34:40] donuts.

[1:34:43] » Well, they do a good job. They like, you know, I

[1:34:49] Yeah. >> Well, they do a great job. So, we can

[1:34:53] latch on to them and also use that resource.

[1:34:59] » It's about 500 homes. >> I had a lot of success in Oakland

[1:35:04] Township by piggybacking on like the Pinker Trail. people who live nearby or

[1:35:08] visited the area would follow that Facebook page or social media and would

[1:35:13] maybe see things that they wouldn't otherwise really care to follow like a

[1:35:17] government site, you know. >> I don't know. Just an idea.

[1:35:24] » I'll get with the chiefs and see what

[1:35:28] the other thing is that when I look at emails, some things just have a sameness

[1:35:33] to them. So, I don't >> open it. I just sort of, you know, every

[1:35:38] month I get this, you know, it looks the same.

[1:35:40] » And so we need to vary communication, you know, and that's where the email and

[1:35:45] the text messages would come into play >> like with boxwood. And the issue that

[1:35:50] happened all over our community was should you shouldn't you destroy your

[1:35:53] boxwood plants? And the answer was 13313, you know, chemical that's going

[1:35:58] to rejuvenate the boxwoods. just sharing that information with our friends and

[1:36:04] neighbors through email or a special text. So, it's like an alert for

[1:36:09] emergencies or concerns. Uh, and I think the police and the fire department would

[1:36:13] take huge if we had a better database. I'm thinking that they surely would want

[1:36:19] to send some messaging on certain kind of things.

[1:36:25] » So, >> it's like code riding. do have that for

[1:36:28] for true emergencies. >> That's for emergencies.

[1:36:31] » Yeah, true emergencies. Yeah. >> But for true emergencies, we even don't

[1:36:36] have it. >> I mean, there's no way if there's a

[1:36:40] tornado coming that >> code red.

[1:36:42] » Code red. >> Code red. If you have it,

[1:36:45] » if you have it red. >> Yeah.

[1:36:54] I think I think we should try to at least maybe come up for the next meeting

[1:36:58] some type of proposal. It doesn't have to be much, but just get something

[1:37:02] memorialized that, you know, we're going to put it on the direct mailing that's

[1:37:06] going out. We're going to attempt to get uh uh a better database to email people,

[1:37:11] text people. I I've never heard of this app, Contact. What was it? Contact.

[1:37:16] » Constant contact. >> Constant contact.

[1:37:19] I've got enough constant contacts. So, >> but that's the problem today. You get

[1:37:25] » a thousand emails a day, most of which are

[1:37:28] » nothing. >> Yeah.

[1:37:31] » Yes. It's true. >> But we really need to do it as a

[1:37:37] council. We really need to do a better job of informing people that there are

[1:37:40] opportunities. I really don't know how people are going to know.

[1:37:47] What if I want to be on the planning commission, but I don't even know what

[1:37:50] to do to get there >> or when it's gonna happen.

[1:37:54] » So, okay.

[1:38:02] » All right. Thank you, Eric. >> Do you want to move on to the treasures

[1:38:07] report? >> Yes. Thank you. Last but not certainly

[1:38:11] least, >> not least, [clears throat]

[1:38:13] » we have a handful of items under the treasures report. um this evening. The

[1:38:18] first one uh is in your packet uh is regarding a resolution regarding public

[1:38:23] act 152 which is known as the public funding insurance act uh contribution

[1:38:29] act for annual exemption. Um it happens on a yearly basis. Uh the state of

[1:38:34] Michigan sends it to me. It's due back to them by the 30th of September. And

[1:38:38] what it does is just exempts us for the year under the rules of it. The reason

[1:38:44] it came about was uh just a real quick history lesson. Council back in 2005

[1:38:50] determined that since the employees of the village do not the village does not

[1:38:55] uh provide health care benefits after retirement when you leave the village

[1:38:59] that they would just exempt themselves from this public act. So you know we

[1:39:03] have our insurance benefits once we leave and or retire those don't go into

[1:39:08] a retirement like the autos and some of the other companies did in the past

[1:39:11] year. So every year it comes in front of council in order as a resolution to

[1:39:15] approve recommend and approve uh the resolution so that we can exempt

[1:39:20] ourselves and send back the paper. >> Conditions associated with that or you

[1:39:23] just say we don't want to participate. >> We well we meet all the the requirements

[1:39:27] of of what the conditions are and we do exempt ourselves. Uh the only other one

[1:39:32] is that it has to be approved by twothirds of the sitting body of of the

[1:39:36] council that's in session at the time.

[1:39:40] » I think it's Do we need to vote on that?

[1:39:43] » Uh, yes, it is a resolution. >> Okay.

[1:39:50] » Someone needs to offer it. Someone needs move that we approve the annual

[1:39:54] exemption of public act 152. >> Second.

[1:40:00] » Hi. >> Howard.

[1:40:01] » Hi. >> Miller.

[1:40:02] » Hi. >> Michigan.

[1:40:04] » I

[1:40:08] Alexander. Hi.

[1:40:12] resolution passes. Thank you. Second item is uh more familiar as it is every

[1:40:18] month, approval of the bills for August of 2026. Um that is also in your packet,

[1:40:24] but I'll just read through the dispersements and then entertain any

[1:40:27] questions that council may have. uh under the general fund from the period

[1:40:31] of July [snorts] 23rd 2026 through o August 19th 2026

[1:40:40] we dispersed $222,314.7

[1:40:45] out of the general fund out of the gas and weight fund for the same time period

[1:40:50] was $183,434.97

[1:40:55] for a total of 415,7 $7494.

[1:41:01] Um, I'll just bring to council's attention. The

[1:41:06] 183,434 under the gas and weight was the first

[1:41:10] payment for phase two of the road project that we received uh a letter and

[1:41:16] information from HRC saying that they reviewed everything. They have the hold

[1:41:20] back in it. And what was they said should be approved for payment on this

[1:41:24] portion of it for the work that was completed was the 1384 34 and 97 cents.

[1:41:30] Um any other questions that I can answer regarding the dispersements for the

[1:41:34] checks?

[1:41:37] None. With that, that motion uh is in front of council for for your uh action

[1:41:43] on that motion. I make a motion to ex to approve the expenditures from July 23rd

[1:41:49] through August 18th, 2026. >> I'll second

[1:42:01] just all in favor. >> I I

[1:42:05] » Any opposed? Great. We'll move to the third item or

[1:42:11] third item on it. uh accept the financial statements for July [snorts]

[1:42:15] 2026. It is also a motion. In your packet, you have the revenue and expense

[1:42:20] report for the period ending July 31st, 2026.

[1:42:25] Um it's pretty self-explanatory. I did want to bring to council's attention one

[1:42:30] oversight that was on my behalf. It was my fault. If you look halfway down the

[1:42:35] page on the first page, you'll see under the cell phone, there are 690 I'm sorry,

[1:42:40] $6825 under the balance. There's only a $25

[1:42:45] for the cell phone. When I put the three items in, uh, it picked up I miskeyed in

[1:42:50] the one account number. So, that has since been adjusted. It is not 227% of

[1:42:55] the budget. It moved to a motion for not a motion, but for a membership for Jamie

[1:43:00] and then there was mileage. So that has been corrected and it will be reflected

[1:43:05] in uh next month's financial statements as well. Uh and then pretty

[1:43:10] straightforward as well. Obviously this is the first month of the new fiscal

[1:43:13] year that we're in. So everything else was was just in in line as you can see

[1:43:18] under the portion of the revenue taxes are coming in uh typically just as they

[1:43:23] are. We should get a big download from the mortgage companies sometime this

[1:43:28] week, beginning of next week. they wait till the very end before penalties are

[1:43:33] assessed and they'll do a drop load uh to the county and then the county sends

[1:43:37] me reports. So we have um you know right now it's been pretty constant as it has

[1:43:43] been every year um without very many exceptions whatsoever. Um that leads me

[1:43:50] to the second portion which is the investments. Um, those have been updated

[1:43:54] and you know, as you as I um continue to tell council every month, I always watch

[1:44:00] them. I make sure that we're trying to maximize any benefit that's out there

[1:44:05] for ones that are coming to maturity and expiration. Um, and you have it for both

[1:44:11] the general fund and the road fund. If there's any questions that I could

[1:44:14] answer about those, I'm I'm more than happy to.

[1:44:17] » If I could step back for a minute, last year we had a lot of push back from uh

[1:44:21] well more than push back. It was challenges from some of the commercial

[1:44:25] properties of their taxable value and I know there was some adjustments made

[1:44:30] there. Is any of that going on this year?

[1:44:32] » There is. Um as a matter of fact uh Joe was kind enough since he sits a lot on

[1:44:36] the review board uh he always provides me information um before I it's I don't

[1:44:41] want to say publicly available but he takes the active role and brings it to

[1:44:46] me of what the the board has looked and which ones are going to the Michigan uh

[1:44:49] tribunal. So, there are a couple that are still out there. Um, there has not

[1:44:54] been any decisions. It wasn't as much as it had been in the past. Um, the listing

[1:44:59] that I get, I do log in and and read the docu the the information on what's put

[1:45:04] on the docket and where it currently is in the process. Um, we're on there for a

[1:45:09] handful this current year. It's typically the large commercial districts

[1:45:13] that that do it regularly. They wait so many years and then they'll file again.

[1:45:17] Beverly Hills had a couple that were on there and Franklin had one or two, I

[1:45:21] believe, that were on there, but it's not to the extent as it was this p the

[1:45:25] past fiscal year. Yes. >> Yep.

[1:45:31] » I have seen a little bit, just to comment secondary, I have seen a lot of

[1:45:34] things come through too as houses uh sale and people change their primary

[1:45:40] exemption for their residency. a lot of them move from Florida and now they take

[1:45:44] that off on the floor or wherever their other

[1:45:46] » primary uh exemption is and they move it back to here. So I get those reports

[1:45:50] from the county every week. Uh and I don't I'm not able to go in and actually

[1:45:55] change it. The township is the one that has the ability to update. It's called

[1:45:59] the lamb system. So they're the ones that go in and and move the exemption

[1:46:03] from uh primary exemption from non-exempt to exempt. Uh and that does

[1:46:09] not affect the village taxes and the reason why the township does it is

[1:46:13] because it goes to the schools and all of the other stuff. So we don't

[1:46:17] » this at all. >> Right. Correct. And that's why they have

[1:46:19] the responsibility of updating it. So I keep in close contact with Kim, the

[1:46:23] treasurer that's in Southfield Township. We

[1:46:25] » But there's people actually moving back from Florida to declare this is their

[1:46:28] primary res. >> Well, ne not necessarily not necessarily

[1:46:31] moving back, but they move I'll get a lot. It's surprising. Florida really is

[1:46:36] very uh I don't want to say hawkish on making sure I'll get a lot of calls that

[1:46:41] says >> can you verify and confirm that they're

[1:46:43] not this this particular parcel is not claiming primary exemption because

[1:46:48] they're doing because you can't have it in both states. So there's no other way

[1:46:52] for them to they could query it but they end up calling me and and have me

[1:46:56] confirm whether or not it's either >> primary or non-primary. Right. So, uh,

[1:47:01] we have seen that. But to answer your question, um, Eric, it is not

[1:47:05] necessarily that they're moving back, but they look at what the taxes are in

[1:47:09] the impact hour in whatever the state it is, and whatever is the most beneficial

[1:47:13] for them, they'll unfile there and they'll file back here.

[1:47:17] » And with the stuff that's going on in Florida right now about the elimination

[1:47:20] of property tax, it's going to be a >> Yes.

[1:47:25] » Yep. >> Any other questions I can answer?

[1:47:30] I mean, we're doing fine. We're we're, you know, interest rates are aren't

[1:47:34] going to stay a relative, but we have some that are in there that we have

[1:47:39] maturity on that are still going up. There's some that are going to be coming

[1:47:42] up. And then I always go and work the financial institutions to see if they

[1:47:46] squeak out a couple more basis points for us.

[1:47:48] » Treasuries are up considerably this week, aren't they?

[1:47:51] » Well, that Well, if you take a look at what happened to the bond market, that

[1:47:55] had a big impact. So again, you know, we were talking earlier about roads

[1:47:58] inflation and all that stuff when you have things that are jerking back and

[1:48:02] forth. Uh sometimes when I look at it, it's nice to know that we have set rates

[1:48:06] that are that are there that are that are Yes, exactly.

[1:48:10] » Uh but we'll continue to keep an eye on that. So if there's no other questions

[1:48:14] on that, the motion is in front of council for for that uh for the

[1:48:17] investments and for the financial statements.

[1:48:20] » I make a motion to accept the financial statements of July 22.

[1:48:24] I second. >> All in favor?

[1:48:28] » Any opposed? >> Motion passes. Jamie, I'm taking your

[1:48:32] job. >> Um I just thought I would just since

[1:48:35] it's it's my deal right now. Um the last two items are are really easy. Um the

[1:48:41] reason why there's nothing included in your packet on the uh not to exceed fees

[1:48:45] are that I typically get invoices from HRC around the 21st through the 24th.

[1:48:52] [clears throat] So, I haven't had any new invoices come that are updated. The

[1:48:56] last one that was in the last packet was as of June 30th. So, as soon as I get

[1:49:00] those, obviously, I will make sure that they're in next month's um next month's

[1:49:05] packet. But, as you said, we're winding down on um phase one. I talked to Brad a

[1:49:11] little bit today back and forth and uh obviously that one's going to come in.

[1:49:15] We're we're I think virtually pretty much done with a couple of other hitless

[1:49:20] things that have to be completed taken care of. Right.

[1:49:24] » Need to close that out. >> Right. So, um with that and then, you

[1:49:29] know, phase two is moving along pretty fast. As I came back to this meeting, I

[1:49:33] saw they've got the apron portion uh of that kind of torn up and blocked off.

[1:49:38] and you saw the um the notice email from uh HRC that was sent out on Friday about

[1:49:43] what the intention was with weather, what's the next portion of it. So that

[1:49:47] should uh relatively uh finish up fairly quickly in my opinion and then that'll

[1:49:53] give us again a good staging point to start looking at where do we go from

[1:49:57] here regarding phase three. But that's the answer of why there's nothing in the

[1:50:02] package because I don't have any updates for you.

[1:50:06] Appreciate the time. >> Thank you.

[1:50:10] » Comment

[1:50:17] to a motion to >> adjourn.

[1:50:20] Move to >> second.

[1:50:22] » Second.

[1:50:26] » Thank you. [clears throat] Good night everybody.

Village of Bingham Farms Council Meeting Live on August 24, 2026 at 7:00 PM

Transcript