Good afternoon, everybody.
Welcome to this regularly scheduled meeting of the Hamburg Township Board of
Trustees, scheduled today for Tuesday, September 1st, at 2:30 PM.
Would everybody present please rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the
Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
Thanks everyone.
Thank you.
Thank you for the ambiance lighting, Clerk Dolan. Appreciate it.
It's bad.
Would you please call the roll?
Supervisor Neigert?
Here, present.
Clerk Dolan is present. Treasurer Daniels?
Present.
Trustee Hardesty?
Here.
Trustee Hughes?
Present.
Trustee Menzies?
Here.
Trustee Miller?
Here. All right. We have a full board, capable of conducting business.
First order of business is the opening call to the public.
Any member of the public who wishes to address the board on any matter whatsoever,
please approach the podium. You've got three minutes to tell us what's on your
mind. Anything you say may or may not be added to this or a future agenda item of
the board.
I see nobody interested. I will close the opening call to the public.
There will be another call at the end.
On the consent agenda before us, we have the regular board meeting minutes from
August 18th, our work study session that's also from August 18th, Park and Rec
meeting notice for August, Township Coordinator's report for August, Senior Center
report for August, Public Safety monthly report for the month of July, and the
bills list dated today. Is there any action on the consent agenda?
Motion to approve as presented.
Second.
Moved by Hardesty, seconded by Menzies, to approve the consent agenda as presented.
Any discussion on this?
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed? All right. Consent agenda is adopted.
Looking for a motion to approve the agenda.
I have nothing to add, but suggest that we just move everything having to do with
Public Safety to the end because Fund 207 budget's going to take quite a while.
Public Safety?
Yeah. Park ranger change in job status is also Public Safety, right?
Is it the only other one?
We can do a motion to approve and it'll be done in 10 seconds.
That's true. We can. All right, we'll just leave it as is then.
Does the board comments need to get moved?
Yeah. That's a misprint.
Okay.
We're just going to solve that.
No, we can do it right now. I make a motion to approve the agenda as presented.
I'll second. All right. Moved by Dolan.
I heard Hardesty louder than Miller, so she gets second on this one.
Let the record reflect that taunt. All in favor?
Aye.
All right. Current business, park ranger change in job status.
I was promised this would be done in 10 seconds.
Motion to approve.
As outlined in the memo.
That was easy.
As outlined in the memo, we have one of our permanent part-time park rangers has
accepted a full-time job in the law enforcement department near us.
That'll leave a vacancy in our budgeted
part-time park rangers. We have a current seasonal one.
The timing could not be better. His seasonal employment ends on Labor Day.
Perfect.
So,
I'm looking for a motion from the board to approve the changing of the job status.
It's Easton Hardesty. He's worked throughout the summer.
He's been very reliable,
showing up on time and gets along really well with his fellow coworkers.
So, I think this would be a good addition to make him permanent part-time.
So, I'm looking for a motion to
change his job status to permanent part-time park ranger, effective September 7th,
at his current wage, which is Grade 2, Step 1 of the salary and wage step.
I'll read the motion into the record.
Motion to approve the changing the job status of Easton Hardesty from seasonal
part-time park ranger to permanent part-time park ranger, effective September 7th,
2026, at his current wage of $20.74 per hour, which happens to be Grade 2, Step
1.
I'll second. All right. Moved by Dolan, seconded by Daniels.
When you brought him on, I thought he was in college.
Yes, he was in college.
Is he going to be able to keep up the hours you need?
He's transferred to a college local.
Oh.
So, yes.
Very good. Okay, keep it up.
It works out really well.
Because I know you got some needs there.
Good.
Yeah. Any other discussion or questions on this?
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed?
Abstain.
Abstain. One abstain. And I remember this came up when Easton
was first hired, so the board should of course remember Joanna's putative conflict
of interest, and your abstention is noted. Thanks, everyone.
Thank you.
Thank you. All right. Next up, Hamburg Flyers Club MOU, memorandum of
understanding.
So, at the request of working with Debbie
Henneman as the park coordinator and the park
committee, these MOUs are a whole lot easier to deal with
than the annual application process. We've got this with other groups.
We've got it with
HERO as well. So before you, it is what? A three-year?
Yes.
So, I'll make a motion to authorize Clerk Dolan to enter into the memorandum of
understanding on behalf of the township with the Hamburg Flyers Club, as presented
in today's packet.
I'll second.
All right. Moved by Dolan, seconded by Menzies.
Anyone have any questions about this?
I do.
Yes.
Which way are the annual fees being paid, the $350?
I missed that.
I'm sorry?
In paragraph eight of the memo, it simply says, "Annual fees for this contract
shall be $350," but it doesn't clarify who's paying whom.
Okay. I'm looking for it.
And if-
And I know-
And if the Flyers are paying... Oh, so have they done that in the past?
Yes, and it's been that same dollar amount for-
Years
... years and years and years. So, that annual fees for this contract.
So, we'll clean it up to make it better understanding that the Flyers are
paying-
The township
... Hamburg Township.
And then, I think I remember reading that they're going to be in charge of the
sledding hill and something else outside of the remote control things.
No, that's the township.
No.
The township will.
Mm.
Not the Flyers. I know I misread it myself that first time I attacked
it.
Okay.
Yeah. That's subsection C. The township will-
Right
... provide this.
Okay. How many people are
dues-paying people in the remote Flyers Club?
I don't recall the exact number. It's been pretty steady, but the president's in
the-
Yeah.
Okay.
The president's here. Gene, do you want to please come answer that question?
Yeah. Gene Dotz, president of the Flyers Club.
I'd have to count, but I'm thinking 25 to 30 is in our club, give or take a couple.
It's been steady. We pick up a couple people, we lose a couple people.
Lose a couple. Yeah.
Yeah.
Can I respond? I'm sorry to interrupt.
Yeah.
You asked how many were dues-paying members of the Flyers Club?
No.
Oh, they don't pay dues.
They don't pay dues. They pay a park use fee, but no dues.
They pay a park use fee. In replace of dues, we do fundraisers.
We raise money for the club, and part of the requirements of being a member is to
participate in those fundraisers.
But as far as dues are concerned, we haven't paid dues in 15 years.
And so, this is being done this way now, that you're asking us to do it this way
now, to make it easier
for this to happen each year?
Yes.
I guess I'm looking for the motivation behind this.
Yes. Yes.
So, the permit that I submit, and I've been president now for 22 or 23 years-
Yes.
... it's the same permit. All I do is change the date on it and turn it back in.
The language hasn't changed in over 20 years.
So it's just, I guess, help the township administratively and help me from an
administrative perspective.
Well, and over and above that, it adds a lot more language and clarity.
It does add a lot more language.
It brings a lot more clarity to the understanding of the agreement with the
township and them. So, I think it plays best for the township.
Give us a rule book to follow for both groups.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
Because the park use application doesn't have as many rules stipulated-
No
... as in this memorandum.
Any more questions anyone? Any more commentary? No.
We're good.
All right. Thank you.
Great.
All right. All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed? All right, motion passes.
Thank you.
Over the road banner resolution.
So we processed that through Parks and Rec, Debbie and I.
And as we know, we have the heroes, had those installed out there, for
this reason. I think this is the second year for Freedom River.
Fourth.
Fourth. On Freedom River?
Yep.
So in any case, the road commission requires it to be in resolution format from the
local government to authorize for the banner.
So my motion is to approve the resolution for the Freedom River Halloween
fundraising event banner,
to be hung over Merrill Road at the request of the road commission.
Are the dates here? From September 1st through October 30th.
So it's just because we didn't do a resolution last month?
Yes.
That's why.
Yes. Yeah.
I just wanted to make sure I understand.
Yeah, it's the resolution. They required the resolution.
It's not an additional banner, it's the same banner.
Yep.
All right. So Mike, you move the resolution?
Yep.
I'll second.
All right. Moved by Dolan, seconded by Miller.
The resolution is in the packet, electronic page 80. Hopefully we go with it.
Roll call vote please.
Negri?
Yes.
Dolan? Yes. Daniels?
Yes.
Hardesty?
Yes.
Hughes?
Yes.
Menzies?
Yes.
Miller?
Yes.
All right. Resolution passes.
Next up, final site plan review. David,
come on down.
Were you trying to leave? Come in.
All right. Good afternoon everybody.
So this is, the combined site plan application, PZBA
26-004. This is for our 9704 Quest Road, that's where the property's located.
This is a similar site plan that was approved by the planning commission and the
board of trustees four years ago. It's come back around.
The use now is going to be a restaurant/golf simulator.
It was in front of the planning commission as a combined site plan on August 19th
of this year. They put in six conditions.
Two of the conditions I've noted in parentheses have already been now addressed
since the meeting, and I've added those additional documents to the packet.
So, I think it's relatively straightforward. It is a good project.
It has the support of the neighborhood.
Planning commissioners really thought it was a great use for what's become a
functionally obsolete building. So, the applicant, Mr. Wood is here as well.
If there's any questions that I can't answer, I'm sure he can. So...
All right.
Board members have any questions about this?
I've heard some positive things about this.
My only concern, and again, I'm looking at it right now, would be the parking.
I mean, parking's more than adequate?
Parking does meet the parking requirements, yeah. More than adequate.
All right.
Okay. Joanna?
My question for you, David, what is a combined site plan
application?
Oh, good question. So a combined site plan application is, the applicant has an
opportunity to, instead of doing a preliminary and a final, to do a combined, for a
smaller, less complex project. And then they can bring that combined site plan
final to the board. So it saves essentially two meetings for them.
It's typically not common because we're used to doing larger subdivisions, but for
a smaller commercial site like this, it is.
Okay. So what we're approving today is preliminary and final?
A preliminary and final, yes, exactly.
Okay. The other question that I had, in your memo to the planning commission, you
said that the applicant had requested waivers to the landscaping and parking
requirements.
Mm-hmm.
And I didn't find it completely addressed.
Have waivers, are waivers been granted, or have they complied with what?
Yeah. So the waivers were specifically to the landscaping requirements.
Okay.
So those were in the staff report. There's buffer requirements that were simply not
going to be possible to meet because it's a corner lot.
So we put in for some landscaping waivers to apply.
Okay.
And the parking requirements
were met, and have been met. So, the lot is being paved.
There's a pile as well. So everything, again, the applicant really was trying to
essentially mirror the same site plan that was approved four years ago, so there's
been almost no changes. Actually, the building's actually not going to be as tall.
So that's good as well too. So yeah, but the planning commission did grant them
some basic waivers for the landscaping requirements. Yeah.
Okay.
Commissioner.
Well, I
think that
the parking
is the most radical change from what we were used to when it was the Blue Water
thing, that it now kind of went around
the building. I'm a little concerned about the property
to the south with the swale and all of that kind of thing.
But,
I think the neighbors have talked about the fencing and feel pretty good about
that. So I know that at least one of the neighbors wants the building to be
renovated instead of sitting there and turning into mush.
Any other board questions?
All right. Then I will entertain a motion to approve the combined site plan as
presented. No more? Then I'll make it.
I'll make a motion that we approve the combined site plan application, PZBA 26-004,
located at 9704 Quest Road.
I'll second.
All right. Moved by Negri, seconded by Daniels.
Any further discussion?
I just have one question. Any anticipating opening date, completion date?
It's looking like March.
So before next golf season, they'll be able to get in there and-
Well, I-
You want your first tee time.
Do we have the hours
posted here?
I didn't see them.
What are the hours going to be?
I guess they can stay open-
They're in there. I'm sure they are, but I didn't see them yet.
We don't have exact set hours. Probably going to be around 10 or 11:00 AM,
till on the weekends at 10:00 PM, maybe 11:00.
It'll be probably 9:00 or 10:00 during the week.
Everything going well with the state
liquor license and the county health department for food and what have you?
Is that still part of the plan?
Yep. We're in motion with it and now we just gotta wait on our build-out.
We're gonna come check it out.
Come check it out.
So I can have a beer with the golf simulator so I don't screw up my outdoor game.
That's right.
Yes, yes.
On that note, all in favor?
Aye. Aye.
Any opposed? All right. Motion passes.
One.
And approved. Thank you. Hambrick pump station valve replacement.
Tony spending more money.
Every time we meet.
Tony, every meeting.
You got a reputation now.
I skipped last time.
Oh.
Hambrick station,
eight-inch valve we needed to replace there last year.
We discovered when we were hitting the pipe issue, this valve wouldn't shut all the
way.
So we wanted to get through the problem at hand at the time, but come back to
it in warm weather
once the emergency was fixed. So now we're in a new budget year, and before winter
hits, it's a good time to do it.
We've talked to our blank contractor, C&E Construction.
He is too busy to do this right now, with septic failures and sewer costs.
But C&E, I'm sorry, NCE Construction, comprehensive contracting, gave us a price on
this, $19,450, which was a little bit higher than expected.
We did go back and talk to him, and I got a new quote this morning.
We got it down now to $17,450, mainly because he was able to get a hold of a fusing
machine. He doesn't have to pay as much as he was going to.
He was going to have to rent it somewhere else. Borrowing it.
So the total cost will be $17,450, $2,000 less than what's in the packet.
The governance and contracting has done a lot of work for us before.
Okay.
I'll make a motion to approve
... comprehensive contracting to replace the eight-inch gate valve and adjacent
piping near the Hamburg pump station for a total cost of 17,450, is that what you
said?
Mm-hmm.
And that's coming from the-
From the sewer enterprise budget-
Enterprise
... yep, 590-
And is it budgeted?
It is budgeted.
Okay.
We know we're going to get the best deal if it's coming from Tony. Tony Riccardi.
True enough. All right. We've got a motion. How about a second?
I'll second.
All right. Seconded by Menzies. Very hearty.
Any questions?
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed? All right. Motion approved.
Thank you.
All right.
Now, I'd like to say that wraps up our meeting today, but it doesn't.
Yeah, it wouldn't.
Motion to adjourn.
Hurry up. Somebody have to make a motion. All right.
Chief Duffy, come on down. You've got- That's a foreboding introduction. Ah.
It'll be fine. I know you've got a handout for us, too, right? Yeah.
So as I indicated in the memo,
myself, the DC, and lieutenant have been, since the millage passed, and first of
all, obviously, it's a good problem to have that the millage passed.
We're trying to figure out what to do with the money.
But we've been wanting to update our 10-year capital forecast as well as a 10-year
financial projection for the police department.
But, until we get some definite answers on some things, it's been impossible to
move forward because there are several variables in play here.
So, I did give, in the packet,
what I would call a baseline financial projection, where it doesn't include any
general fund contribution, doesn't address the MERS repayment issue, and it doesn't
show any additional officers. So what I did over the weekend, anticipating
probably the most common scenarios that will be discussed, I went through and took
the baseline and then you'll see, I'll get everybody...
I just finished it yesterday. I would've liked to give it to you over the weekend,
but I just got it finished. But it'll be a good document to have as a
resource to look at when we're discussing this, where we'll have some hard numbers.
So basically, each one of them is a different scenario, depending, showing
different general fund contributions, whether the MERS issue is repaid back to
general fund or not. And then all of them contemplate, except for the baseline one,
hiring two officers because that's what was told to the residents
as one of the benefits of voting yes.
But in any event, so
these are probably the six most common.
The front page is like a table of contents, just showing, and then if you
look where it says Projection A, B, C, when you open up, each one has
the letter on the left-hand side, so it should be relatively easy to follow.
And again, it's just, not to do a big-
Oh, that's yours. Okay. Thank you ...
scientific study, but it's if we say, "Hey, we're going to do this with general
fund and this with MERS," that there is something to refer back to, a resource to
say, "Well, how does this impact
everything, the numbers," I guess, or whatever.
So, or what if, you know,
what happens with COVID? So, I don't know where
you want to start.
I know,
for me,
moving forward, there's three things that really are paramount in my
considerations of what I'd like to see.
First and foremost, I want to make sure that we have a plan in place for 10 years
from now that we're in a financial position where we don't have to ask for millage
increase, that we go into the next millage just asking for straight up approval.
I think that's a top priority. Secondly,
I also want to make sure that we are in a position that
if the housing market crashes and our tax revenue goes down, that we're in a
position where we don't have to lay off officers.
I was right in the middle of it in '08, when that market crashed, and I
know our department went from 86 officers down to the 60s.
Our neighboring Inkster went from 62 officers to 21.
Pontiac folded their police department. They've never been back.
So, that's another thing I want to make sure of.
I
read stuff all the time, and everyone's always predicting gloom and doom.
And so that was another consideration.
And then also,
we want to make sure that we're in a position that if we have any unanticipated,
primarily IT-related stuff, that we have enough in our reserves to cover it.
Every time Darius goes to the ALB meeting, Administrative Oversight, he comes back
with,
"The county's talking about this, and the county's talking about this," whether
it's the CAD system or it's the record management system or the, all the big-ticket
things. So he scares me every time because we're at the mercy of the county.
If the county says we're switching our RMS- Just to let him go to the meetings
anymore. I know. So if the county goes, "Ah," says we're switching over to RMS, and
it's going to be a million-dollar migration, which I think that was the figure we
were talking about. Yes. So my point being is he scares me every time he comes back
from ALB. So I want to make sure we have solid reserves- Yes ...
that we can take that hit if necessary.
So,
I guess I don't know. I turn it back over to you.
How do we move forward? Like I said, we have the 487 that's been allocated,
the 555 that we spent on Rick's warning system purchase, and we have the issue of
the MERS repayment, and whatever.
Again, I'm not even per se advocating for any of these proposals.
Just tell me what my parameters are so I can move this forward. Correct.
We've talked about all these issues, but we haven't actually come to consensus on
the board to vote on these things. So if the chief needs direction,
we have to get it to him.
Mm-hmm. Absolutely.
Well,
so one, two, three, four questions.
The 555 is already a done deal. Are we going to undo it, is the question, right?
That's already done. As well as the 487, because we gave some to fire.
We gave some of that to the fire.
In our budget. That we passed. Yes. As a transfer out, 555 to the police. Yeah.
And in our last board meeting or two board meetings ago, we took- Of that to the
fire, yes ... 8,000, I'm forgetting the exact number, and moved it out of that.
So it's the 487.
Yeah.
487 is already a done deal. It's right here. It's already a done deal.
Are we going to undo it? Mm-hmm. And is there any future?
Then the 413, 413,000 for MERS. And then if there's going to be any new
hires.
Okay.
So, the new hires,
I think it was discussed in committee. This board's never discussed it.
But we've never approved it. We're going to have to talk about it.
We never approved it. We had the discussion.
Chief brought before us, when we were discussing what
the millage rate was going to be, he brought us some proposals, starting at where
we're at now and going all the way up to 3.2717.
We had a very lengthy discussion about
what we wanted to see, what he proposed, the two new hires at that time.
The $413,000 MERS payment was not even
on anybody's radar. It was on our radar, but not coming from police.
It was coming from general fund. It was certainly not on PD's radar at the time
that all this was presented, and we made the decision to go for the three
mills. It was talked about. It was talked about at length, and the general fund
contribution was talked about at length.
In committee.
We talked about it at this meeting when we were discussing the three, what millage
rate we were going after. Jason concurred at the last meeting that we had started
out at 250,000. And Pat, I think that was in committee.
And we-
Yep
... brought the recommendation back to the board for the 100,000.
So we reduced it, and Jason was willing to go along with it, even though he was
against it at first-
Correct
... with the 250. So
And as far as that MERS payment goes,
I don't even think we should even be considering that that come from the police
fund, considering what our discussion was at the time when we made the decision to
move forward with that, what our plan was. It was a general fund expense.
Based on that, we did a budget amendment in July
to move that money into the general fund or take it from the general fund.
It was not police, and we never notified the police department.
We never asked the police chief if this was an okay thing-
No, right
... to take out of your budget.
Right.
Because that wasn't our motivation.
Correct.
So yeah, I'm pretty firm that the MERS is not to be the police expense.
When were you-
That's just my thoughts. When were you thinking the two officers?
Were you thinking, what budget year?
I would prefer-
26, 27, is that where we were? Yeah.
Yeah. So I would prefer not till next...
I'd like to get a full year collected, with one caveat in that one of our
sergeants apparently or allegedly or may be leaving at the beginning of the year.
Maybe May or June, get in maybe the new hires, because if we're going to do a list
to bill him, we'd have to wait. Or I'd like to do a list, but I'd like to get him
in in May or June just to get him into the program, have him here for Fun Fest,
have him here, get trained on the boat, get him in here for June-ish.
So, I mean, I can wait till July 1st.
I really want to get a full year of the millage rate, the millage, uh-
You got the additional expenditure in your body.
Yes. So I would prefer to wait as long as possible.
I concur.
So I'm shooting for the May, June, July-ish picture.
But definitely not before that.
Okay.
And the logic behind the $100,000 commitment,
and me and you have talked about this previously.
Sure.
So there were some reasons-
If they've got a healthy millage, why would the general fund be giving money to it?
You or me.
Well, because you have always said that that's what you promised the residents
when we got a police department started.
So I wasn't here for that. I don't know about
that.
I will just say that my position is
the MERS money comes from the general fund because that
was
the township board figuring out how to manage the retirement things
now and into the future.
And we had had a group of police officers that were in a program
that was saving the township money, that the board had approved, and we had lived
under it for some years, and then this board came along and said, "Oh, no,
no, no." So to me, this is a general fund expense for the MERS
catch-up for going up, for the public safety MERS pensions
in the future.
I guess
I've heard Mike say, and it seemed to me that a department should live under its
millage. So if we're going to back up and say, "Okay, you've got
your three mills. Figure out what that's going to do for you for the next 10
years," I think I could go along with that.
Okay. Joanna, did you want to offer a philosophical explanation in defense of the
$100,000 a year contribution from the general fund?
Yes. Actually, Patricia helped in committee, to better
clarify the reason for doing that.
I had mentioned, and I've stood behind this from day one, is that when we
went after a police millage back, how many years ago has it been now? Do you know?
The very first one?
Yeah, the very first one.
Well, we tried to do a joint back in '97, '98, somewhere in there.
So it's been a few years.
It might be '96.
Been a few years.
And-
Police was completely funded by the general fund.
And when we decided we were going to go after a police millage, there was some
backlash down at that time,
and people did not want to see, our taxpayers did not want to see us get a millage
and then put that money that was funding the police department back into the
general fund. They wanted to see it go for it.
So we, at that point, made a commitment that a certain percentage of that would
go, general fund would go with the police millage.
And I know that's happened every time, every renewal since.
But Patricia brought up that we have a healthy fund balance. Well, we did.
Good.
Yeah. I said that. And, the point was that because we
do, it would be nice to say to the residents, "You're getting something for your
money, that part of that money is going back to help run the police department."
And one of the issues that we discussed were these two, hiring two new bodies, two
new police officers, and that was all part of it as well.
I really would love to see us continue that general fund contribution at
100,000, even though we started out at 250.
And definitely not take that MERS payment from the police department.
So I have a quick... So, the projection B, that shows no general
fund, that we don't pay back the MERS per payment, and then the two officers.
Mm-hmm.
I guess a quick question I have, does the board resolution that we carry
25% of our operations, is that
real? Is that legitimate? Is that something we need to do?
I think so. What's it mean?
So that's my question.
Board resolution that they carry 25% of operations.
Does that carry any weight, is my question. Are we supposed to do that?
I'm asking, because-
That portion was not included when we updated our administrative policies and
procedures and actually put the 125% for general fund operation.
That portion was not included in the APPM. There was a previous resolution.
Can that be binding on future boards?
No, I'm asking. Does that mean-
If it wasn't included, then it's not.
So does that mean anything?
I think if it's going to be real, it should be a motion to put it into the APPM.
That's my opinion.
No, and I'm asking, I don't know the answer.
I just didn't know, does that mean anything?
I think that's the answer. If it was deliberately not included in our most recently
approved administrative policies and procedures, and it had been in a previous
version and was removed, I would say it's not binding.
Okay. I'm just asking.
That's my answer. I know.
If I don't have to follow it, then it matters.
Right.
Because a lot of these, they show this thing in red all through the whole 10 years.
That's my question is, that's fine. That's fine.
But what are the rules, I guess I'm asking. I don't have to have 25%.
Well, what would it look like without the two officers?
I'm sorry?
How much red would there be if we weren't doing two officers?
Well, that would be A.
Yeah, the only version that doesn't contemplate the hiring of officers is A.
Yeah.
There's no officers, that's no general fund.
But like I said, I don't even
know how that could be an option since the voters were told we were getting two
officers. And that was on the township website.
So it's not like the union-
Well, you know I don't get as excited about what the other townships and the state
says the ratio of police officers to residents should be.
Well, we're way below anyway. Even with two officers, we're still way below.
I know.
So to me, I guess maybe that's a start.
I think not hiring two officers is not even on the
table. I don't know how it could be.
Well, all right. Considering that there are four variables involved in this, I
think unless anybody has a better suggestion, why don't we take them one by one and
take a board vote on each of these four variables to get the sense of where we
think we're at right now. I'm not comfortable doing any...
I have some more questions before I'm comfortable answering any one.
I anticipate that the questions would come as each area came up.
Okay.
Is that, it makes sense to me. First, we're going to tackle the mercy repayment.
Hash everything out. You got questions, comments, now's your chance.
Well, first, we have an eight-year projection here and a 10-year village.
That's what Michelle sent is, I don't know if the last two years are- Well, and I'm
just saying,
if everybody's looking at these numbers and nobody's questioned that we can run it
out 10 years, how are we going to- I didn't ask Michelle why she did it.
Yeah, I don't know. Usually in the budget it's only a six-year projection or five
years. Yeah, I don't know what was- I mean,
you can get a reasonable sense of the trend. Yeah. Well, yeah.
In looking at the trend of fund balance at the last
projection year here, '33, '34, which is year eight, is $3.7
million. I did the conservative additional 700,000 for year nine, additional
700,000 for year 10. That puts it at $5.2 million fund
balance. 5.2. If you're looking at A, that's without the two officers.
No, I'm looking at my numbers here. I'm just talking my numbers.
Where are your numbers? In front of me.
What doc-- Are you talking off of A?
No, I'm not even looking at your packet. All right.
I did my own calculations a half hour before the board meeting.
What I'm saying is, is year eight, that $3.7 million- Without- What's in the packet
... hiring two officers. Correct. Right. Without hiring two officers, 3.784.
Correct. And then I added 700,000 for year nine and 700,000 for year 10. Right.
The trend. That puts it at $5.2 million projected. Right. Okay.
Then-
So his trends that got to 3.784, which is what you're talking, it's what A is.
Right.
It's only a difference of about 500 a year.
Right.
And not 700 like you're-- I don't know where you're getting 700 from.
Look at the trend.
I am.
So one to six is five. Six to
12,
six and a half. So it's about five to six there.
The 3.2 to 3.7, that's five. I don't know where you're getting 700,000 a year on
the trend.
Where would you like me to use? 500,000?
I'm just-
I'll-
I'm just trying to follow your math.
Okay.
That's all I'm trying to do.
Well, let's not. Let's just make it easy. 500,000.
Okay.
We'll use that for a trend. Very conservative approach, right?
Okay.
So what do we do? So that's $4.8 million.
Okay.
Then, again, I just put this together right before the board meeting, and I'm going
to share the numbers and I'd like to hear feedback if I'm wrong here.
But I started with a base point of 125, a cost for one officer at
$125,000. So two officers is $250,000.
Is that what's up? Your base there was 100,000.
Yeah, you're not including investment.
Year was? Yes. Well, that'll be.
Yeah, we got that'll be now.
Well-
It's 150 minimum per officer. So I was being light
saying 300,000. So you, like you're saying, you can take 3 million out of that,
quote unquote. By your point. It's 150 an officer, easily.
Okay. At 125 an officer, running it out for the 10 years, the cost is $3.2
million.
And I think it's a little bit open. Okay.
Yeah, I was going to say, by the time this is up, they're going to be making
three-
I added 7% each year
... plus all their benefits.
What I'm suggesting is, do we know what the police fund balance is going to be at
the end of 10 years with hiring two new officers? We do not have that information.
How are we going to make these other decisions not knowing that information?
I come up with $3.2 million over 10 years of hiring these officers.
Make it $4 million. That's fine. That still leaves a fund balance in the police of
$1.2 million.
So if you go to document B that he gave you. Page-- If you go to B.
So are you hung up on the last two years on it? I can have Michelle rerun it.
I just used what she has.
So document B shows that with two officers, putting no
additional funds in, that it's going to bring you at 1.2 million.
In year eight.
In year eight, so then it's 150, so 300,000.
So you're going to do 1.6, like you need 1.7 million in reserve with two
officers. It's not going to be 4.5 million.
And that's still less than-
No
... 25%, which I know is not binding, but you're looking at a whole number instead
of the percentage of our budget. Our budget by then is going to be $5, $6 million a
year. Or it's 4.6 million now. Well, it'll- My point is- Our revenues are up- ...
you're playing with a million dollars, above a million dollars here.
Okay, well, in eight or 10 years, a million dollars is still going to be, what, 20%
of our operating. Instead of looking at the numbers, you should look at the
percentage of our budget. It's not- I- A million dollars sounds like a big number
... we have a policy not to go below 125. Okay.
And if we don't recover these funds, we are going to go below 125.
Period. The 413 was a budget amendment done last year, last budget year.
The money hasn't gone into effect yet.
We just-
So we have $100,000 available in our fund balance that is not designated.
That doesn't contemplate the $413,000. It does contemplate the 555 transfer.
Well, then shame on us for not having included that when we looked at that
resolution to do that amount. Maybe we go back and we look at what we actually have
in fund balance and rethink that resolution and that percentage.
If it's 125%, we had those expenses, we knew about it at the time,
and they weren't included when we reviewed those numbers.
We just have to have a plan to get us back to 125.
That's right.
It's not like we stop functioning. Right?
And it's not like we need to create other problems. Right?
We can create a long-term projection problem here for the police department if we
don't take care of this day one. This won't work come year 10 if we don't take care
of it on day one. That's the important piece of this. Right?
Him not hiring the two officers for the first year is what's going to allow this
thing to even get close to working for 10 years.
You got to create that reserve to have a little bit there towards the end.
And if we do drop below the 125, if those are the decisions that we spent money
that got us to that point, then we got to rely on Jason and this board to come back
and say, "This is how we're going to get out of that space." And/or we acknowledge
that that's the whole point of having a reserve fund is when unexpected things
happen.
Mm-hmm.
That's what we use the money for.
And we-
Maybe that's part of the plan.
We spent that 413 to save us a lot, a
lot of money over the next 10 years.
Yes.
So if we had to spend a little bit now, that is going to allow us to get back above
the 125 without penalty. We know our fixed costs now in retirement.
We didn't know that before. It kept getting worse.
We kept throwing money at a problem, and it just wasn't... It was getting worse.
And that 413 got us out of that. When we collect the Miller's money this December,
December 2026, it is for operational year 2027. 26 and 27.
26. Calendar year '27. It's for our budget that's '26
through '27. It goes back. Okay. We collect money once a year. Yep.
We collect it at the end of the year. Yep. It's for the calendar year of '27.
If we hire somebody in July, you got a seven-month buffer for that collection year.
Okay. Right. What do you mean?
It's not a full year of getting ahead. His terminology wasn't correct.
The money that we collect in December of '26 gets applied to the
'26, '27 budget year. So if we were collecting $2 million,
and in December, now it's $2.5 million, that budget had a
$0.5 million increase. That's how that money works that we collect
in December.
No, the money that comes in, in December is recollected
the next December, which is halfway in our budget year. Mm-hmm. Your...
I don't think you're calculating it.
We base our budget off of the money we collect in December
When we set up our budget for '26, '27, it was based off of what
we say we're going to collect in our millage in December of '26.
You collect your last year, December 20, 35. What is that money used for?
Last year.
35, 36.
That's what funds us 35, 36.
But the actual cash value of it only lasts through December of the next year, which
is halfway through our budget year. You're not getting it.
So why does Michelle have got the new number, the December 26 collection, as our
property tax that year?
What's that?
The eight that you have in front of you, that was in the thing, that is Michelle.
I didn't touch that. The baseline one that's in there, she's got the property tax
revenue as what's going to be collected December 26.
The 4-
For the '26 collection. Of course, that's the way it's going to show up in our
budget. I'm well aware of that. Well, how are we supposed to...
Are we going to have two different lines or a calendar year?
When we are talking about tax collection and that-
I know
... the hiring of the officers, it's not a full year ahead.
It is. Then you're proving my point.
We're not going to have- So the budget then, if that was the case, should be
whatever this difference is, half of that number. So we went from 3.5 to...
So the $1 million, that should only seen a $500,000 increase to our budget this
year, and we're seeing $1 million increase.
Well, we're on that. And I'm-
This is how it's always done for budget purposes.
Yes. What I'm going to suggest, and then I'm going to shut up because that's the
only way I'm comfortable voting, is that I'm good with everything.
Hire two new officers next July, fine.
Where my hang-up is the 413,000. Why are we going to create our...
Hiring the two new officers, running it out 10 years, I'm convinced that we're
going to have a fund balance in the police.
Why create a problem with our general fund money when this department's going to be
healthy? Why create a problem and not
the remaining balance of the 487? Just retain that in our general fund.
It's going to cover the MERS. Police is going to be fine.
We don't have to
change anything in the spending, and police will still have a positive fund balance
at the end, and they get their two new officers in July.
That's where I'm most comfortable and the only thing I'm willing to vote for.
So-
And it sounds like I'm in the minority.
I know, but if you look at C-
No
... that contemplates not giving us the 487 that's already allocated
and charging us the 413 for the MERS. So that's what I think you're advocating for.
What's that?
C is what I think you're advocating for.
And that is such a razor-thin-
No. You said, you guys, I'll use this wording, take the hit on not getting
the 486 and paying the 413?
Is that what you're saying?
No.
What are you saying?
Don't transfer the 486 to the police. Keep that in the general fund.
General fund will pay the 413. The general fund will be positive about $100,000 in
the current budget year. So we don't have to put the policy into place to make
whatever change is based on the policy going below 125.
Please, D. I understand. I know that. I did contemplate that.
It's D, I think, Chief.
C.
Well, no, D is getting the 487 because Mike's saying give the 487, but also police
pay for MERS. Yes, that's D. That's D.
Yeah. Well, okay, transfer the 487 and have MERS...
If police pay for the 413 and then they get 60 some thousand out of the general
fund, or don't transfer the 487 and general fund pays the MERS.
So Mike, what are you-
One or the other
... really saying? So we completely understand, because I'm totally confused here.
You're saying that the 400 and what is it, 87,000, that has
been committed to the general fund, or from the general fund to the police fund,
that goes away, we take it back, and then out of that money, we pay the MERS
413. We don't hit police twice. Correct?
Correct.
Is that what you're saying?
Or transfer the 487 and have the police pay the 413, and they come out
50,000, 60,000 ahead. They still get 50 or 60 out of the general fund.
That's D, on the chart.
Oh, okay.
That's what letter D is. It's in delta.
And that's what I'm saying. It's like a razor-thin. Yeah.
Everything's under 100,000. Where I struggle-
Wait a second.
D is not.
D, in year eight, you have a fund balance of $1.3 million.
Yeah.
And that's in year eight.
Is that what you're saying, D? Yeah.
I don't know. Nick's telling me that. I haven't read through.
D is to give the lot- Give the 487 ... 487, and- And let them pay the 413 ...
you pay, because that's what the MERS repayment is, yes.
So you're paying the 413 and getting the 487. And getting the 487.
So you're essentially-
So you're saying-
You're paying for MERS and the 487
... you're getting the 487.
That's what D is. That's what D is. Where-
No
... what I'm struggling with, I don't see the first general fund contribution of
100,000. I'm sorry. The reason I...
So, for D, the 413 is in other capital vehicle purchases, because I had to find a-
A spot to put it
... I had to put a spot that was not compounding the numbers.
So it's in there.
So it's the 487 figure.
Okay.
Because if you look at the-
478.
Okay. All right.
But that includes that 14,000.
So in that scenario, in year eight, you're positive 1.3, and that's with hiring two
officers.
So where-
And then our general fund's fine. We don't have to put that policy into play.
Action.
Where I guess I struggle is I think the 413 was a general fund
decision to save this township. I truly still believe that.
I think the 487 this year was a commitment we've made to them, and we've budgeted
for it, we stick with that. The one I struggle with is the $100,000 a year
commitment over the next 10 years or eight years, however, whatever we want to use-
Well, no, indefinite
... is because I don't think we can speak on future boards.
I think we can give intent. Because that would be kind of the rules.
But I think that's the one that would have to be looked at somewhat on a yearly
basis on what the budget can afford and not afford, personally.
But other than that, I guess that's my one concern with the $100,000
one,
for him to budget that, or for the police department to budget that every year,
just assuming they're getting it.
And maybe that can be the projection if we do it or we don't each given year.
And-
If you recall, I'm with you 100%, you're right on there,
but we can talk about police contract negotiations because it's settled and it's a
done deal. The police officers didn't want the 55.
They wanted age 50.
Mm-hmm.
This was a bargain thing.
Mm-hmm.
And it came at a cost and we paid that cost.
This is 100% a police expense, except that you told them that it was so you could
get fire on it.
You could have left them at 50.
It's a general fund expense. They asked for 50.
25 to... No, but that's what they wanted.
When you walked in here, didn't he tell...
He told us that it was your master plan to get the MERS to fire.
And it was coming out literally two minutes into the walking in the board meeting.
August 6th, you informed me of this. I had no idea about this MERS payment.
The
millage committee had no idea when we were formulating plans to go for a millage.
I guess that's my problem.
Well, because it wasn't the plan. It wasn't the plan.
It was not the plan.
And
I'm sorry, and I really don't even want to say this, the only reason that we're
even considering it now, that it comes out of the police fund, is because the
millage passed. And that's not being fair.
That's not what they planned on, and that's not what we planned on.
So we need to stick by what we committed to and not penalize the
police department because the millage passed. That's not fair.
All right. So I'm going to renew my original suggestion.
Given these four variables, we vote on them one by one, instead of saying, "Who's
in favor of projection B? Who's in favor of projection C?" And goes doing it that
way. I just think it makes a lot more sense.
If you lose the vote, you lose the vote. That's how these things work.
Can we just make a motion on the issues that are before us instead of projections?
I'll make a motion that we continue to keep the MERS payment,
413,000,
from the general fund, and that that expense not be transferred to the police fund
That's what I'm suggesting, take these issues one by one.
Yeah. The proposals were just for recent-- I mean, the-
Yeah
... I wasn't looking for-
I have found very helpful-
... every year
... to compare the variables.
Yeah. That's all it was for.
May I say-
I like that idea. Just-
May I say-
Move we have a second.
I'll second.
All right. Second. Move by Harshby, seconded by Miller, that the MERS payment
remain a liability of the general fund and not the police. Is that correct?
Correct.
Okay.
Which is already done.
Okay. We need to clarify that.
We need to clarify that.
It is clarified. It's what's-
What about it?
It's what we did. I don't know what-
Well, then it doesn't hurt to pass a motion.
Exactly.
Because you said Michelle was tripping on how maybe it should...
You know what I mean?
Yeah. To motion by Harshby, seconded by Miller.
There's a lot of tripping going on, and I would like to get a bit of an answer.
We're going to vote. And Tricia, go ahead.
Maybe this is a little out of order, but back when the police department was
formed, I don't know what the budget in the general fund to pay for the police
was. But I would be surprised if any resident
today
understands that we have almost,
well, four and a half to six million dollars that it costs to have a police
fund. And they passed the millage
for the police. So, I don't know that we need to feel
beholden to contribute out of the general fund
anymore. You can decide to do that or not, but, I think that's holding on
to something that I don't think we were collecting
that much in property taxes back in that period.
Yeah. No, I agree.
And I had said to the chief-
To continue the contribution.
But I didn't make that motion.
Right. But that's-
I know
... one issue at a time. Right now we're just looking at the MERS contribution.
Right.
Are you saying that we have already budgeted for the 413 from general fund?
Already paid.
It's already paid.
Mm-hmm. The question is whether the police department is going to be obliged to
repay it.
Is that part of your motion, for timeliness?
It's included in the general fund.
It still stays in the general fund.
Is there any... Nope, your motion's saying no repayment or anything?
No. But that it comes from the general fund and from where it was intended.
The 413 was not-
The 413
... in our budgeted expense that got posted in, as you say, July 1st.
Right.
Because that was supposed to be a last year expense that never happened.
Right. So does everybody understand the current motion under consideration?
Say it one more time.
You bet. Yeah, I'm going to say it one more time.
My motion is that the $413,000
MERS payment remain from the general fund and not be
transferred to the police fund, or the police fund be required to repay it.
That's my motion.
I would second that if somebody hasn't already.
It's, uh, been seconded.
Okay. It's already seconded.
Okay. Good.
Just for clarity, that's the only issue under consideration for this vote.
All in favor?
Vote, oh.
Nope, you want to vote.
No, I didn't know what you're done with comments.
Yes, comments.
I'm soliciting comments.
Okay.
You can say it now.
Yeah, so,
going back to the negotiations, this is something that the police wanted.
This is absolutely a police expense.
And to use my words against me here in a public meeting to try to make me look like
an a*s is not very appreciative. What you're not aware of is that comment was a
reflection of the words that was jokingly said to me from the fire
folks from their negotiation. So I don't appreciate that because you don't know all
the facts.
I know what was said.
And I know that I've...
All right.
Any other substantive discussion on this?
All in favor?
Aye.
Or aye, opposed?
Any opposed?
You guys got me.
Wow, you guys... All right. So that's the MERS.
Now, concomitant with this, I agree with Mike that, and with other sentiments that
have expressed, that because the millage passed,
and because the general fund is taking this $413,000 from MERS hit, I don't feel
obliged to continue the 487,645 transfer from the general fund to the police.
That's my general feeling on this, and I welcome other comments, disputes,
arguments, whatever.
I still feel like that was a commitment we made going into this.
It's committed.
We did. And it's well documented.
And we can... Well, I would argue that we can't look shortsighted year one.
We got to look at tenures. I've ran one of these on a tenure millage for an
organization, and that year one foundation is huge for the success of
that tenure millage. And we know every time we do this, we get ourselves into a
very tight position towards the end of that.
And, I just think that it should still be something that we do, we've committed to,
we budgeted for, um.
But if we decide
that the police are going to live on their millage, that gives
the township board the opportunity to decide each year as they
budget what their general fund looks like and whether they want to
contribute.
And I had said to the chief, and he disagreed with me, that if he gets to manage...
No, the point of the millage is he gets to manage that.
And property is going to go up at least 5% in assessment
every year at minimum, I believe. So-
And Hedley's going to prevent that.
So, that that is going to bring in a little more each year.
And I know you're worried about 10 years, but we may all be
cutting different-
Well, but we do this with every millage.
Right.
We're doing this because we're not planning out. I agree 100% with Nick.
Therefore, I'll make another motion.
And the motion is that the 470-
480. 487. What was it?
487-
645.
Thank you. That money remains where it is and does not get to be transferred
back out from the police budget to general fund or wherever the heck it's going to
go. That it remains there, we don't take it away.
We made a commitment, and it's going to help with our long-term projections, so it
needs to stay. That's my motion. It stays.
All right. Does anybody want to come second that?
I'll second.
All right. Again, move by Harshby, second by Miller.
I don't think that's prudent. I think that the police projections that we've
received indicate that B still provides a very healthy, balanced fund for the
police department, and that for us to eat the 413,000 MERS expense
and the passage of millage on the part of the voters
alleviates us of
the $487,000 contribution that we otherwise had intended to the end, would still
make if they need it, but they don't.
And our budget matters just as much as theirs does.
And Mike pointing out that
if we spend all this money, if we allocate it as well as eating the 413 from MERS,
that's going to put our reserves in jeopardy, and I'm not comfortable with that.
Okay, then the police department would be better off then, by that logic, would be
better off if we just charge them the 413,000, um-
My scenario, which was-
And kept the-
That's... Yeah.
Try to do it
... they'd be further ahead that way than by-
67,000. Is that it?
7,000 net. Yep.
And I'd be fine with that, too. So I don't think the general fund should eat both.
The other option that we have is if we think we got too much money, we don't
collect the full millage.
So when we know we've got enough reserve, then we go to the voters that year, and
we decrease how much we collect from them.
Which we've done for the rough. We can do that.
So let's put us in that position so that we can go to our voters and say, "This
year we're not collecting it because we have enough reserve in place."
What are you talk-- For the police?
Yeah. I'm just saying, like-
But do you think we're going to be that far ahead?
I don't want to do it this year. But what I'm getting at is let's do this, let's
put them in a good spot, and if this board decides, you know what, they have too
much reserves, then we can go to voters and say, year nine, year 10, whatever it
is-
Do it with our budget
... we're going to decrease what we collect from you.
How does that help our budget? Which we also need to be-
Yes
Okay, but-
But we are operating with our budget.
We just have to have-
And we're giving them $487,000
they don't need.
Well, yeah, but we-
We've already budgeted for that
... we budgeted that.
I know we have.
We've given that to them and now because-
Now because we've given up the 413-
... the millage tax, we're saying, "Ha, we're taking it back."
No, because we've also now we're paying for the 413, and that puts our general fund
short.
But that was the intent from the very beginning.
Just because we messed up and didn't remember that that was a general fund
contribution or condition or expense, now we have to go back because the police
millage passed, they've got the money, so let's take it from them. It's not right.
The whole point of the contribution from the general fund was to supplement the
hole in the police budget, but they need it.
Correct.
They don't need it now.
We're dealing with a different situation, and our general fund does.
I don't understand why you're standing on this principle of all of them when this
suggestion that has been made, that we just not give the 487,000 because it's not
necessary and because our budget needs it.
You're going to say that we're obliged to do it because we said we would do it.
Well, we were going to do it. If the millage hadn't passed, we were going to do it.
I know, but we don't need to. Budgets are fluid.
This is where the money is needed now.
I know, and it looks like they-
Project B still looks very healthy
... and they're going to deficit spend this year then too if we do that.
Any other comments?
Well, when I look at this,
it shows that the 500 and...
Well, I don't know. But if we've said we're going to
give them
money for the budget year that we're in now, then I think that
lends some weight to following through on what
we said we were going to do. But I don't see it for fiscal year going
out to '27, '28.
So...
Yeah, so what we're talking about right now is just this fiscal year.
And then the future, I agree with you.
But this is '26.
'26, '27. Yeah, what we've already budgeted for.
Right. So that's why I say, I think that they get it for that, but I don't
feel obligated to keep doing it-
I would agree with you
... in the next fiscal year.
We agree.
I agree with you on that.
I agree with you.
That's not being contemplated now.
Right.
Back when we had discussions on the 413, I've heard that the discussion was with
general fund. That is not correct, because I was in every discussion.
We never contemplated where it was going to come from, ever, until recently.
So don't say it was planned from the beginning-
But then why on July 1st-
... out of general fund
... why on July 1st did we do a budget amendment for it to come from?
We did a budget amendment in June, though.
All right. I'm sorry. June.
That was six months after that contract negotiation.
I'm saying-
Mm-hmm
... back when we did this, it was never contemplated where it was coming from.
Discuss.
But it was always pitched as it's going to save the township
a lot of money, and I think that's saying this board felt that that was
something to do because we-
Savings from the MERS? We're going to save money on MERS
for the police and fire.
The whole point of the 450,000-
So where does that-
... contribution to MERS was to save the township money in the long run.
Does that money come out of the general fund-
We have a-
... or is that savings going to be for the police fund or the fire fund?
If-
So for the last five-ish years, the general fund has given,
what'd they give? They gave 1 million, 1.2 million to MERS-
Mm-hmm
... over a four-year period or something like that. And then we just gave 400.
And so that first $1 million or whatever that we did to try to fix the MERS
unfunding came from where? We took that out of general fund.
Yeah. Because we didn't-
But where did the savings go?
When the MERS-
From the general fund.
We will. So the general fund has taken a $1.5 million plus hit to fund MERS
over the last five years.
Right.
So by paying this 413, that's including that 1.5 million, it's a rough number, I
don't have the exact number here, that's stopping us from having to do that again.
So the contributions that go into each officer's-
That comes out of-
... comes from what?
... the police or fire.
So they'll see those savings, not us.
No. So you're talking two different things.
Right.
We are funding what those officers and firefighters are not funding because we're
underfunding-
Right
... the retirement. We have been trying to bring that retirement account up to
funded status-
Mm-hmm
... out of general fund.
Mm-hmm.
So by making the change, we've set it so we're never going to be underfunded.
That is no longer the township's responsibility.
Right.
That is now on the officers and firefighters.
And if I'm hearing you correctly, that translates into a savings to the general
fund, which had been the fund we were taking the money out of before.
Yes, because that's where it came from.
Yeah. Because we no longer have to do that.
Yes. Thank you.
So the police and fire fund are funding their own retirements, but because they
were underfunding it, this board had made the decision to take that out of general
fund, right?
Mm-hmm.
And-
Another-
... we've made adjustments to prevent that from happening again
... I think part two of that is to remember that that $413 or whatever it
is, is because we signed a contract that
changed
the retirement plan that four people, or whatever it was, were in, and that's
our responsibility.
Yeah.
We wouldn't have
had to make that half a million dollar contribution if we had
been firm in the negotiations and saying, "No, it's this amount of
years that you work as a police officer."
Yeah.
Yep.
So-
Okay. Yeah. So the 487 is what you're discussing.
Yes.
Is it all or nothing? Because my only concern, I'm looking at B, which would be an
all or nothing-
Right
... basically. Well, B would be we'd not paying back the 413 and or taking all 487
out.
Right.
Which I get, but I'm just looking, the operating shortfall, if everything's perfect
is first 27, 28, 50,000 to 92, 97. That to me in a
$4.6 million budget is razor thin if anything goes bad.
Mm-hmm.
That leaves... And you start hitting early on the overall fund balance.
My question is, if it's all or nothing, if we could get some money this fiscal year
out of the 487, whether it's 100,000, 200,000 general fund, I don't know where that
brings you with the 125, but at least get us going on the right step, where we're
ahead. Because like I said, I'm worried about what happens if the market crashes,
what if IT... That's razor thin operating positive, 50,000,
90,000 on a budget like that. So that's what I was asking. Is it all or nothing?
Maybe get it going.
Wait another six months to hire the two officers.
And that's still a choice that we can make-
Wait another what?
... because we haven't decided when to start that.
This board can make that decision.
Yeah.
Sure.
We already discussed it.
Yeah. So
Rick, if I can ask you your projection B contemplates the hiring of two officers.
When? Where are we-
July 1st. These all contemplate July 1st.
Next year, the 27th. All right. Yeah, so I would like to get a full year in
collecting money to get us that cushion, because the last two millages, I've seen
it go south fast, both of them. The 09 millage, I got here in 11.
Oh, sure.
And then by 2017, the general fund kicked in a million dollars.
Same thing.
And the same thing this millage, by literally one year, 1.1 million, the last year
of that millage, and then this one, we got hundreds of thousands.
We're trying to contemplate- And doesn't it make sense, that cushion idea, does it
not make sense then to delay hiring both those police officers?
If you want the true one-year cushion, we would hire December of next year.
Or we just hire one.
When the money's realized.
Right, when the money's fully realized.
Or we just hire one and put off hiring the second one for a little bit.
Sure. But we have not discussed when these officers are going to be hired yet, and
we would have to approve that.
Yeah. I think that's all.
I think he's asking that all of these questions be answered today, I believe.
No, just what are we doing?
Well, yeah.
For sure, the 4/13-
The 20
... we have an answer on. Now, the 4/87, I guess that's my problem, is we're trying
to
forecast out, but we don't know what the rules are.
Mm-hmm.
So, I guess, I don't have a problem if we want to sit down and say, "Hey, we're
going to do one July 1, and one December 1, or two December," but we don't have
rules to do that, is what I'm asking.
All right. So, we have a motion on the table that the general fund
continue with our budgeted $487,000 contribution to the police fund this
fiscal year.
To continue it?
Yeah.
Okay.
That's the motion, to make that contribution as stated.
Other permutations have been suggested, which I think can be discussed, but right
now, our only motion is whether or not we're going to pay the $487,000 as planned.
Is that correct?
Yes.
All right.
Any more discussion or comment?
All right. All in favor?
Aye.
Let's go.
Opposed?
No.
Okay. Motion fails.
As we just said, it certainly does not preclude any other sort of transfers we
might make.
Okay.
And I would certainly want to take a closer look and see what impact any proposed
transfer is going to have on the general fund's
balance. But I'm certainly not opposed to making some contribution if we think it's
necessary. And the hiring of the two officers, the timing of that is also in front
of us.
Well, that's the reason I voted no. I think we still should contribute something.
Okay.
And the timing of the hiring, one in July, one in December.
Yeah.
It'll be time to build some money up.
That's the way I look at it.
Right. And in terms of making sure that we have a sound fiscal cushion to move
forward,
I don't know that we need to decide right now when we're hiring those officers
unless we feel very strongly about it, but that seems to me to be squarely the sort
of variable that is within the chief's discretion, depending on the money he's got.
No, but what we're sending back to the chief is that
the $487,000 is coming out of his budget.
So he's going to be in a budget shortfall this year.
So he's going to be-
We just put him in a budget shortfall for this year.
Right. As things stand right now.
We did. Yeah, we did.
No, we didn't.
He's $462,000 short.
This motion-
Did you check that?
That didn't include the two officers though.
I've got to check it.
This motion changed nothing. If you want to really change it, we have to bring a
budget amendment back to vote on. We haven't done that.
Thank you, Mike.
Yeah, but he's still getting the money.
Thank you.
Another bite at the apple?
So, just got to make a more compelling case.
Okay, so we haven't accomplished anything with that motion.
No.
Because a budget amendment has to come before us in order for the general fund to
take back that money. I'm sorry, sir. You're right back where you started.
Well, at least we've got some direction now. Right?
We know not to bring forth budget amendments that aren't going to pass muster at
this table.
All right.
So I guess the money's still there until we do a budget amendment.
That's correct.
What about the 4/13?
No, 4/13, that's a done deal.
Sorry.
So what did we vote on?
I don't...
Yeah, let's figure the money out.
If that wasn't a budget amendment, what was the vote?
The vote was-
It was more just for direction
... the vote was to continue the transfer of $487,000-
Yeah
... from the general fund to the police department.
We said no to that. Isn't that a budget amendment?
I thought it was for a year.
What is that?
No, no. A budget amendment, you have to show also the bottom lines of the effect on
the department's budget.
But we just said we are not doing that. Correct?
No, the motion was to-
Was to not continue
... we did. The question is, does that count as a budget amendment even though it
wasn't stricken as such?
We're playing semantics at work here, folks. I don't want to play games, man.
We just said we're-
I don't want to play games either. I want to do it the right way.
Again, we just told the chief we are not transferring
$487,645 into his budget. We are not
doing that this year, and we just voted on that.
And my follow-up statement was-
But this is how we do a budget amendment
... is that we still have to bring a budget amendment back to make it official.
And we can reargue this whole thing over again.
Every time we vote on something, we still have to make
it official.
And we can still add something to it.
So,
as I said, and as Mike just
articulated in a parallel way, I want to see the effect on our general fund budget
now and play with some numbers and see if maybe some contribution to the police
fund is going to be appropriate.
If asked, I could have brought the variables, the different budget amendments to
this board meeting, if that's what anybody wanted to contemplate, and we could have
made it efficient.
I just think it's interesting how not that many moons ago,
there was some expression that we had such an enormous amount in the general fund-
We do
... that
we should start doing things for people.
But now we sort of aren't so sure about that.
We got north of 125% of our annual expenditures.
That is extremely healthy. Extremely.
But we set the rule to make sure that we have a good fund balance.
That 125 rule, before we had that rule, you would have said that number is high,
but we set the rule at 125.
Right. Which I think is high. I would argue for 100.
But we don't stop it at 125.
Well, we could drop it down.
We allow it to-
Or introduce it.
We allow-
What was it before? Was it higher?
No, we didn't have one.
We didn't have it. We didn't have it.
And we allow it to drop to 100% without any penalties, without any repercussions.
We just say if it gets below 125, the supervisor has to bring a plan that says over
the next four years, we are going to fix this, this way.
Mm-hmm. Which might be part of what we do, but I want to see where we are.
It first says, "Don't go below 125."
Right.
If it happens-
Yes
... but we're ignoring the don't do it.
All right.
We still can contribute something-
Something
... to this fund.
We set that 125 not including the existing committed
expenditures that we have. And so we made a decision to do that 125
based on
not including that information.
If you take that we didn't have a police millage and a fire
millage, it was just a general fund-
Yeah
... I think the point of having a reserve is that you are going to dip into
it and be below what you have because you've run into a rough time, and you have
to-
That's right
... file a plan into the future how you're going to get out of that.
I know.
So...
I don't think we're in a place that's rough yet. Don't need to dip into it yet.
No, but we still might be in danger of violating our stated policy.
No, that's what I mean.
Just like I said.
I think we need to dip into it.
Right. And if we need to change the policy, we will.
But that's something to figure out.
Oh, I just have a hockey game to go referee.
Oh, okay.
And I guess my only last comment would be is the board still doesn't get it as far
as staffing, because we've been arguing that we're short-staffed for 15 years, and
now we've been told, "Well, maybe next December we'll okay it." So that's my
comment
on that. Thank you.
Thank you.
This is a very topic that I think work studies were created for, when
we contemplated creating work studies, and why we're doing it this way in the
moment.
Yes.
This should've been work study.
Well, except we intended to take action.
Oh, boy. Look, who intended?
There was too much discussion today.
He asked us to take action because he needs direction before he presents to the
client. He needs to figure out what he's working with.
It wasn't an unreasonable request for him to ask the board for direction.
We didn't give it to him.
You didn't give it to him?
No, we didn't give it to him.
No, but the intent was, which is why it's in a board meeting, not a work study
session.
Right.
That's my point.
The direction is clear out of work studies.
We changed the purchase policy based on a nod from the board, not even a vote.
All right. I believe that concludes our agenda.
There's nobody in the general public to say anything, so board comments.
I have a comment.
Okay.
With regards to the recent river cleanup, I just want to say thank you.
Number one, to Freedom River, and number two, to Mike Dolan for stepping up and
doing what he did. He was a tremendous help.
Yes.
So Mike, I want you to understand that it does not go unrecognized.
I appreciate that.
People appreciate what he did. Thank you.
I volunteered for it, to do it.
Mm-hmm.
I was happy to do it. My wife did not volunteer.
I volunteered her, so I passed that on to her.
Well, tell her thank you.
Well, it's really his help.
No, the real thanks.
Because she did a lot as well.
We were in a position, and Freedom River was in a position, where we needed some
commitment and some help, and Mike stepped up and made it happen.
So just thank you, Mike, for that.
We did both.
Good.
The subs were good, and the paint selection was perfect for that.
All right.
I'm
not happy the way this worked anywhere.
It was horrible.
I think we should've had an executive session.
We're responsible for running the township.
That's what the book says, that all day-to-day operations is the responsibility of
us three. We should've had these meetings with the chief long before this rolled
out this way.
It was last minute and
confusing at times.
It didn't need to be that way.
Okay. Any other board comments?
All right. Adjourned.
Move to adjourn.
Second.
Move by Neyzi, second by Harshby to adjourn. All in favor?
Aye.
All right. Thank you, everyone.
Go in.
I don't think that's-