[0:04] Is Tim coming? >> I believe so.

[0:16] » There he is. Are you going to have a pen by any

[0:18] chance? >> I do not.

[0:21] » Well, I got it. I found it. So excited.

[0:26] » You found something really good? >> Yeah, look at that thing.

[0:29] » Oh, the blue one? >> Yeah.

[0:31] My kids keep stealing my pens, so I got a 20 pack. Still have three left

[0:38] Can I have Can I have two of them? >> Did you all buy them at the store?

[0:40] » No. >> Or you just went to the

[0:43] » I went to >> the county

[0:44] » Amazon Basics. They get delivered with The county's got a supply

[0:50] cabinet. >> You can go.

[0:55] » I may need some of that sleep aid stuff.

[0:57] » I remember a retiree telling me once for the first time in my life I had a gold

[1:00] side. And

[1:02] » Yeah. >> You know, I just used to I'm being free.

[1:05] It's not free. >> had the odd stuff. It it it was like I

[1:08] was asking somebody I didn't know. I was

[1:10] like, "Ask Denise how much talk to her and say my office has six

[1:13] reams of paper and all our ribbons I was like, "This is awesome."

[1:19] » Yeah, governments are weird. >> Kleenex was not free. You can't get your

[1:23] own. But the county provides Kleenex, so

[1:32] We eliminated personal office trash cans, so we had to

[1:36] go out to like a central place. >> They are?

[1:39] » They did. >> Oh.

[1:40] » Years ago. >> Oh.

[1:42] » Jeez. Now, like so I went and bought my own.

[1:45] » Mhm. >> I'm going to throw it here and then I'll

[1:47] go down I'm not going to

[1:51] one piece of paper.

[1:55] » All right, gang's all here. It is up the hour. I'm Trustees to order. This is our

[2:00] regular meeting of Wednesday, August 19th.

[2:03] Item one is roll call and I will call the roll. Mr. Snowink is absent with

[2:06] notice. Mr. Hermanet? >> Here.

[2:08] » Mr. Bradshaw? >> Here.

[2:09] » Harrison is here. Ms. Henry? >> Here.

[2:12] » Mr. Zoller? >> Here.

[2:13] » Mr. Robertson? >> Here.

[2:15] » We have a quorum. Item two is pledge of allegiance and invocation. Please stand.

[2:22] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[2:27] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[2:33] justice for all. >> We are thankful this evening for the

[2:38] opportunity and honor of being here to represent our friends and neighbors. We

[2:41] ask that you guide our work. Help us to do well.

[2:45] Help us to do the will of those who sent us here and do your will. We give thanks

[2:49] for those who protect us while we're here, those in the police and fire and

[2:52] military. We ask that you give them your protection and comfort to their

[2:55] families. We ask this all in your name. Amen.

[3:03] Item three, consideration of the meeting agenda. Board members have received your

[3:07] agenda and reviewed it and its contents. Are there any additions, deletions,

[3:11] clarifications?

[3:15] Seeing and hearing none. Item four or

[3:18] » We need a motion. >> Motion.

[3:20] » Support. >> Motion and support to approve. All in

[3:23] favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Item four is public comment. This is an

[3:27] opportunity to address the board for up to two minutes. Does anyone wish to do

[3:30] so? >> Yes, ma'am.

[3:33] » Welcome. Could you state your name and where you

[3:36] reside? >> My name is Angela Reefer and I reside

[3:40] off of 76th Street. Um

[3:45] Do you need a specific address? Okay. >> sufficient. Thank you.

[3:47] » I'm just bringing before the board, I know you've seen it um on Caledonia

[3:52] Babble, the issue of the stop sign that I requested from uh

[3:58] the road commission for a four-way stop, a roundabout, something to make that at

[4:03] Cherry Valley and 76 safer for those of us that travel it.

[4:09] Uh my husband owns a landscape company, Horner Warner, Klosterman's, there's

[4:13] tons of them and they're trying to travel and go through that stop sign

[4:17] with large equipment behind them. And it's limited sight distance. It's not

[4:22] from brush, it's a hill on each side and people are flying down there. And there

[4:28] have been accidents and the road commission

[4:32] has denied and denied and says there has to be five injuries in a year's time for

[4:37] us to even consider that and you're really telling me someone has to

[4:41] get hurt before you consider it unsafe? So, I'm coming before the board to ask

[4:46] for your help, your support. I will plan on going to their board meeting as

[4:51] suggested as well. Um I don't know if I can go to next week's, but possibly the

[4:55] next one. And I want it on the books that it's being requested, it's being

[5:00] asked for to be taken seriously. Um before somebody gets hurt. And if

[5:06] somebody does get hurt, then it's on the books. We've asked for it. So, who then

[5:12] would be accountable? >> Great.

[5:15] Couple things I would just encourage. One is there's both the county elected

[5:19] board and then there's the appointed uh road commission board, so you could

[5:22] probably make connections with both just to make sure everyone's hearing your

[5:26] concerns. And uh one thing we can do is ask for an

[5:30] updated traffic study. I know one of the reasons they gave for their denial or

[5:33] lack of support was uh it doesn't have the traffic counts, so it's not just

[5:37] accidents, which are obviously serious, but traffic counts. We can request

[5:41] updated traffic counts. I'm not sure when the last time they counted.

[5:45] Once things get back to normal, they probably wouldn't do it right now with

[5:48] things being closed and >> Well,

[5:50] the engineer that I've communicated with, I have all

[5:54] that they said that they pulled it and there wasn't an accident there since

[5:58] 2022. An accident with injuries. And I have quoted multiple accidents. I live

[6:04] right there. There was one a month ago. Airbags were deployed. They hauled off

[6:08] the vehicle. There was one a month before that where it's all over

[6:11] Caledonia babble and people are like that's a horrible place to try to cross

[6:15] and so [clears throat] I tried to call Michigan State Police,

[6:19] Kent County Sheriff. They all point me somewhere else to call to get these

[6:24] numbers and I can't get them. I contacted Molenaar's office and they

[6:29] gave me a couple places where I could go on the federal level to try to get some

[6:34] support. I hope to not have to go to that point, but I now have numbers I can

[6:39] at least try to call. Um, my voice isn't going to go away on this.

[6:43] This affects I have my family, my son lives next door. I have friends all

[6:49] around there, the farmers, all of us. We're concerned and so my voice isn't

[6:53] going to go away just because I don't get the answers that I'm looking for.

[6:58] » And again, just for clarity, we don't have jurisdiction or discretion. We can

[7:03] help raise your voice and amplify it. Uh, but whether it's stop signs or speed

[7:07] limits, which we often hear about, they are the deciding agency. So, we can work

[7:13] with you, but we can't say you're right. >> that.

[7:15] » Well, let's get her done. So, thanks. >> Thank you.

[7:17] » Yep. Any other public comment? Hi, welcome.

[7:22] » Thank you. My name is Susan DeNues, 7701 92nd

[7:27] Street, Caledonia. During the June 15th Planning Commission

[7:31] meeting, public comments included a request to

[7:35] extend the data center moratorium for an additional year to study the

[7:40] effects of data centers on the community.

[7:44] The planning commission unanimously passed a motion to recommend a 3-month

[7:49] moratorium from the October 17th date with additional 3-month increments as

[7:56] needed. You the township board is then obligated

[8:00] to take up the matter in a timely fashion.

[8:04] I was hoping to find that 3-month extension on the agenda tonight.

[8:09] The October deadline is fast approaching.

[8:12] The planning commission continued their discussion of the data center proposal

[8:16] Monday night. However, by their own admission, there

[8:20] was still a great deal to discuss and research.

[8:24] Obviously, a well-developed proposal is essential to the health of our community

[8:30] and time is needed to accomplish the work. [clears throat]

[8:33] The planning commissioners said it themselves that we must get this right.

[8:38] A minimum of a 3-month extension to the moratorium is needed with additional

[8:43] 3-month increments as needed, too.

[8:47] Thank you. >> Sure. Thank you.

[8:49] Again, just quickly, one, I agree with you. We're following legal counsel's uh

[8:55] uh advice as far as when we do that. And I would anticipate that it's likely we

[8:59] will do that uh at our September meeting. So, uh

[9:03] » I hope if you know, I hope so because um time's ticking

[9:09] and um the October >> Yeah, I don't think you'll see a lapse.

[9:13] Given the status of the work, I think it's justified and we can legally defend

[9:17] it. Yeah, we've seen challenges to moratoriums already popping up in other

[9:22] communities, or at least one. Like some had a moratorium and a

[9:26] data center developer is now challenging it in the courts. So, we want to make

[9:29] sure we're not vulnerable and that we can defend it. So.

[9:32] » Well, I think it's easily defended because there's a lot of work to be

[9:35] done. >> I agree.

[9:37] I I agree. So, >> just uh let's work together and do it

[9:41] responsibly and defensively, and I think we will get there.

[9:45] All right. Thank you. All right. Other public comment?

[9:50] Thank you. We will close public comment.

[9:55] Item five, inquiry of conflict of interest. Board members having approved

[9:58] tonight's agenda and reviewed its items, does anyone have an interest in any of

[10:01] the listed items to declare?

[10:06] Seeing none. Item six is approval of the consent

[10:09] agenda. Admittedly, there are a number of items in here that I hope uh would

[10:13] have broad board support, but any of them can be removed for further

[10:15] discussion or clarification, or they can be

[10:19] uh approved together. So, what is the will of the board? Anyone wishing to

[10:23] remove any of these items? >> Motion to approve.

[10:27] » Support. >> Moved by Zoller, supported by Hermanat,

[10:29] that we approve the consent agenda. All in favor, please say I.

[10:32] » I. >> Opposed, say no.

[10:35] Just for the community that may be paying attention to at least some of the

[10:38] backroom issues, there are two items on the consent agenda. One is uh

[10:43] our township manager has left us, so there is going to be a replacement

[10:46] process uh to determine how process will go about. And also an

[10:52] interim reverting most of those duties back to

[10:55] the supervisor, uh who doesn't necessarily want them, but it is those

[10:59] duties are uh typically within the supervisor's

[11:03] jurisdiction in the absence of a manager, so they're delegated to them.

[11:07] So, in the absence uh many of those will be coming back to the

[11:10] supervisor until we are able to make that replacement.

[11:14] Uh With that, we do have a number of things

[11:16] listed under reports of board officers, committees, and staff for your review.

[11:21] Uh we also have correspondence from the Grand Valley Metro Council thanking us

[11:24] for our >> I'm sorry. I need to interrupt you.

[11:27] » You want a roll call vote? >> A roll call just because we have a

[11:30] resolution on >> Okay, Mr. Hermanat, on the items listed

[11:32] in the uh consent agenda, how do you vote?

[11:36] » Yes. >> Mr. Bradshaw.

[11:38] » Yes. >> Harrison is yes. Ms. Henry.

[11:40] » Yes. >> Mr. Zoller.

[11:41] » Yes. >> And Mr. Robertson.

[11:42] » Aye. >> And that those items will all be

[11:44] recorded as being approved unanimously by the board.

[11:47] » Thank you.

[11:50] » Uh item nine is a resolution I'm sorry, unfinished business. Item one is a

[11:54] resolution to approve access and grant permit for use of township right-of-way.

[11:57] This is a application by Surf Air Wireless LLC. Uh

[12:03] we are bringing actually two of these uh

[12:06] for tonight and we've had some assistance from the township engineer,

[12:10] township staff, but I'm going to defer to our

[12:14] resident engineer on the board, Mr. Bradshaw. I know you've monitored some

[12:19] of the back and forth from the staff as far as what are the

[12:23] we can't say no, but we that we can say yes with conditions. I think would be an

[12:27] easy way of explaining this and one of those conditions we are reviewing is

[12:31] what type of performance uh

[12:34] requirements and uh protections as far as bonds we should require. Uh so, that

[12:39] is uh part of our review. Mr. Bradshaw. >> Sure. So, there's two draft resolutions

[12:45] in the packet. One is called bilateral and one is unilateral. I would recommend

[12:51] that we Well, I guess this isn't an action recommendation,

[12:56] just my personal review. Um there's one for just 5 years and that's the one that

[13:01] I think we should go with. The other basically approves their

[13:06] um ability to work in the right-of-way for 15 years and just knowing that this

[13:10] company has had some challenges in other

[13:13] locations in our area, I think uh the potential to see this every 5 years is a

[13:18] good thing for checks and balances. Um

[13:22] I also understand from the resolution and Metro Act sheet that

[13:31] um

[13:33] So, there's a difference. In my previous work, uh

[13:38] I was the administrator of the right-of-way. We

[13:41] are just giving them the ability to locate in the right-of-way, and then the

[13:45] details of where that is going to go actually gets worked out in a additional

[13:50] permitting process with the road commission. So, while I think these maps

[13:54] are pretty terrible, I think that they meet the basic first step,

[13:59] [clears throat] and I'm okay with approving them.

[14:01] Um but, the road commission, once they get them, hopefully much better maps,

[14:06] needs to take a closer look because there's lines all over the place that

[14:10] are still not within rights-of-way and are all over our private property, but

[14:14] it's the general intent is how it's described in the act of where they want

[14:20] to put the lines, and then tighter plans will be available later. So.

[14:25] For all of those reasons, I would make a motion that we

[14:30] approve the unilateral permit for 5 years.

[14:35] » And with a performance bond of 1.4 million dollars is recommended.

[14:38] » Yes. >> All right.

[14:40] In support, moved by Bradshaw, supported by Armanet, to approve the unilateral

[14:45] permit for 5-year term with a 1.4 million dollar performance bond.

[14:50] Question, and not to put Stephanie on the spot, but we do have Stephanie

[14:54] Skidmore here who has been working with legal counsel. Are we able to recover

[14:57] the cost of getting to this approval point? Do you

[15:01] know? >> Um the application fee was $500.

[15:05] » Got you. >> So, it will cover a portion of our

[15:08] costs, but not all of our >> Okay.

[15:10] Thank you for that. Okay, with that as an understanding, is

[15:13] there any public comment on this issue of approving our right-of-way permit?

[15:18] Seeing none, uh

[15:20] all in favor? Or is it I will call Mr. Robertson.

[15:25] » Um there are two resolutions. Do we have to

[15:28] take the first resolution up and deny it, and then the second? Cuz we're only

[15:33] Or are we just skipping? >> I think we're skipping it and the

[15:37] motion was to approve the the unilateral.

[15:40] » Thank you. >> Yes, correct.

[15:42] » All right. So >> before us is the unilateral permit by

[15:46] resolution to approve the right of way for 5-year term with a $1.4 million

[15:51] bond. I will call the roll. Mr. Hermenet?

[15:54] » Yes. >> Bradshaw?

[15:55] » Yes. >> Harrison is yes. Henry?

[15:57] » Yes. >> Zoller?

[15:58] » Yes. >> Robertson?

[15:59] » I. >> All right.

[16:01] Thank you, board members. M10B, this is a resolution to approve access grant

[16:05] permit township right of way. Oh, sorry. Those are two listed and we will just

[16:09] skip over those. I think that's what Dick was asking. Now I understand. Thank

[16:13] you. Uh 9C is an ordinance. This is under

[16:16] second read, so final read. This is to amend the zoning ordinance of the

[16:19] Charter Township of Caledonia regarding the keeping of pets and livestock and uh

[16:24] various architectural standards. We did have a brief report from our planning

[16:29] commission member at the last one. Do you want to add anything or remind us of

[16:33] anything before we consider this? >> No, I if there's questions, I can do my

[16:38] best to answer them, but >> Okay.

[16:40] Again, this is this a ongoing and periodic update of ordinances as we see

[16:45] the need and so this will make those changes and they will become

[16:49] uh part of our standing ordinances upon approval. Is there any public comment?

[16:54] Seeing none. Uh

[16:58] I will call the roll. Mr. Hermenet? >> Yes.

[17:00] » Bradshaw? >> Yes.

[17:01] » Oh, actually I need a motion. >> Okay. Motion to approve. Second.

[17:05] » Zoller will second. Zoller will second by Bradshaw. Mr. Hermenet, how do you

[17:08] vote? >> Yes.

[17:09] » Yes. >> Bradshaw, Harrison is yes. Miss Henry?

[17:11] » Yes. >> Mr. Zoller?

[17:12] » Yes. >> And Mr. Robertson?

[17:14] » I. >> All All

[17:16] 10A is a motion to approve the renewal of the Guardian Insurance employee

[17:19] dental, vision, life, and accidental death and dismemberment policies for the

[17:22] plan year of October 1, 2026 through September 30th, 2027.

[17:27] There's a memorandum explaining the cost of these, but this

[17:31] is our employee um benefit package. Uh

[17:35] it maintains our current providers, which uh and benefit levels and

[17:39] contribution levels. There are some increases in the costs,

[17:44] uh but staff uh are happy with the providers, so we are encouraging the

[17:47] board to support uh the continued uh funding of these benefits through this

[17:52] provider. Is there any questions?

[17:57] Any discussion?

[18:00] » Make a motion we approve. >> Moved by Henry. Is there support?

[18:07] » I will support. >> Uh any any discussion?

[18:11] Any public comment?

[18:15] All in favor of renewal of Guardian employee dental, vision, life, and

[18:18] accidental death and dismemberment, please say I.

[18:21] » I. >> Any opposed, say no.

[18:23] And that has been approved. Item 10B, this is a resolution to again

[18:29] approve access and grant permit use for the township right-of-way. This is for

[18:32] Peninsula Fiber Network, LLC. Uh

[18:36] it's a unilateral permit and a performance bond has been recommended of

[18:39] $850,000. Uh again, Mr. Bradshaw, anything

[18:43] additional or different from the one as far as the provider, what's been

[18:47] provided to us as far as mapping? Uh is this one ready for our

[18:51] consideration and approval? >> Yes, in my opinion it is ready and these

[18:54] maps are much more indicative of what I would call a good submittal. So, nice

[19:00] job to their drawing department. >> All right.

[19:05] » I will just point out that on the back of the resolution exhibit B, the bond

[19:10] says not required. On this agreement.

[19:15] » We removed that. >> We are requiring

[19:18] a bond. >> Yes. We crossed the line uh

[19:22] » It's on the very back page exhibit B. >> Okay.

[19:26] Let's do this.

[19:32] So that the record is clear. Um

[19:37] I don't believe we had a motion. Remind me if we had one.

[19:39] » I don't think we had a motion. >> Okay. I make a motion that we amend

[19:43] uh the right-of-way permit uh exhibit B to

[19:49] say a bond in the amount of $850,000 performance bond in the amount of

[19:52] $850,000 will be required. >> Support.

[19:57] » Okay. Moved by Harrison, supported by Bradshaw that we amend the permit to

[20:01] require an $850,000 performance bond. Any discussion?

[20:06] All in favor of the amendment, please say I.

[20:08] » I. >> Any opposed, say no.

[20:10] You now have before us the amended permit and we can discuss that. Is there

[20:14] any thoughts, comments on that or a motion to approve?

[20:19] » I make a motion we approve. >> Support.

[20:21] » Moved by Hermanet, supported by Bradshaw that we approve the permit. Uh

[20:27] All in favor, please say I. >> I.

[20:29] » I. >> Any opposed, say no. And we have

[20:31] approved the permit. >> That was a resolution. Do you have to do

[20:34] a roll call? >> Mr. Bradshaw, how do you vote?

[20:36] » Yes. >> Mr. Zoller, how do you vote?

[20:38] » Yes. >> Mr. Ms. Henry?

[20:40] » Yes. >> Mr. Robertson?

[20:41] » Yes. >> Mr. Hermanet?

[20:42] » Yes. >> All right. So I'll be last for once.

[20:45] » You forgot yourself. >> Mr. Harrison votes yes. Thank you.

[20:49] » [clears throat] >> Should just do it the right way.

[20:51] All right. That concludes our business agenda items. Item 11 is public comment

[20:57] extended. Anyone wishing to make public comment?

[21:02] Again, welcome. State who you are, where you reside, and the

[21:06] floor is yours. >> I'm still Susan the mean.

[21:09] And I still live 7701 92nd Street, Caledonia.

[21:15] Thank you. I'm here to request

[21:18] » Could you set it even in front of you? I just want to make sure that it's

[21:21] captured for those who might view these after the fact. I can hear you, but it'd

[21:24] be nice. I know it's >> Is that better?

[21:26] » Our audio keeps dropping out on some of our

[21:28] » Thank you. I'm here to request the Township board to adopt a formal

[21:33] resolution committing to a full and timely update

[21:38] of the Township master plan with full community participation.

[21:44] The current master plan relies on outdated data, including demographic

[21:49] input dating back to 1999 estimates. The most recent community survey survey

[21:57] for master planning was completed in 2006 with a small fraction of the

[22:03] Caledonia residents consulted. The Township's 2024 master plan review

[22:10] did not meet the spirit or purpose of the Michigan Planning Enabling Act

[22:15] requirements as it focused almost exclusively on a small sub area of

[22:21] Caledonia. While the master plan Wait for this.

[22:26] While the master plan is being updated with full community participation

[22:31] and the effects of data centers on our community are scrutinized, I also

[22:37] propose a one-year moratorium on any data center applications or

[22:43] constructions. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[22:47] All right. Additional public comment?

[22:51] All right. Welcome.

[22:56] » All right. Deb Steketee on Valhalla Drive. Um couple of points that I'd like

[23:02] to make uh today. Uh one is I think it's Dr. Robertson,

[23:06] right? Which I appreciate the use of the

[23:10] honorifics and he worked hard to have that uh Dr.

[23:14] beside his name. Um

[23:17] the website today did not include the full packet of the board materials. I

[23:21] know in the past it's typically common and I don't know if this is a new

[23:25] approach or was this an oversight or some other thing that was happening

[23:30] there. So

[23:34] » Go ahead. I'll respond. I actually will respond but use your time and then I'll

[23:37] respond to >> All right.

[23:39] I appreciate it. >> Yep.

[23:40] » Um the final point that I want to talk about is uh

[23:44] an important one I think in that there have been many citizens who have been

[23:48] coming to the planning commission who are really engaged in the whole

[23:52] discussion about data centers and and are taking a lot of time and effort to

[23:57] review the the uh draft ordinance, give input that

[24:01] we think are very uh valuable.

[24:06] However, um the planning commission under the

[24:10] direction of the current chair, um will not provide answers to our

[24:14] questions um at those meetings and I think all of

[24:18] us would be very willing to give up a portion of our public comment time,

[24:23] what 5 minutes can do,

[24:26] uh because some of our questions are very simple to answer. But there is a

[24:31] reluctance um if I'll I'll use reluctance uh to not

[24:36] answer those questions when they are asked. So what we'd like to have is this

[24:41] board to convene a public workshop where citizens can come and get answers to

[24:47] their questions if we can't do it at the meetings. That would be preferable. Um

[24:52] but if not, let's host a public workshop. These are happening in other

[24:57] communities where people can exchange ideas and comments. Um we think that

[25:03] would be a very productive way to get the best result for our township in this

[25:09] this matter. So, I'd like to encourage a discussion with the chair of the

[25:14] planning commission. It doesn't have to be that way. When I was on the planning

[25:18] commission for Caledonia, it was not that way. I can assure you. Um

[25:22] but given that uh

[25:26] absence, a public workshop would be great or maybe both. So, thank you.

[25:30] » Sure. Thank you. And I can and will respond to both. Um

[25:34] the board materials, we've temporarily suspended that. Uh

[25:38] we have found the township's been targeted, I don't know specifically, but

[25:42] it certainly have been targeted by what I would call fraudsters. Uh we've had

[25:47] fraudulent checks written against uh our accounts because we believe they're

[25:51] gaining this information from for lack of a better word, our

[25:55] over-transparency. We're we're publishing things on our uh website,

[25:59] full board packets, and they will go in and glean like who we do our banking

[26:03] with and try to present themselves as representing the bank. We also uh

[26:08] have found a recent application to the planning commission receive an email.

[26:14] Apparently or the appearance was from the chair of the planning commission

[26:18] saying, "We need an extra $3,500 in order for us to consider your

[26:21] application. Here's the way you deposit it." And we

[26:25] believe they gained that, the name of the applica- the applicant, the name of

[26:28] the planning commission chair. So, we have suspended, not canceled, uh

[26:33] publishing that information cuz it's sent to planning commissioners and board

[26:37] members in one form. And so, we now need to probably create a secondary form, and

[26:42] that will require additional staff time review and the process for doing that.

[26:46] So, I think we'll return. In the meantime, anything you if you see that

[26:51] looks interesting, what is it? With apologies for the intro, contact

[26:56] staff and it will be emailed to you directly.

[26:59] Uh >> Okay.

[27:00] » We just can't have it out there. Whether it's AI or just more fraud, you

[27:03] know, if it's available on the web, it's being

[27:06] not used for good

[27:09] » I understand >> neighbors. It's bad intent.

[27:10] » Okay. And and I would just like to add that we are not the only jurisdiction

[27:13] going through this. It's happening. >> That's unfortunate, but I appreciate you

[27:18] know, the circumstances. >> And as far as the workshop, I support

[27:22] it. It will happen if not at the And I will say, you know, I believe Monday was

[27:27] the first time we all actually got to see a first take at even a draft

[27:31] ordinance, which I admit is incomplete with what was presented, but

[27:35] even in the expanse of what will be necessary. So, it'll be incremental,

[27:40] evolving, ongoing. Uh so, in the community one, uh

[27:46] will be engaged and I will commit to a formal at some point. Let's all come

[27:50] together, but let's have something to talk about rather than just we hate them

[27:53] and why do we I mean, we I want to talk the substance of it. Uh and we're I

[27:57] think we're getting there with a discussion document and draft. Uh the

[28:02] board also uh will have as you saw tonight, there's two readings of things,

[28:06] so we have plenty of opportunities and we'll

[28:09] formalize and focus those opportunities as well when it comes to data centers,

[28:14] but it's ongoing and I would say every member of the community at any point, if

[28:18] they have something they want share. I've had people reach out on the sound

[28:21] issues, the heat sink issues. Uh I've had a number of

[28:26] uh people suggest workshops and reports that I've uh

[28:31] accessed that have been helpful to me as I prepare when we get our turn at it.

[28:35] So, I think uh you don't have to wait to be invited.

[28:39] You don't have to wait for a workshop. Uh it's ongoing. And then finally, know

[28:44] that the community is engaged because every member of the planning commission

[28:47] is a community member, every member of this board is a community member, and

[28:50] they're a public meeting, so you're welcome to be there as well. Uh

[28:54] I think you'll notice I'm not running the timer anymore.

[28:57] » Mhm. >> Uh

[28:58] » That's great. >> Uh

[28:59] It's so I >> That's how it should be.

[29:01] » if there was 400 people here, >> Understood.

[29:05] » and if I felt people were coming here just because it's their hobby to yell at

[29:08] us, that's different, but if I'm seeing constructive uh give and take,

[29:13] I think uh it is constructive to to be more flexible and and a

[29:19] » I think that's, you know, my experience on the planning commission, that's how

[29:23] we approached it, and we had a better result as a result of it.

[29:26] » Yeah. >> You know, the the down-to-the-second

[29:30] approach that's being used um from

[29:34] and I would say all the people that have come to the

[29:38] planning commission where I have been in attendance have been providing really

[29:43] valuable information, and I'll give you an example of the other night, which was

[29:48] I brought um and I know you were at a meeting that I was at where a uh model

[29:54] ordinance was um alluded to. I looked it up.

[29:59] Four and a half pages of noise guidance in an ordinance.

[30:04] And so I brought that. I presented it to the to the planning commission. I had

[30:08] one question of the lawyer that was there, which I think is a great idea to

[30:12] have that lawyer at the planning commission.

[30:15] Um I asked him uh what kind of um

[30:20] uh consultant or input he was getting for the development of the noise

[30:25] ordinance that we were having. He would not answer the question. He

[30:29] looked to the chair, and the chair said, "We don't answer

[30:32] questions. It's not a public hearing." So,

[30:36] you know, our taxpayers are paying for the attorney.

[30:38] » Sure. >> It's reasonable to ask that kind of a

[30:41] question. >> Yep.

[30:42] » Um >> You've You've asked it and I'll try to

[30:44] find you an answer. How's that? >> Terrific.

[30:48] » Having said that, we could probably give you an answer but

[30:51] not defend it in the sense that I'm not a sound expert. Uh so, it'd be nice to

[30:56] know if we're using the right experts, right? I mean

[30:59] » It's a >> Is decibels the right way or the full

[31:01] spectrum? I know the same as you're asking but uh

[31:04] whether it's stop signs and speed limits or uh sound from data centers, we do

[31:10] defer to experts. So, you have It'd be nice to be able to reference who they

[31:14] are and we'll get you that answer. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. Well, I do

[31:16] appreciate the way that that these meetings are running in in terms of

[31:19] being able to get input. >> I have one request to all of you as you

[31:23] engage and try to, you know, this

[31:27] brush 1,800 brush fires, which is the number of townships we have, was started

[31:31] by the state legislature, in my opinion, when they removed sales and use tax from

[31:37] data centers. So, one that

[31:41] hyper you know, that made us target number one

[31:44] across the nation. They did it as an economic development. We've said in

[31:48] Caledonia that we don't give tax breaks. Well, I see no So, as a conservative I'm

[31:52] getting on my soapbox and don't tie me but you know, it was going to be in my

[31:55] board accounts but I would My request to you is to ask them

[31:59] to repeal that that tax break for a number of reasons.

[32:03] One, it has put 1,800 ill-equipped townships

[32:08] in the targets of trying to hurry up and get ahead of

[32:11] what something we weren't expecting literally a year ago. It put everything

[32:15] else on hold, parks and trails and, you know, even budgets. Uh so, it's it's

[32:20] frustrating to to look at Lansing and say, "Thanks for nothing." Uh and I

[32:24] think they had good intentions. It was maybe the only

[32:27] bipartisan thing that this legislature has done uh

[32:31] and it wasn't good. Uh the outcome wasn't good cuz it really They people

[32:36] and I guess in the end of from a conservative standpoint

[32:39] you're picking one industry to give tax breaks to. The farmer pays

[32:44] his taxes, the you know, the hardware store in Caledonia pays their tax and

[32:47] you're giving them a tax break. And these are some of the businesses

[32:51] that, you know, have more commas in their balance sheet than any other, you

[32:55] know, business in the world and why they aren't paying their fair share

[33:00] I don't think it's a good economic development strategy. So, that's my

[33:02] soapbox, but it I do think it's a serious question. I do think we have an

[33:05] opportunity. It's an election year.

[33:09] Politicians' ears are open more in election years.

[33:12] And tell both gubernatorial candidates lead with this. It's This is a real

[33:17] issue that has thousands of citizens concerned.

[33:21] And you can take you can throttle back some of the intensity. Give us the time

[33:25] to do our work simply by eliminating the the tax

[33:28] break that you just handed off. You know, and the numbers We have the

[33:32] Citizens Research Council. I don't I don't know what But you were there as

[33:35] well. The numbers are astounding that that

[33:39] we're basically getting jammed, you know, that they're not contributing

[33:42] towards the community. It's a big number what they are giving, but the relief

[33:45] they're getting is indefensible in my opinion. So, they took that off some of

[33:51] the intensity would go away. Frankly, some of the people who want to

[33:54] build them, they go elsewhere. And so, uh

[33:57] that And then the only other thing I would say from my work

[34:00] even there one of the things Not all data centers are the same. I was

[34:04] going to say not all data centers are bad and that's a debate that other

[34:07] people can have on the internet, you know, ironically. Um

[34:11] but we have a data center in Caledonia. >> We I'm sorry.

[34:16] » We have a data center in Caledonia Township and it's been here for over a

[34:19] decade with zero complaints and zero people sitting in Township Hall.

[34:24] And and so, they can be built on a scale which can be accommodated. It's I

[34:30] and I'm not advocating that we keep build all these tiny ones or your

[34:34] community of tiny ones, but I want to make sure that we are thoughtful and

[34:37] say, "Yeah, they can be built if they don't create the bad stuff that

[34:43] we see on a large scale." So, that's where I hope to go that we don't take

[34:47] this if it has a computer, you know, I'm sure

[34:51] most of our the township has very small data center

[34:54] in our server room, right? I mean, and then you just scale up. So,

[34:58] » Yeah. It's

[35:00] » That's where I'm at on the issue. This is dialogue. You know, there's no

[35:03] timer. So, we'll continue to work on it. >> Yeah. All right. Well, we we really

[35:07] appreciate it because as I conveyed yesterday, it's it's been very

[35:11] discouraging for those of us who are coming with good intentions. And um

[35:16] the control issue is a problem. And so, um but we're going to stick with it.

[35:22] We've We do our homework. Um we have all spent many hours in many

[35:28] different ways to get good information in a spirit of helping

[35:36] us as a community have the outcome that we need to protect our

[35:42] our way of life here. >> I'll make one observation here and then

[35:45] I'd like to talk to you after meeting for a a different one. Uh

[35:49] I think this issue went from you know, non-existent to white-hot and torch and

[35:56] pitchfork, you know, mentality that it created a bit of

[36:01] defensiveness when people are being yelled at. So, if

[36:06] we can turn down the volume, turn down the

[36:09] heat. I'm not saying you, but the the issue

[36:13] understandably is intense. And when you're a citizen who's just You

[36:19] didn't know when you signed up that you're going to have your friends and

[36:21] neighbors yelling at you. It can create tension. It can create

[36:25] defensiveness. And I'm trying here to

[36:31] ease that. All right?

[36:33] » Sure. >> So.

[36:35] » All right. Thank you so much. That's in that gift you just

[36:40] showed that additional moratorium

[36:45] is vitally needed. >> Additional listening is needed.

[36:49] » To be able to have the conversation >> I agree with you.

[36:53] I agree with you. I I'll say it the seventh different way. I agree with you.

[36:58] It's likely to happen, but it would be irresponsible for me to promise it in

[37:04] advance of the case being made because we'd be legally vulnerable.

[37:09] Can you hear what I'm saying?

[37:15] » Here's >> Okay. Okay. I mean

[37:17] » Here's the issue because that particular case is a good one to look at

[37:23] and why we have frustrations sometimes because our recommendation was passed

[37:28] by the planning commission unanimously. >> Yep.

[37:32] » It has to

[37:34] to come to the board. >> Yep.

[37:36] » It wasn't come to the board after we talked to the

[37:39] attorney. It was to come to the board. And the board could have

[37:44] that recommendation as a procedural manner.

[37:49] And I don't know if Robert's Rules talks to it.

[37:51] Could have come to you. You could have tabled it and say, "We need to look at

[37:55] what the attorney has to say on it." >> But look at the level of

[37:58] misunderstanding there are with what I'm trying to say. If it came to the board

[38:02] and we said, "No, not now." Because

[38:06] attorneys tell the citizens, "Look at you. You're not good listeners."

[38:11] I

[38:14] We will pass moratoriums as long as we need to do work.

[38:21] We need to do work. so I think you can expect extensions to moratorium. To do

[38:26] it just to give time to do work, you put in the cart before the horse. We said,

[38:29] "Let's do it for a year. Maybe we need a year, maybe we don't." We've been told

[38:33] that that is makes you vulnerable to a challenge.

[38:37] And once it it's knocked down, the barn door is open and they can come

[38:41] in. So,

[38:42] » But, then the average we got 3-month possible extension.

[38:48] » If there's ever a lapse in the moratorium, come with your

[38:53] » [clears throat] >> If there's ever a lapse in Caledonia's

[38:55] moratorium before we complete our work, bring your torch and pitchfork and that

[38:59] tell me, "You lied to me, Mr. Harris." But, we can't pass it tonight.

[39:03] » we have pitchforks. I'm very concerned for my community.

[39:07] » Okay. >> And that is not that's not fair when you

[39:09] say it that way. I feel very

[39:11] bad.

[39:15] » It's our Caledonia community. We live here. We hear you.

[39:20] » Yeah. Yeah. >> I don't believe that

[39:25] as a community, I'm very respectful of the township, very respectful of the

[39:30] planning commission's time. I get that.

[39:34] We're not ready. >> Yep.

[39:36] » We are far from ready to be able

[39:40] » I agree. >> go up

[39:42] against these data centers because they come at you with some very experienced

[39:47] attorneys that know the nuances

[39:51] in language. >> Yep.

[39:52] » And we are so far away from being prepared for that.

[39:56] » So, let's not give them a angle to come at us from. The first

[40:01] request, to be fair, was for a 1-year extension.

[40:05] It's easy now to say, "Oh, we hear the attorney."

[40:07] First request was for a 1-year and the attorney said, "Don't do it. That's

[40:10] exactly what Wixom did and they now are in the courtroom rather than the

[40:14] boardroom." So,

[40:17] I'll say it Fine. That we're done. Ah. >> Time is ticking.

[40:22] This is already August. >> Yeah.

[40:24] » know where the summer went, but it's already August.

[40:26] » Yeah. >> The end of the moratorium is October

[40:31] 17th. We only have a few weeks now to be able

[40:36] to stem that, to be able to get all our ducks in a

[40:42] row. >> This board meets twice in September, and

[40:44] I would anticipate that we will answer the question of a moratorium, and I

[40:49] would think that it would be to your liking.

[40:53] That's That's all I can say. I I'll talk to you in the parking lot

[40:58] more explicitly if you'd like. Thank you. Uh is there any other board

[41:02] comment? Public Public comment.

[41:09] All right. Is there any board comment? Mr. Hermanet.

[41:12] » Well, I like I like the direction that all of you ladies bring in what you're

[41:16] saying. And I also like how you handle it back and respond. I think open

[41:20] transparency of what we're all trying to do together. I don't think we're that

[41:24] far off. I think we're trying to do things together for the community, and I

[41:27] think uh I really appreciate that on both sides.

[41:31] » All right. Mr. Branch.

[41:33] » Uh I wanted to say thanks to the clerk for her great work on the Alaska

[41:37] cemetery uh and using finding funds that were

[41:41] underutilized that can only be used for that purpose. So, good creativity to

[41:44] make our community better. Um real brief summary on the planning

[41:49] commission discussion about data centers on Monday.

[41:53] From what I recall, it's at least the second time um we've had the ordinance

[41:57] in front of us, maybe the third, but there's so much going on with planning

[42:00] commission, it's hard to remember how many times we've seen it.

[42:03] Um it'll be coming back to the planning

[42:05] commission for additional consideration at our September 21st meeting with

[42:10] updates based on our discussion Monday. Um a lot of that discussion was focused

[42:15] on noise setbacks, minimum acreage, whether it should be special land use or

[42:20] not for all cases, and um basically the planning commission

[42:25] thought yes, it should be a special land use for all cases, and we also

[42:29] considered moving the minimum down to like 1 MW, which is still roughly the

[42:35] equivalent of 200 homes as far as the power used. So, um the previous minimum

[42:41] that was in the draft ordinance was 5 MW.

[42:44] Um and I guess in my opinion, I do think the [clears throat] planning

[42:50] commission and staff are listening. We're We're paying attention when people

[42:53] are at the podium. We admit that we are not the experts in data centers. We

[42:58] appreciate that people are coming and giving us their opinions. We appreciate

[43:03] that they're handing us documents that we can use and continue to craft the

[43:06] ordinance. And I also feel like I needed to defend

[43:10] the chair some because, you know, this room has six or seven people in it. The

[43:14] data center meetings for the planning commission often have 25 or 30. And

[43:21] we do our best work in about 2 hours. After that, everybody gets a little

[43:25] tired and it's harder to function well. So, I think the chair is trying to make

[43:29] sure that everybody is heard. There's a lot of people here. And then, the

[43:33] planning commission needs to have time to react to that and do our actual work

[43:37] in front of the public. So, it's a it's a delicate balance and um I just

[43:42] wanted to provide a different perspective.

[43:45] » Right. I'm going to say something similar to

[43:49] what the conversation we had, but just a different observation. When it came to

[43:53] the ordinance work, not the moratorium, but the actual substance of the

[43:56] ordinance, I made a comment at a previous meeting.

[44:00] Basically, I actually think this these are good things like building size,

[44:03] setbacks. And as a result of these, what I think

[44:06] are keeping in the community character of Caledonia, uh it will become less

[44:11] likely that data centers come here. I was told by someone,

[44:16] "Don't say things like that. Your Your purpose of passing ordinances is to

[44:19] protect the community, not to make it so that data centers don't come here."

[44:24] I may I have to be careful in what I say. I

[44:27] can't say we're doing this to make a set of rules that they can't comply with

[44:32] because then we attorneys will use that to beat us up

[44:35] and maybe undo all of our good work and your good

[44:39] work. Same with how you pass moratoriums. It's

[44:42] not the passing of the moratoriums, it's how you do them. And so we're doing the

[44:46] dance in the right step and choreography and I believe uh it will protect our

[44:51] interests in what you would like to see. Um

[44:55] On other issues, we had an election. Those whether it's a

[45:01] one-issue election or it's president on down to us, you know, lowly township

[45:06] folks, the same amount of work goes into setting up precincts and having precinct

[45:10] workers, printing ballots, running tests on machine. And so we have a team that

[45:15] does all that work, uh that makes sure that they're secure,

[45:19] uh that you can count on the results, and that the results come out in time

[45:23] for those who are paying attention to get them. So I wanted to thank our

[45:26] elections team and all of our elections workers,

[45:29] again, citizens of this community, uh our election workers, uh

[45:35] for doing that work. Uh

[45:37] Similarly, I want to thank Allison in her absence cuz I'm now

[45:41] realizing all the day-to-day things that go into that job. Get a email last night

[45:47] at 9:00 that there's a dripping pipe in the library. Uh

[45:52] And so I called Greg. So I want to thank Greg

[45:54] for taking on the dripping pipe. Uh turns out the condensation from the air

[45:59] conditioner and the pipe needs to be cleaned, but someone needs to do it. We

[46:03] run a tight ship uh and we use vendors and so on, but uh

[46:08] someone needs to answer that call and that was Allison and and Greg is helpful

[46:13] on that. Want to thank him for that. Uh then I want to just

[46:16] thank Stephanie, not just for the elections magic that she really does

[46:21] making Joni works good, but lately her part-time job has been making

[46:26] Brian look good or taking up a lot of the stuff that Allison does. So, if I

[46:29] have questions the reason if you look at into your board back tonight on the

[46:34] employee health care, the right of way, all the work that our uh

[46:38] manager would have done is now being done in concert with Stephanie, our

[46:42] deputy clerk, uh who has talents beyond just running safe and secure elections,

[46:47] but uh helping us uh cover this interim as well.

[46:52] So, thank you especially to And here she is tonight cuz she knows how to make the

[46:58] meetings be recorded. So, many hats uh worn well. Thank you for that. All

[47:03] right. >> Yeah. Uh I also was going to point out

[47:07] the election. Uh we had a whopping 34% turnout, which is

[47:11] not much um for a primary, but again as uh you said Supervisor Harrison, that

[47:17] the same amount of work goes into all of it. We have an awesome team. Um

[47:21] from our staff here to the workers that show up and I'm just very, very grateful

[47:25] to all of them. I also want to give a shout out to the fire department even

[47:29] though none of them are here tonight um because we too had a leak um late at

[47:33] night uh and um the guys the in the fire department came over and helped and took

[47:40] care of it all and they were awesome. So, I'm very thankful for them. And we

[47:43] are starting again in the next 2 weeks for the November election. So, we are

[47:46] back at it again. >> Okay. Great. Well said.

[47:50] » Mr. Ross. >> Up. Dr. Robertson.

[47:52] » Sorry. Sorry. Um

[47:55] You have used up all my soap blocks, Tom.

[47:57] Um but I did I did want to extend the the

[48:01] discussion a little bit on an issue that's concerned me. I've mentioned it a

[48:04] couple of times at previous meeting and that's uh the follow-up on uh a comment

[48:10] from from the public regarding the master plan and and kind of my concern

[48:15] that this master plan has not been um updated as as required, let alone as

[48:23] desired. Um and I did want to just kind of launch it with a response to the

[48:28] email you sent, Brian, um about issues that you were concerned about and

[48:34] you had looked back through the township records and then pointed out a number of

[48:38] surveys um that have been done to gain community input on a number of issues

[48:43] and then you concluded um with a statement, "It's important that our

[48:47] discussions begin with a truthful and accurate understanding of our history

[48:52] and the work that has already been completed." I entirely agree with that.

[48:56] And to that end, I actually took it upon myself to look back at some of our

[49:03] previous master plans. In fact, I have them right here. Um there are three, one

[49:08] from 2000, one from 2015, and then one one dated 2024.

[49:16] And I was trying to compare them to see, okay, as we've updated the master plan

[49:22] over that time, you know, where where do we see the changes? What have been um

[49:28] the improvements or the adjustments or whatever. And I was really having a very

[49:34] difficult time going back through these three documents trying to figure out,

[49:39] okay, what's different? What's new? And it dawned on me, they're all the same.

[49:44] They're all almost identically the same. And I I won't spend a lot of time going

[49:49] over it, but this is from the 2000 master plan and it talks about um

[49:57] a um

[50:00] a citizens advisory group which met periodically through the planning

[50:04] process. Kind of the idea of the workshop, I guess, but that that met and

[50:09] submitted uh you reviewed and and made input for the updated master plan.

[50:16] If you look at the 2015 you'll see the exact same paragraph

[50:22] talking about the citizens group. So, it would give you the impression that

[50:27] there was another citizens group. No, they're still talking about the one from

[50:30] 2000. And then if you go to 24, you'll see the exact same paragraph again,

[50:36] still referring to the 2000 the study that was done in 2000. And I could go

[50:42] through a lot of these. I don't want to take time, but again from the 2000

[50:49] document, yes, I could find several. I

[50:52] I put little stickies and then I got tired of them. So, just another example,

[50:56] it talks about the different land uses and it talked about industrial

[51:01] land use. Where are the light industrial land uses? In 2000, it said the

[51:05] Caledonia Township Industrial Park located just north of the village off

[51:11] M-37 is the township's primary industrial site. That's this site right

[51:16] here. That's the primary industrial site. That was in 2000. May have been

[51:20] true, but if you look at 2015, says the same thing. That's the primary

[51:25] industrial site. If you look at 2024, it says the same thing again. It's the

[51:31] primary industrial site. So, I think I can give substance to my concern and

[51:35] even though we've put dates on them, we haven't changed them. In fact, from 2015

[51:41] to 24, I I cut it was a word-for-word cut and paste. That's all it was. And um

[51:48] And so, I think it's true that the master plan has not been updated. And to

[51:54] follow up on that, I think the I was And so what? A lot of that stuff is the

[51:59] same. If you go to the community and ask them, "Do you want to maintain rural

[52:03] character?" 100% say yes to that. So, some of it would be the same and the

[52:07] surveys, I think, would reflect that. But one of the reasons we need to do

[52:11] this, um especially the demographics, it's a requirement of the zoning

[52:16] enabling act, is that all of this stuff is supposed to be in there um

[52:22] and updated. In fact, in there it it talks about you got to update the plan,

[52:26] you know, it's Trouble is, most people let it sit on a

[52:30] shelf. Well, we'd let it sit on the shelf for 10 years and then just copy

[52:33] it. In fact, the one I found basically the only difference was

[52:40] um the picture Well, if you look at this is

[52:43] the picture of the 2015 master plan, you can't see it from over there,

[52:48] but if I show you this one, it's the exact same picture. The only

[52:52] thing changed was the was the year. So, the only difference. And even from 2000

[52:57] to 2000 15, almost all the text is identical. They used pie charts instead

[53:04] of spreadsheets, but all the substance information is the same. So, under the

[53:09] zoning enabling act, we have to follow certain criteria. One of them is a range

[53:14] of housing types, cost, affordability, attainability, ages, and other

[53:18] characteristics, um including single-family dwellings.

[53:23] Well, the problem is it's all that demographic data dates back for almost

[53:28] 30 years. It's from the 1990 um census. And then there's supposed to

[53:33] be things additional um

[53:36] assessment of communities' existing and forecasting housing demand strategies,

[53:40] policies for addressing those demands. So, the point I'm making is that

[53:46] the master plan is not up to date. And what was I think interesting as well

[53:52] when I was kind of researching this on the

[53:55] on the website is I looked at the next section of the under the zoning enabling

[54:00] act and it talked about sub plans. A planning commission may by a majority

[54:05] vote of members adopt a sub plan. That's what we did for

[54:09] Rogers Road Farm. You know, we said there's a unique area there. You know,

[54:13] we ought to look at that individually. I think that's a good idea for the area on

[54:17] 68th Street and Kraft and the Beltline. In fact, when we talked about our

[54:23] strategic plan it's been almost a year ago now. I think it was Brian introduced

[54:27] the idea of maybe we should be looking at that zoning because that's a unique

[54:32] spot in the township and I don't think should we we should be stuck with data

[54:37] and and and opinions that are decades old. And that is my comment. Thank you.

[54:44] » All right. Thank you. All right.

[54:47] » Move to adjourn. >> Support.

[54:49] » All in favor of adjournment, please say I. I. If you oppose, say no.

[54:53] We are adjourned.

Caledonia Township Board of Trustees Meeting - 08-19-2026

Transcript