[0:01] Good afternoon, everybody.

[0:03] Welcome to this regularly scheduled meeting of the Hamburg Township Board of

[0:06] Trustees, scheduled today for Tuesday, September 1st, at 2:30 PM.

[0:10] Would everybody present please rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance?

[0:16] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the

[0:21] Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:26] justice for all.

[0:29] Thanks everyone.

[0:36] Thank you.

[0:36] Thank you for the ambiance lighting, Clerk Dolan. Appreciate it.

[0:39] It's bad.

[0:41] Would you please call the roll?

[0:43] Supervisor Neigert?

[0:44] Here, present.

[0:45] Clerk Dolan is present. Treasurer Daniels?

[0:47] Present.

[0:48] Trustee Hardesty?

[0:49] Here.

[0:49] Trustee Hughes?

[0:50] Present.

[0:51] Trustee Menzies?

[0:52] Here.

[0:52] Trustee Miller?

[0:53] Here. All right. We have a full board, capable of conducting business.

[0:58] First order of business is the opening call to the public.

[1:00] Any member of the public who wishes to address the board on any matter whatsoever,

[1:03] please approach the podium. You've got three minutes to tell us what's on your

[1:06] mind. Anything you say may or may not be added to this or a future agenda item of

[1:10] the board.

[1:14] I see nobody interested. I will close the opening call to the public.

[1:17] There will be another call at the end.

[1:19] On the consent agenda before us, we have the regular board meeting minutes from

[1:23] August 18th, our work study session that's also from August 18th, Park and Rec

[1:29] meeting notice for August, Township Coordinator's report for August, Senior Center

[1:33] report for August, Public Safety monthly report for the month of July, and the

[1:37] bills list dated today. Is there any action on the consent agenda?

[1:42] Motion to approve as presented.

[1:45] Second.

[1:45] Moved by Hardesty, seconded by Menzies, to approve the consent agenda as presented.

[1:50] Any discussion on this?

[1:53] All in favor?

[1:54] Aye.

[1:54] Any opposed? All right. Consent agenda is adopted.

[2:01] Looking for a motion to approve the agenda.

[2:03] I have nothing to add, but suggest that we just move everything having to do with

[2:08] Public Safety to the end because Fund 207 budget's going to take quite a while.

[2:14] Public Safety?

[2:16] Yeah. Park ranger change in job status is also Public Safety, right?

[2:19] Is it the only other one?

[2:22] We can do a motion to approve and it'll be done in 10 seconds.

[2:24] That's true. We can. All right, we'll just leave it as is then.

[2:26] Does the board comments need to get moved?

[2:29] Yeah. That's a misprint.

[2:31] Okay.

[2:32] We're just going to solve that.

[2:32] No, we can do it right now. I make a motion to approve the agenda as presented.

[2:37] I'll second. All right. Moved by Dolan.

[2:40] I heard Hardesty louder than Miller, so she gets second on this one.

[2:45] Let the record reflect that taunt. All in favor?

[2:48] Aye.

[2:49] Aye.

[2:51] Aye.

[2:51] All right. Current business, park ranger change in job status.

[2:55] I was promised this would be done in 10 seconds.

[2:57] Motion to approve.

[2:59] As outlined in the memo.

[3:00] That was easy.

[3:01] As outlined in the memo, we have one of our permanent part-time park rangers has

[3:05] accepted a full-time job in the law enforcement department near us.

[3:11] That'll leave a vacancy in our budgeted

[3:14] part-time park rangers. We have a current seasonal one.

[3:18] The timing could not be better. His seasonal employment ends on Labor Day.

[3:23] Perfect.

[3:23] So,

[3:27] I'm looking for a motion from the board to approve the changing of the job status.

[3:31] It's Easton Hardesty. He's worked throughout the summer.

[3:35] He's been very reliable,

[3:38] showing up on time and gets along really well with his fellow coworkers.

[3:43] So, I think this would be a good addition to make him permanent part-time.

[3:46] So, I'm looking for a motion to

[3:49] change his job status to permanent part-time park ranger, effective September 7th,

[3:53] at his current wage, which is Grade 2, Step 1 of the salary and wage step.

[3:58] I'll read the motion into the record.

[3:59] Motion to approve the changing the job status of Easton Hardesty from seasonal

[4:04] part-time park ranger to permanent part-time park ranger, effective September 7th,

[4:08] 2026, at his current wage of $20.74 per hour, which happens to be Grade 2, Step

[4:14] 1.

[4:15] I'll second. All right. Moved by Dolan, seconded by Daniels.

[4:18] When you brought him on, I thought he was in college.

[4:21] Yes, he was in college.

[4:22] Is he going to be able to keep up the hours you need?

[4:24] He's transferred to a college local.

[4:26] Oh.

[4:26] So, yes.

[4:27] Very good. Okay, keep it up.

[4:28] It works out really well.

[4:29] Because I know you got some needs there.

[4:30] Good.

[4:31] Yeah. Any other discussion or questions on this?

[4:36] All in favor?

[4:37] Aye.

[4:38] Aye.

[4:38] Any opposed?

[4:39] Abstain.

[4:39] Abstain. One abstain. And I remember this came up when Easton

[4:45] was first hired, so the board should of course remember Joanna's putative conflict

[4:50] of interest, and your abstention is noted. Thanks, everyone.

[4:54] Thank you.

[4:55] Thank you. All right. Next up, Hamburg Flyers Club MOU, memorandum of

[4:59] understanding.

[5:00] So, at the request of working with Debbie

[5:06] Henneman as the park coordinator and the park

[5:12] committee, these MOUs are a whole lot easier to deal with

[5:18] than the annual application process. We've got this with other groups.

[5:22] We've got it with

[5:24] HERO as well. So before you, it is what? A three-year?

[5:28] Yes.

[5:30] So, I'll make a motion to authorize Clerk Dolan to enter into the memorandum of

[5:35] understanding on behalf of the township with the Hamburg Flyers Club, as presented

[5:39] in today's packet.

[5:40] I'll second.

[5:41] All right. Moved by Dolan, seconded by Menzies.

[5:45] Anyone have any questions about this?

[5:47] I do.

[5:47] Yes.

[5:48] Which way are the annual fees being paid, the $350?

[5:53] I missed that.

[5:56] I'm sorry?

[5:57] In paragraph eight of the memo, it simply says, "Annual fees for this contract

[6:01] shall be $350," but it doesn't clarify who's paying whom.

[6:08] Okay. I'm looking for it.

[6:10] And if-

[6:10] And I know-

[6:11] And if the Flyers are paying... Oh, so have they done that in the past?

[6:14] Yes, and it's been that same dollar amount for-

[6:17] Years

[6:18] ... years and years and years. So, that annual fees for this contract.

[6:21] So, we'll clean it up to make it better understanding that the Flyers are

[6:27] paying-

[6:28] The township

[6:29] ... Hamburg Township.

[6:30] And then, I think I remember reading that they're going to be in charge of the

[6:35] sledding hill and something else outside of the remote control things.

[6:41] No, that's the township.

[6:42] No.

[6:42] The township will.

[6:44] Mm.

[6:44] Not the Flyers. I know I misread it myself that first time I attacked

[6:51] it.

[6:51] Okay.

[6:51] Yeah. That's subsection C. The township will-

[6:55] Right

[6:55] ... provide this.

[6:58] Okay. How many people are

[7:03] dues-paying people in the remote Flyers Club?

[7:08] I don't recall the exact number. It's been pretty steady, but the president's in

[7:14] the-

[7:14] Yeah.

[7:14] Okay.

[7:15] The president's here. Gene, do you want to please come answer that question?

[7:18] Yeah. Gene Dotz, president of the Flyers Club.

[7:21] I'd have to count, but I'm thinking 25 to 30 is in our club, give or take a couple.

[7:27] It's been steady. We pick up a couple people, we lose a couple people.

[7:30] Lose a couple. Yeah.

[7:31] Yeah.

[7:32] Can I respond? I'm sorry to interrupt.

[7:34] Yeah.

[7:34] You asked how many were dues-paying members of the Flyers Club?

[7:39] No.

[7:39] Oh, they don't pay dues.

[7:41] They don't pay dues. They pay a park use fee, but no dues.

[7:45] They pay a park use fee. In replace of dues, we do fundraisers.

[7:47] We raise money for the club, and part of the requirements of being a member is to

[7:51] participate in those fundraisers.

[7:54] But as far as dues are concerned, we haven't paid dues in 15 years.

[8:00] And so, this is being done this way now, that you're asking us to do it this way

[8:05] now, to make it easier

[8:10] for this to happen each year?

[8:14] Yes.

[8:14] I guess I'm looking for the motivation behind this.

[8:16] Yes. Yes.

[8:17] So, the permit that I submit, and I've been president now for 22 or 23 years-

[8:21] Yes.

[8:22] ... it's the same permit. All I do is change the date on it and turn it back in.

[8:27] The language hasn't changed in over 20 years.

[8:30] So it's just, I guess, help the township administratively and help me from an

[8:34] administrative perspective.

[8:35] Well, and over and above that, it adds a lot more language and clarity.

[8:40] It does add a lot more language.

[8:40] It brings a lot more clarity to the understanding of the agreement with the

[8:44] township and them. So, I think it plays best for the township.

[8:48] Give us a rule book to follow for both groups.

[8:50] Mm-hmm.

[8:51] Yeah.

[8:52] Because the park use application doesn't have as many rules stipulated-

[8:56] No

[8:56] ... as in this memorandum.

[9:04] Any more questions anyone? Any more commentary? No.

[9:07] We're good.

[9:07] All right. Thank you.

[9:09] Great.

[9:09] All right. All in favor?

[9:11] Aye.

[9:11] Any opposed? All right, motion passes.

[9:15] Thank you.

[9:17] Over the road banner resolution.

[9:20] So we processed that through Parks and Rec, Debbie and I.

[9:25] And as we know, we have the heroes, had those installed out there, for

[9:31] this reason. I think this is the second year for Freedom River.

[9:34] Fourth.

[9:34] Fourth. On Freedom River?

[9:36] Yep.

[9:37] So in any case, the road commission requires it to be in resolution format from the

[9:42] local government to authorize for the banner.

[9:45] So my motion is to approve the resolution for the Freedom River Halloween

[9:49] fundraising event banner,

[9:53] to be hung over Merrill Road at the request of the road commission.

[10:00] Are the dates here? From September 1st through October 30th.

[10:05] So it's just because we didn't do a resolution last month?

[10:08] Yes.

[10:09] That's why.

[10:09] Yes. Yeah.

[10:11] I just wanted to make sure I understand.

[10:12] Yeah, it's the resolution. They required the resolution.

[10:15] It's not an additional banner, it's the same banner.

[10:17] Yep.

[10:17] All right. So Mike, you move the resolution?

[10:20] Yep.

[10:20] I'll second.

[10:21] All right. Moved by Dolan, seconded by Miller.

[10:23] The resolution is in the packet, electronic page 80. Hopefully we go with it.

[10:28] Roll call vote please.

[10:28] Negri?

[10:29] Yes.

[10:29] Dolan? Yes. Daniels?

[10:30] Yes.

[10:31] Hardesty?

[10:32] Yes.

[10:32] Hughes?

[10:33] Yes.

[10:33] Menzies?

[10:34] Yes.

[10:34] Miller?

[10:35] Yes.

[10:35] All right. Resolution passes.

[10:39] Next up, final site plan review. David,

[10:43] come on down.

[10:46] Were you trying to leave? Come in.

[10:50] All right. Good afternoon everybody.

[10:52] So this is, the combined site plan application, PZBA

[10:57] 26-004. This is for our 9704 Quest Road, that's where the property's located.

[11:03] This is a similar site plan that was approved by the planning commission and the

[11:07] board of trustees four years ago. It's come back around.

[11:10] The use now is going to be a restaurant/golf simulator.

[11:14] It was in front of the planning commission as a combined site plan on August 19th

[11:18] of this year. They put in six conditions.

[11:21] Two of the conditions I've noted in parentheses have already been now addressed

[11:26] since the meeting, and I've added those additional documents to the packet.

[11:30] So, I think it's relatively straightforward. It is a good project.

[11:35] It has the support of the neighborhood.

[11:37] Planning commissioners really thought it was a great use for what's become a

[11:41] functionally obsolete building. So, the applicant, Mr. Wood is here as well.

[11:46] If there's any questions that I can't answer, I'm sure he can. So...

[11:52] All right.

[11:54] Board members have any questions about this?

[11:56] I've heard some positive things about this.

[11:59] My only concern, and again, I'm looking at it right now, would be the parking.

[12:03] I mean, parking's more than adequate?

[12:05] Parking does meet the parking requirements, yeah. More than adequate.

[12:09] All right.

[12:09] Okay. Joanna?

[12:12] My question for you, David, what is a combined site plan

[12:17] application?

[12:18] Oh, good question. So a combined site plan application is, the applicant has an

[12:22] opportunity to, instead of doing a preliminary and a final, to do a combined, for a

[12:28] smaller, less complex project. And then they can bring that combined site plan

[12:32] final to the board. So it saves essentially two meetings for them.

[12:37] It's typically not common because we're used to doing larger subdivisions, but for

[12:42] a smaller commercial site like this, it is.

[12:45] Okay. So what we're approving today is preliminary and final?

[12:48] A preliminary and final, yes, exactly.

[12:50] Okay. The other question that I had, in your memo to the planning commission, you

[12:55] said that the applicant had requested waivers to the landscaping and parking

[12:59] requirements.

[13:01] Mm-hmm.

[13:01] And I didn't find it completely addressed.

[13:06] Have waivers, are waivers been granted, or have they complied with what?

[13:11] Yeah. So the waivers were specifically to the landscaping requirements.

[13:15] Okay.

[13:15] So those were in the staff report. There's buffer requirements that were simply not

[13:20] going to be possible to meet because it's a corner lot.

[13:23] So we put in for some landscaping waivers to apply.

[13:29] Okay.

[13:29] And the parking requirements

[13:31] were met, and have been met. So, the lot is being paved.

[13:36] There's a pile as well. So everything, again, the applicant really was trying to

[13:42] essentially mirror the same site plan that was approved four years ago, so there's

[13:45] been almost no changes. Actually, the building's actually not going to be as tall.

[13:50] So that's good as well too. So yeah, but the planning commission did grant them

[13:54] some basic waivers for the landscaping requirements. Yeah.

[13:58] Okay.

[14:00] Commissioner.

[14:02] Well, I

[14:05] think that

[14:08] the parking

[14:10] is the most radical change from what we were used to when it was the Blue Water

[14:15] thing, that it now kind of went around

[14:19] the building. I'm a little concerned about the property

[14:24] to the south with the swale and all of that kind of thing.

[14:28] But,

[14:31] I think the neighbors have talked about the fencing and feel pretty good about

[14:36] that. So I know that at least one of the neighbors wants the building to be

[14:42] renovated instead of sitting there and turning into mush.

[14:49] Any other board questions?

[14:52] All right. Then I will entertain a motion to approve the combined site plan as

[14:58] presented. No more? Then I'll make it.

[15:01] I'll make a motion that we approve the combined site plan application, PZBA 26-004,

[15:07] located at 9704 Quest Road.

[15:09] I'll second.

[15:10] All right. Moved by Negri, seconded by Daniels.

[15:13] Any further discussion?

[15:14] I just have one question. Any anticipating opening date, completion date?

[15:20] It's looking like March.

[15:22] So before next golf season, they'll be able to get in there and-

[15:25] Well, I-

[15:26] You want your first tee time.

[15:28] Do we have the hours

[15:30] posted here?

[15:32] I didn't see them.

[15:33] What are the hours going to be?

[15:35] I guess they can stay open-

[15:36] They're in there. I'm sure they are, but I didn't see them yet.

[15:41] We don't have exact set hours. Probably going to be around 10 or 11:00 AM,

[15:46] till on the weekends at 10:00 PM, maybe 11:00.

[15:49] It'll be probably 9:00 or 10:00 during the week.

[15:56] Everything going well with the state

[15:59] liquor license and the county health department for food and what have you?

[16:03] Is that still part of the plan?

[16:04] Yep. We're in motion with it and now we just gotta wait on our build-out.

[16:09] We're gonna come check it out.

[16:11] Come check it out.

[16:13] So I can have a beer with the golf simulator so I don't screw up my outdoor game.

[16:16] That's right.

[16:17] Yes, yes.

[16:20] On that note, all in favor?

[16:21] Aye. Aye.

[16:22] Any opposed? All right. Motion passes.

[16:27] One.

[16:27] And approved. Thank you. Hambrick pump station valve replacement.

[16:32] Tony spending more money.

[16:35] Every time we meet.

[16:37] Tony, every meeting.

[16:37] You got a reputation now.

[16:39] I skipped last time.

[16:40] Oh.

[16:43] Hambrick station,

[16:45] eight-inch valve we needed to replace there last year.

[16:47] We discovered when we were hitting the pipe issue, this valve wouldn't shut all the

[16:51] way.

[16:53] So we wanted to get through the problem at hand at the time, but come back to

[16:59] it in warm weather

[17:02] once the emergency was fixed. So now we're in a new budget year, and before winter

[17:07] hits, it's a good time to do it.

[17:09] We've talked to our blank contractor, C&E Construction.

[17:12] He is too busy to do this right now, with septic failures and sewer costs.

[17:18] But C&E, I'm sorry, NCE Construction, comprehensive contracting, gave us a price on

[17:24] this, $19,450, which was a little bit higher than expected.

[17:29] We did go back and talk to him, and I got a new quote this morning.

[17:32] We got it down now to $17,450, mainly because he was able to get a hold of a fusing

[17:37] machine. He doesn't have to pay as much as he was going to.

[17:42] He was going to have to rent it somewhere else. Borrowing it.

[17:47] So the total cost will be $17,450, $2,000 less than what's in the packet.

[17:55] The governance and contracting has done a lot of work for us before.

[18:00] Okay.

[18:02] I'll make a motion to approve

[18:05] ... comprehensive contracting to replace the eight-inch gate valve and adjacent

[18:08] piping near the Hamburg pump station for a total cost of 17,450, is that what you

[18:14] said?

[18:14] Mm-hmm.

[18:16] And that's coming from the-

[18:19] From the sewer enterprise budget-

[18:20] Enterprise

[18:21] ... yep, 590-

[18:22] And is it budgeted?

[18:23] It is budgeted.

[18:24] Okay.

[18:26] We know we're going to get the best deal if it's coming from Tony. Tony Riccardi.

[18:31] True enough. All right. We've got a motion. How about a second?

[18:34] I'll second.

[18:35] All right. Seconded by Menzies. Very hearty.

[18:40] Any questions?

[18:43] All in favor?

[18:43] Aye.

[18:44] Aye.

[18:44] Any opposed? All right. Motion approved.

[18:48] Thank you.

[18:50] All right.

[18:52] Now, I'd like to say that wraps up our meeting today, but it doesn't.

[18:56] Yeah, it wouldn't.

[18:56] Motion to adjourn.

[18:57] Hurry up. Somebody have to make a motion. All right.

[19:01] Chief Duffy, come on down. You've got- That's a foreboding introduction. Ah.

[19:08] It'll be fine. I know you've got a handout for us, too, right? Yeah.

[19:11] So as I indicated in the memo,

[19:17] myself, the DC, and lieutenant have been, since the millage passed, and first of

[19:21] all, obviously, it's a good problem to have that the millage passed.

[19:24] We're trying to figure out what to do with the money.

[19:26] But we've been wanting to update our 10-year capital forecast as well as a 10-year

[19:33] financial projection for the police department.

[19:36] But, until we get some definite answers on some things, it's been impossible to

[19:40] move forward because there are several variables in play here.

[19:44] So, I did give, in the packet,

[19:47] what I would call a baseline financial projection, where it doesn't include any

[19:52] general fund contribution, doesn't address the MERS repayment issue, and it doesn't

[19:58] show any additional officers. So what I did over the weekend, anticipating

[20:03] probably the most common scenarios that will be discussed, I went through and took

[20:09] the baseline and then you'll see, I'll get everybody...

[20:12] I just finished it yesterday. I would've liked to give it to you over the weekend,

[20:16] but I just got it finished. But it'll be a good document to have as a

[20:22] resource to look at when we're discussing this, where we'll have some hard numbers.

[20:27] So basically, each one of them is a different scenario, depending, showing

[20:31] different general fund contributions, whether the MERS issue is repaid back to

[20:36] general fund or not. And then all of them contemplate, except for the baseline one,

[20:40] hiring two officers because that's what was told to the residents

[20:46] as one of the benefits of voting yes.

[20:47] But in any event, so

[20:51] these are probably the six most common.

[20:54] The front page is like a table of contents, just showing, and then if you

[21:00] look where it says Projection A, B, C, when you open up, each one has

[21:06] the letter on the left-hand side, so it should be relatively easy to follow.

[21:11] And again, it's just, not to do a big-

[21:15] Oh, that's yours. Okay. Thank you ...

[21:18] scientific study, but it's if we say, "Hey, we're going to do this with general

[21:22] fund and this with MERS," that there is something to refer back to, a resource to

[21:28] say, "Well, how does this impact

[21:31] everything, the numbers," I guess, or whatever.

[21:34] So, or what if, you know,

[21:40] what happens with COVID? So, I don't know where

[21:45] you want to start.

[21:49] I know,

[21:50] for me,

[21:52] moving forward, there's three things that really are paramount in my

[21:57] considerations of what I'd like to see.

[22:00] First and foremost, I want to make sure that we have a plan in place for 10 years

[22:04] from now that we're in a financial position where we don't have to ask for millage

[22:08] increase, that we go into the next millage just asking for straight up approval.

[22:13] I think that's a top priority. Secondly,

[22:19] I also want to make sure that we are in a position that

[22:25] if the housing market crashes and our tax revenue goes down, that we're in a

[22:30] position where we don't have to lay off officers.

[22:33] I was right in the middle of it in '08, when that market crashed, and I

[22:39] know our department went from 86 officers down to the 60s.

[22:42] Our neighboring Inkster went from 62 officers to 21.

[22:47] Pontiac folded their police department. They've never been back.

[22:50] So, that's another thing I want to make sure of.

[22:56] I

[22:57] read stuff all the time, and everyone's always predicting gloom and doom.

[23:02] And so that was another consideration.

[23:04] And then also,

[23:09] we want to make sure that we're in a position that if we have any unanticipated,

[23:16] primarily IT-related stuff, that we have enough in our reserves to cover it.

[23:21] Every time Darius goes to the ALB meeting, Administrative Oversight, he comes back

[23:25] with,

[23:27] "The county's talking about this, and the county's talking about this," whether

[23:30] it's the CAD system or it's the record management system or the, all the big-ticket

[23:35] things. So he scares me every time because we're at the mercy of the county.

[23:39] If the county says we're switching our RMS- Just to let him go to the meetings

[23:42] anymore. I know. So if the county goes, "Ah," says we're switching over to RMS, and

[23:48] it's going to be a million-dollar migration, which I think that was the figure we

[23:52] were talking about. Yes. So my point being is he scares me every time he comes back

[23:56] from ALB. So I want to make sure we have solid reserves- Yes ...

[24:00] that we can take that hit if necessary.

[24:03] So,

[24:06] I guess I don't know. I turn it back over to you.

[24:11] How do we move forward? Like I said, we have the 487 that's been allocated,

[24:17] the 555 that we spent on Rick's warning system purchase, and we have the issue of

[24:22] the MERS repayment, and whatever.

[24:26] Again, I'm not even per se advocating for any of these proposals.

[24:31] Just tell me what my parameters are so I can move this forward. Correct.

[24:36] We've talked about all these issues, but we haven't actually come to consensus on

[24:41] the board to vote on these things. So if the chief needs direction,

[24:45] we have to get it to him.

[24:46] Mm-hmm. Absolutely.

[24:48] Well,

[24:50] so one, two, three, four questions.

[24:54] The 555 is already a done deal. Are we going to undo it, is the question, right?

[24:59] That's already done. As well as the 487, because we gave some to fire.

[25:04] We gave some of that to the fire.

[25:07] In our budget. That we passed. Yes. As a transfer out, 555 to the police. Yeah.

[25:12] And in our last board meeting or two board meetings ago, we took- Of that to the

[25:17] fire, yes ... 8,000, I'm forgetting the exact number, and moved it out of that.

[25:21] So it's the 487.

[25:23] Yeah.

[25:24] 487 is already a done deal. It's right here. It's already a done deal.

[25:28] Are we going to undo it? Mm-hmm. And is there any future?

[25:32] Then the 413, 413,000 for MERS. And then if there's going to be any new

[25:37] hires.

[25:43] Okay.

[25:44] So, the new hires,

[25:47] I think it was discussed in committee. This board's never discussed it.

[25:51] But we've never approved it. We're going to have to talk about it.

[25:54] We never approved it. We had the discussion.

[25:55] Chief brought before us, when we were discussing what

[26:02] the millage rate was going to be, he brought us some proposals, starting at where

[26:07] we're at now and going all the way up to 3.2717.

[26:12] We had a very lengthy discussion about

[26:16] what we wanted to see, what he proposed, the two new hires at that time.

[26:22] The $413,000 MERS payment was not even

[26:28] on anybody's radar. It was on our radar, but not coming from police.

[26:33] It was coming from general fund. It was certainly not on PD's radar at the time

[26:37] that all this was presented, and we made the decision to go for the three

[26:42] mills. It was talked about. It was talked about at length, and the general fund

[26:47] contribution was talked about at length.

[26:50] In committee.

[26:51] We talked about it at this meeting when we were discussing the three, what millage

[26:56] rate we were going after. Jason concurred at the last meeting that we had started

[27:00] out at 250,000. And Pat, I think that was in committee.

[27:04] And we-

[27:05] Yep

[27:05] ... brought the recommendation back to the board for the 100,000.

[27:08] So we reduced it, and Jason was willing to go along with it, even though he was

[27:12] against it at first-

[27:13] Correct

[27:13] ... with the 250. So

[27:17] And as far as that MERS payment goes,

[27:21] I don't even think we should even be considering that that come from the police

[27:25] fund, considering what our discussion was at the time when we made the decision to

[27:30] move forward with that, what our plan was. It was a general fund expense.

[27:37] Based on that, we did a budget amendment in July

[27:43] to move that money into the general fund or take it from the general fund.

[27:48] It was not police, and we never notified the police department.

[27:51] We never asked the police chief if this was an okay thing-

[27:54] No, right

[27:54] ... to take out of your budget.

[27:55] Right.

[27:55] Because that wasn't our motivation.

[27:57] Correct.

[27:59] So yeah, I'm pretty firm that the MERS is not to be the police expense.

[28:06] When were you-

[28:06] That's just my thoughts. When were you thinking the two officers?

[28:11] Were you thinking, what budget year?

[28:14] I would prefer-

[28:14] 26, 27, is that where we were? Yeah.

[28:16] Yeah. So I would prefer not till next...

[28:19] I'd like to get a full year collected, with one caveat in that one of our

[28:25] sergeants apparently or allegedly or may be leaving at the beginning of the year.

[28:32] Maybe May or June, get in maybe the new hires, because if we're going to do a list

[28:36] to bill him, we'd have to wait. Or I'd like to do a list, but I'd like to get him

[28:41] in in May or June just to get him into the program, have him here for Fun Fest,

[28:46] have him here, get trained on the boat, get him in here for June-ish.

[28:50] So, I mean, I can wait till July 1st.

[28:53] I really want to get a full year of the millage rate, the millage, uh-

[28:58] You got the additional expenditure in your body.

[29:00] Yes. So I would prefer to wait as long as possible.

[29:03] I concur.

[29:05] So I'm shooting for the May, June, July-ish picture.

[29:09] But definitely not before that.

[29:15] Okay.

[29:23] And the logic behind the $100,000 commitment,

[29:31] and me and you have talked about this previously.

[29:34] Sure.

[29:34] So there were some reasons-

[29:36] If they've got a healthy millage, why would the general fund be giving money to it?

[29:42] You or me.

[29:45] Well, because you have always said that that's what you promised the residents

[29:51] when we got a police department started.

[29:53] So I wasn't here for that. I don't know about

[29:59] that.

[30:01] I will just say that my position is

[30:05] the MERS money comes from the general fund because that

[30:10] was

[30:12] the township board figuring out how to manage the retirement things

[30:18] now and into the future.

[30:24] And we had had a group of police officers that were in a program

[30:30] that was saving the township money, that the board had approved, and we had lived

[30:36] under it for some years, and then this board came along and said, "Oh, no,

[30:42] no, no." So to me, this is a general fund expense for the MERS

[30:47] catch-up for going up, for the public safety MERS pensions

[30:53] in the future.

[30:58] I guess

[31:04] I've heard Mike say, and it seemed to me that a department should live under its

[31:09] millage. So if we're going to back up and say, "Okay, you've got

[31:15] your three mills. Figure out what that's going to do for you for the next 10

[31:20] years," I think I could go along with that.

[31:26] Okay. Joanna, did you want to offer a philosophical explanation in defense of the

[31:29] $100,000 a year contribution from the general fund?

[31:32] Yes. Actually, Patricia helped in committee, to better

[31:40] clarify the reason for doing that.

[31:42] I had mentioned, and I've stood behind this from day one, is that when we

[31:48] went after a police millage back, how many years ago has it been now? Do you know?

[31:53] The very first one?

[31:54] Yeah, the very first one.

[31:55] Well, we tried to do a joint back in '97, '98, somewhere in there.

[32:01] So it's been a few years.

[32:01] It might be '96.

[32:02] Been a few years.

[32:03] And-

[32:07] Police was completely funded by the general fund.

[32:09] And when we decided we were going to go after a police millage, there was some

[32:14] backlash down at that time,

[32:17] and people did not want to see, our taxpayers did not want to see us get a millage

[32:22] and then put that money that was funding the police department back into the

[32:25] general fund. They wanted to see it go for it.

[32:28] So we, at that point, made a commitment that a certain percentage of that would

[32:34] go, general fund would go with the police millage.

[32:38] And I know that's happened every time, every renewal since.

[32:41] But Patricia brought up that we have a healthy fund balance. Well, we did.

[32:47] Good.

[32:47] Yeah. I said that. And, the point was that because we

[32:52] do, it would be nice to say to the residents, "You're getting something for your

[32:58] money, that part of that money is going back to help run the police department."

[33:01] And one of the issues that we discussed were these two, hiring two new bodies, two

[33:07] new police officers, and that was all part of it as well.

[33:11] I really would love to see us continue that general fund contribution at

[33:17] 100,000, even though we started out at 250.

[33:24] And definitely not take that MERS payment from the police department.

[33:29] So I have a quick... So, the projection B, that shows no general

[33:35] fund, that we don't pay back the MERS per payment, and then the two officers.

[33:41] Mm-hmm.

[33:43] I guess a quick question I have, does the board resolution that we carry

[33:49] 25% of our operations, is that

[33:52] real? Is that legitimate? Is that something we need to do?

[33:57] I think so. What's it mean?

[33:58] So that's my question.

[33:59] Board resolution that they carry 25% of operations.

[34:01] Does that carry any weight, is my question. Are we supposed to do that?

[34:05] I'm asking, because-

[34:07] That portion was not included when we updated our administrative policies and

[34:10] procedures and actually put the 125% for general fund operation.

[34:17] That portion was not included in the APPM. There was a previous resolution.

[34:21] Can that be binding on future boards?

[34:23] No, I'm asking. Does that mean-

[34:25] If it wasn't included, then it's not.

[34:27] So does that mean anything?

[34:27] I think if it's going to be real, it should be a motion to put it into the APPM.

[34:33] That's my opinion.

[34:35] No, and I'm asking, I don't know the answer.

[34:37] I just didn't know, does that mean anything?

[34:39] I think that's the answer. If it was deliberately not included in our most recently

[34:44] approved administrative policies and procedures, and it had been in a previous

[34:48] version and was removed, I would say it's not binding.

[34:52] Okay. I'm just asking.

[34:53] That's my answer. I know.

[34:54] If I don't have to follow it, then it matters.

[34:57] Right.

[34:58] Because a lot of these, they show this thing in red all through the whole 10 years.

[35:03] That's my question is, that's fine. That's fine.

[35:06] But what are the rules, I guess I'm asking. I don't have to have 25%.

[35:11] Well, what would it look like without the two officers?

[35:14] I'm sorry?

[35:16] How much red would there be if we weren't doing two officers?

[35:22] Well, that would be A.

[35:23] Yeah, the only version that doesn't contemplate the hiring of officers is A.

[35:26] Yeah.

[35:27] There's no officers, that's no general fund.

[35:31] But like I said, I don't even

[35:34] know how that could be an option since the voters were told we were getting two

[35:38] officers. And that was on the township website.

[35:43] So it's not like the union-

[35:45] Well, you know I don't get as excited about what the other townships and the state

[35:50] says the ratio of police officers to residents should be.

[35:58] Well, we're way below anyway. Even with two officers, we're still way below.

[36:03] I know.

[36:03] So to me, I guess maybe that's a start.

[36:06] I think not hiring two officers is not even on the

[36:12] table. I don't know how it could be.

[36:14] Well, all right. Considering that there are four variables involved in this, I

[36:18] think unless anybody has a better suggestion, why don't we take them one by one and

[36:22] take a board vote on each of these four variables to get the sense of where we

[36:25] think we're at right now. I'm not comfortable doing any...

[36:29] I have some more questions before I'm comfortable answering any one.

[36:34] I anticipate that the questions would come as each area came up.

[36:38] Okay.

[36:39] Is that, it makes sense to me. First, we're going to tackle the mercy repayment.

[36:43] Hash everything out. You got questions, comments, now's your chance.

[36:46] Well, first, we have an eight-year projection here and a 10-year village.

[36:52] That's what Michelle sent is, I don't know if the last two years are- Well, and I'm

[36:57] just saying,

[36:59] if everybody's looking at these numbers and nobody's questioned that we can run it

[37:02] out 10 years, how are we going to- I didn't ask Michelle why she did it.

[37:06] Yeah, I don't know. Usually in the budget it's only a six-year projection or five

[37:12] years. Yeah, I don't know what was- I mean,

[37:17] you can get a reasonable sense of the trend. Yeah. Well, yeah.

[37:22] In looking at the trend of fund balance at the last

[37:28] projection year here, '33, '34, which is year eight, is $3.7

[37:33] million. I did the conservative additional 700,000 for year nine, additional

[37:39] 700,000 for year 10. That puts it at $5.2 million fund

[37:45] balance. 5.2. If you're looking at A, that's without the two officers.

[37:50] No, I'm looking at my numbers here. I'm just talking my numbers.

[37:54] Where are your numbers? In front of me.

[37:57] What doc-- Are you talking off of A?

[38:02] No, I'm not even looking at your packet. All right.

[38:04] I did my own calculations a half hour before the board meeting.

[38:07] What I'm saying is, is year eight, that $3.7 million- Without- What's in the packet

[38:13] ... hiring two officers. Correct. Right. Without hiring two officers, 3.784.

[38:19] Correct. And then I added 700,000 for year nine and 700,000 for year 10. Right.

[38:24] The trend. That puts it at $5.2 million projected. Right. Okay.

[38:29] Then-

[38:30] So his trends that got to 3.784, which is what you're talking, it's what A is.

[38:35] Right.

[38:35] It's only a difference of about 500 a year.

[38:38] Right.

[38:38] And not 700 like you're-- I don't know where you're getting 700 from.

[38:42] Look at the trend.

[38:44] I am.

[38:46] So one to six is five. Six to

[38:51] 12,

[38:53] six and a half. So it's about five to six there.

[38:57] The 3.2 to 3.7, that's five. I don't know where you're getting 700,000 a year on

[39:03] the trend.

[39:04] Where would you like me to use? 500,000?

[39:06] I'm just-

[39:08] I'll-

[39:09] I'm just trying to follow your math.

[39:11] Okay.

[39:11] That's all I'm trying to do.

[39:12] Well, let's not. Let's just make it easy. 500,000.

[39:14] Okay.

[39:14] We'll use that for a trend. Very conservative approach, right?

[39:17] Okay.

[39:18] So what do we do? So that's $4.8 million.

[39:21] Okay.

[39:22] Okay.

[39:24] Then, again, I just put this together right before the board meeting, and I'm going

[39:30] to share the numbers and I'd like to hear feedback if I'm wrong here.

[39:36] But I started with a base point of 125, a cost for one officer at

[39:41] $125,000. So two officers is $250,000.

[39:46] Is that what's up? Your base there was 100,000.

[39:49] Yeah, you're not including investment.

[39:50] Year was? Yes. Well, that'll be.

[39:53] Yeah, we got that'll be now.

[39:55] Well-

[39:56] It's 150 minimum per officer. So I was being light

[40:02] saying 300,000. So you, like you're saying, you can take 3 million out of that,

[40:06] quote unquote. By your point. It's 150 an officer, easily.

[40:12] Okay. At 125 an officer, running it out for the 10 years, the cost is $3.2

[40:18] million.

[40:20] And I think it's a little bit open. Okay.

[40:23] Yeah, I was going to say, by the time this is up, they're going to be making

[40:27] three-

[40:28] I added 7% each year

[40:32] ... plus all their benefits.

[40:33] What I'm suggesting is, do we know what the police fund balance is going to be at

[40:38] the end of 10 years with hiring two new officers? We do not have that information.

[40:42] How are we going to make these other decisions not knowing that information?

[40:46] I come up with $3.2 million over 10 years of hiring these officers.

[40:50] Make it $4 million. That's fine. That still leaves a fund balance in the police of

[40:54] $1.2 million.

[40:55] So if you go to document B that he gave you. Page-- If you go to B.

[40:59] So are you hung up on the last two years on it? I can have Michelle rerun it.

[41:03] I just used what she has.

[41:04] So document B shows that with two officers, putting no

[41:10] additional funds in, that it's going to bring you at 1.2 million.

[41:15] In year eight.

[41:15] In year eight, so then it's 150, so 300,000.

[41:19] So you're going to do 1.6, like you need 1.7 million in reserve with two

[41:25] officers. It's not going to be 4.5 million.

[41:27] And that's still less than-

[41:29] No

[41:29] ... 25%, which I know is not binding, but you're looking at a whole number instead

[41:33] of the percentage of our budget. Our budget by then is going to be $5, $6 million a

[41:38] year. Or it's 4.6 million now. Well, it'll- My point is- Our revenues are up- ...

[41:42] you're playing with a million dollars, above a million dollars here.

[41:46] Okay, well, in eight or 10 years, a million dollars is still going to be, what, 20%

[41:51] of our operating. Instead of looking at the numbers, you should look at the

[41:55] percentage of our budget. It's not- I- A million dollars sounds like a big number

[41:59] ... we have a policy not to go below 125. Okay.

[42:03] And if we don't recover these funds, we are going to go below 125.

[42:07] Period. The 413 was a budget amendment done last year, last budget year.

[42:13] The money hasn't gone into effect yet.

[42:15] We just-

[42:16] So we have $100,000 available in our fund balance that is not designated.

[42:22] That doesn't contemplate the $413,000. It does contemplate the 555 transfer.

[42:30] Well, then shame on us for not having included that when we looked at that

[42:34] resolution to do that amount. Maybe we go back and we look at what we actually have

[42:39] in fund balance and rethink that resolution and that percentage.

[42:44] If it's 125%, we had those expenses, we knew about it at the time,

[42:50] and they weren't included when we reviewed those numbers.

[42:52] We just have to have a plan to get us back to 125.

[42:54] That's right.

[42:56] It's not like we stop functioning. Right?

[43:00] And it's not like we need to create other problems. Right?

[43:04] We can create a long-term projection problem here for the police department if we

[43:08] don't take care of this day one. This won't work come year 10 if we don't take care

[43:13] of it on day one. That's the important piece of this. Right?

[43:17] Him not hiring the two officers for the first year is what's going to allow this

[43:21] thing to even get close to working for 10 years.

[43:24] You got to create that reserve to have a little bit there towards the end.

[43:27] And if we do drop below the 125, if those are the decisions that we spent money

[43:31] that got us to that point, then we got to rely on Jason and this board to come back

[43:35] and say, "This is how we're going to get out of that space." And/or we acknowledge

[43:39] that that's the whole point of having a reserve fund is when unexpected things

[43:42] happen.

[43:42] Mm-hmm.

[43:43] That's what we use the money for.

[43:44] And we-

[43:44] Maybe that's part of the plan.

[43:45] We spent that 413 to save us a lot, a

[43:51] lot of money over the next 10 years.

[43:54] Yes.

[43:54] So if we had to spend a little bit now, that is going to allow us to get back above

[43:59] the 125 without penalty. We know our fixed costs now in retirement.

[44:04] We didn't know that before. It kept getting worse.

[44:07] We kept throwing money at a problem, and it just wasn't... It was getting worse.

[44:12] And that 413 got us out of that. When we collect the Miller's money this December,

[44:16] December 2026, it is for operational year 2027. 26 and 27.

[44:22] 26. Calendar year '27. It's for our budget that's '26

[44:28] through '27. It goes back. Okay. We collect money once a year. Yep.

[44:32] We collect it at the end of the year. Yep. It's for the calendar year of '27.

[44:35] If we hire somebody in July, you got a seven-month buffer for that collection year.

[44:44] Okay. Right. What do you mean?

[44:46] It's not a full year of getting ahead. His terminology wasn't correct.

[44:52] The money that we collect in December of '26 gets applied to the

[44:57] '26, '27 budget year. So if we were collecting $2 million,

[45:03] and in December, now it's $2.5 million, that budget had a

[45:09] $0.5 million increase. That's how that money works that we collect

[45:15] in December.

[45:16] No, the money that comes in, in December is recollected

[45:22] the next December, which is halfway in our budget year. Mm-hmm. Your...

[45:27] I don't think you're calculating it.

[45:29] We base our budget off of the money we collect in December

[45:35] When we set up our budget for '26, '27, it was based off of what

[45:41] we say we're going to collect in our millage in December of '26.

[45:46] You collect your last year, December 20, 35. What is that money used for?

[45:51] Last year.

[45:52] 35, 36.

[45:54] 35, 36.

[45:54] That's what funds us 35, 36.

[45:56] But the actual cash value of it only lasts through December of the next year, which

[46:02] is halfway through our budget year. You're not getting it.

[46:06] So why does Michelle have got the new number, the December 26 collection, as our

[46:11] property tax that year?

[46:14] What's that?

[46:16] The eight that you have in front of you, that was in the thing, that is Michelle.

[46:21] I didn't touch that. The baseline one that's in there, she's got the property tax

[46:25] revenue as what's going to be collected December 26.

[46:29] The 4-

[46:30] For the '26 collection. Of course, that's the way it's going to show up in our

[46:32] budget. I'm well aware of that. Well, how are we supposed to...

[46:35] Are we going to have two different lines or a calendar year?

[46:38] When we are talking about tax collection and that-

[46:42] I know

[46:42] ... the hiring of the officers, it's not a full year ahead.

[46:48] It is. Then you're proving my point.

[46:52] We're not going to have- So the budget then, if that was the case, should be

[46:58] whatever this difference is, half of that number. So we went from 3.5 to...

[47:03] So the $1 million, that should only seen a $500,000 increase to our budget this

[47:08] year, and we're seeing $1 million increase.

[47:11] Well, we're on that. And I'm-

[47:13] This is how it's always done for budget purposes.

[47:15] Yes. What I'm going to suggest, and then I'm going to shut up because that's the

[47:20] only way I'm comfortable voting, is that I'm good with everything.

[47:25] Hire two new officers next July, fine.

[47:30] Where my hang-up is the 413,000. Why are we going to create our...

[47:36] Hiring the two new officers, running it out 10 years, I'm convinced that we're

[47:41] going to have a fund balance in the police.

[47:45] Why create a problem with our general fund money when this department's going to be

[47:51] healthy? Why create a problem and not

[47:56] the remaining balance of the 487? Just retain that in our general fund.

[48:02] It's going to cover the MERS. Police is going to be fine.

[48:05] We don't have to

[48:07] change anything in the spending, and police will still have a positive fund balance

[48:12] at the end, and they get their two new officers in July.

[48:15] That's where I'm most comfortable and the only thing I'm willing to vote for.

[48:21] So-

[48:21] And it sounds like I'm in the minority.

[48:23] I know, but if you look at C-

[48:24] No

[48:24] ... that contemplates not giving us the 487 that's already allocated

[48:30] and charging us the 413 for the MERS. So that's what I think you're advocating for.

[48:36] What's that?

[48:37] C is what I think you're advocating for.

[48:39] And that is such a razor-thin-

[48:42] No. You said, you guys, I'll use this wording, take the hit on not getting

[48:48] the 486 and paying the 413?

[48:51] Is that what you're saying?

[48:51] No.

[48:52] What are you saying?

[48:53] Don't transfer the 486 to the police. Keep that in the general fund.

[48:58] General fund will pay the 413. The general fund will be positive about $100,000 in

[49:04] the current budget year. So we don't have to put the policy into place to make

[49:09] whatever change is based on the policy going below 125.

[49:11] Please, D. I understand. I know that. I did contemplate that.

[49:15] It's D, I think, Chief.

[49:16] C.

[49:18] Well, no, D is getting the 487 because Mike's saying give the 487, but also police

[49:23] pay for MERS. Yes, that's D. That's D.

[49:25] Yeah. Well, okay, transfer the 487 and have MERS...

[49:29] If police pay for the 413 and then they get 60 some thousand out of the general

[49:34] fund, or don't transfer the 487 and general fund pays the MERS.

[49:37] So Mike, what are you-

[49:39] One or the other

[49:39] ... really saying? So we completely understand, because I'm totally confused here.

[49:45] You're saying that the 400 and what is it, 87,000, that has

[49:51] been committed to the general fund, or from the general fund to the police fund,

[49:55] that goes away, we take it back, and then out of that money, we pay the MERS

[50:01] 413. We don't hit police twice. Correct?

[50:06] Correct.

[50:06] Is that what you're saying?

[50:07] Or transfer the 487 and have the police pay the 413, and they come out

[50:13] 50,000, 60,000 ahead. They still get 50 or 60 out of the general fund.

[50:16] That's D, on the chart.

[50:18] Oh, okay.

[50:18] That's what letter D is. It's in delta.

[50:21] And that's what I'm saying. It's like a razor-thin. Yeah.

[50:24] Everything's under 100,000. Where I struggle-

[50:27] Wait a second.

[50:27] D is not.

[50:29] D, in year eight, you have a fund balance of $1.3 million.

[50:32] Yeah.

[50:33] And that's in year eight.

[50:34] Is that what you're saying, D? Yeah.

[50:37] I don't know. Nick's telling me that. I haven't read through.

[50:39] D is to give the lot- Give the 487 ... 487, and- And let them pay the 413 ...

[50:44] you pay, because that's what the MERS repayment is, yes.

[50:48] So you're paying the 413 and getting the 487. And getting the 487.

[50:52] So you're essentially-

[50:52] So you're saying-

[50:53] You're paying for MERS and the 487

[50:55] ... you're getting the 487.

[50:55] That's what D is. That's what D is. Where-

[50:57] No

[50:58] ... what I'm struggling with, I don't see the first general fund contribution of

[51:01] 100,000. I'm sorry. The reason I...

[51:03] So, for D, the 413 is in other capital vehicle purchases, because I had to find a-

[51:10] A spot to put it

[51:11] ... I had to put a spot that was not compounding the numbers.

[51:14] So it's in there.

[51:15] So it's the 487 figure.

[51:17] Okay.

[51:17] Because if you look at the-

[51:17] 478.

[51:18] 478.

[51:19] Okay. All right.

[51:20] But that includes that 14,000.

[51:21] So in that scenario, in year eight, you're positive 1.3, and that's with hiring two

[51:26] officers.

[51:26] So where-

[51:30] And then our general fund's fine. We don't have to put that policy into play.

[51:34] Action.

[51:34] Where I guess I struggle is I think the 413 was a general fund

[51:39] decision to save this township. I truly still believe that.

[51:44] I think the 487 this year was a commitment we've made to them, and we've budgeted

[51:48] for it, we stick with that. The one I struggle with is the $100,000 a year

[51:53] commitment over the next 10 years or eight years, however, whatever we want to use-

[51:58] Well, no, indefinite

[51:58] ... is because I don't think we can speak on future boards.

[52:04] I think we can give intent. Because that would be kind of the rules.

[52:08] But I think that's the one that would have to be looked at somewhat on a yearly

[52:13] basis on what the budget can afford and not afford, personally.

[52:20] But other than that, I guess that's my one concern with the $100,000

[52:26] one,

[52:28] for him to budget that, or for the police department to budget that every year,

[52:32] just assuming they're getting it.

[52:34] And maybe that can be the projection if we do it or we don't each given year.

[52:39] And-

[52:40] If you recall, I'm with you 100%, you're right on there,

[52:46] but we can talk about police contract negotiations because it's settled and it's a

[52:50] done deal. The police officers didn't want the 55.

[52:56] They wanted age 50.

[52:57] Mm-hmm.

[52:57] This was a bargain thing.

[52:58] Mm-hmm.

[52:59] And it came at a cost and we paid that cost.

[53:02] This is 100% a police expense, except that you told them that it was so you could

[53:07] get fire on it.

[53:09] You could have left them at 50.

[53:09] It's a general fund expense. They asked for 50.

[53:15] 25 to... No, but that's what they wanted.

[53:18] When you walked in here, didn't he tell...

[53:20] He told us that it was your master plan to get the MERS to fire.

[53:24] And it was coming out literally two minutes into the walking in the board meeting.

[53:28] August 6th, you informed me of this. I had no idea about this MERS payment.

[53:33] The

[53:35] millage committee had no idea when we were formulating plans to go for a millage.

[53:40] I guess that's my problem.

[53:41] Well, because it wasn't the plan. It wasn't the plan.

[53:43] It was not the plan.

[53:44] And

[53:46] I'm sorry, and I really don't even want to say this, the only reason that we're

[53:51] even considering it now, that it comes out of the police fund, is because the

[53:55] millage passed. And that's not being fair.

[53:58] That's not what they planned on, and that's not what we planned on.

[54:03] So we need to stick by what we committed to and not penalize the

[54:09] police department because the millage passed. That's not fair.

[54:15] All right. So I'm going to renew my original suggestion.

[54:18] Given these four variables, we vote on them one by one, instead of saying, "Who's

[54:23] in favor of projection B? Who's in favor of projection C?" And goes doing it that

[54:28] way. I just think it makes a lot more sense.

[54:31] If you lose the vote, you lose the vote. That's how these things work.

[54:33] Can we just make a motion on the issues that are before us instead of projections?

[54:39] I'll make a motion that we continue to keep the MERS payment,

[54:44] 413,000,

[54:47] from the general fund, and that that expense not be transferred to the police fund

[54:51] That's what I'm suggesting, take these issues one by one.

[54:55] Yeah. The proposals were just for recent-- I mean, the-

[54:58] Yeah

[54:58] ... I wasn't looking for-

[54:59] I have found very helpful-

[55:00] ... every year

[55:01] ... to compare the variables.

[55:02] Yeah. That's all it was for.

[55:03] May I say-

[55:04] I like that idea. Just-

[55:05] May I say-

[55:05] Move we have a second.

[55:07] I'll second.

[55:07] All right. Second. Move by Harshby, seconded by Miller, that the MERS payment

[55:12] remain a liability of the general fund and not the police. Is that correct?

[55:17] Correct.

[55:17] Okay.

[55:17] Which is already done.

[55:20] Okay. We need to clarify that.

[55:21] We need to clarify that.

[55:23] It is clarified. It's what's-

[55:24] What about it?

[55:24] It's what we did. I don't know what-

[55:27] Well, then it doesn't hurt to pass a motion.

[55:29] Exactly.

[55:30] Because you said Michelle was tripping on how maybe it should...

[55:34] You know what I mean?

[55:34] Yeah. To motion by Harshby, seconded by Miller.

[55:35] There's a lot of tripping going on, and I would like to get a bit of an answer.

[55:38] We're going to vote. And Tricia, go ahead.

[55:43] Maybe this is a little out of order, but back when the police department was

[55:48] formed, I don't know what the budget in the general fund to pay for the police

[55:53] was. But I would be surprised if any resident

[55:59] today

[56:01] understands that we have almost,

[56:07] well, four and a half to six million dollars that it costs to have a police

[56:13] fund. And they passed the millage

[56:17] for the police. So, I don't know that we need to feel

[56:23] beholden to contribute out of the general fund

[56:28] anymore. You can decide to do that or not, but, I think that's holding on

[56:34] to something that I don't think we were collecting

[56:40] that much in property taxes back in that period.

[56:46] Yeah. No, I agree.

[56:47] And I had said to the chief-

[56:48] To continue the contribution.

[56:50] But I didn't make that motion.

[56:51] Right. But that's-

[56:52] I know

[56:52] ... one issue at a time. Right now we're just looking at the MERS contribution.

[56:55] Right.

[56:55] Are you saying that we have already budgeted for the 413 from general fund?

[57:00] Already paid.

[57:01] It's already paid.

[57:02] It's already paid.

[57:03] Mm-hmm. The question is whether the police department is going to be obliged to

[57:06] repay it.

[57:08] Is that part of your motion, for timeliness?

[57:10] It's included in the general fund.

[57:11] It still stays in the general fund.

[57:11] Is there any... Nope, your motion's saying no repayment or anything?

[57:14] No. But that it comes from the general fund and from where it was intended.

[57:19] The 413 was not-

[57:20] The 413

[57:21] ... in our budgeted expense that got posted in, as you say, July 1st.

[57:26] Right.

[57:28] Because that was supposed to be a last year expense that never happened.

[57:31] Right. So does everybody understand the current motion under consideration?

[57:38] Say it one more time.

[57:39] You bet. Yeah, I'm going to say it one more time.

[57:42] My motion is that the $413,000

[57:47] MERS payment remain from the general fund and not be

[57:53] transferred to the police fund, or the police fund be required to repay it.

[57:58] That's my motion.

[58:00] I would second that if somebody hasn't already.

[58:02] It's, uh, been seconded.

[58:03] Okay. It's already seconded.

[58:04] Okay. Good.

[58:04] Just for clarity, that's the only issue under consideration for this vote.

[58:12] All in favor?

[58:12] Vote, oh.

[58:13] Nope, you want to vote.

[58:14] No, I didn't know what you're done with comments.

[58:17] Yes, comments.

[58:17] I'm soliciting comments.

[58:18] Okay.

[58:19] You can say it now.

[58:21] Yeah, so,

[58:23] going back to the negotiations, this is something that the police wanted.

[58:27] This is absolutely a police expense.

[58:29] And to use my words against me here in a public meeting to try to make me look like

[58:33] an a*s is not very appreciative. What you're not aware of is that comment was a

[58:38] reflection of the words that was jokingly said to me from the fire

[58:43] folks from their negotiation. So I don't appreciate that because you don't know all

[58:48] the facts.

[58:50] I know what was said.

[58:52] And I know that I've...

[58:56] All right.

[58:57] Any other substantive discussion on this?

[59:00] All in favor?

[59:01] Aye.

[59:02] Or aye, opposed?

[59:06] Any opposed?

[59:06] You guys got me.

[59:09] Wow, you guys... All right. So that's the MERS.

[59:11] Now, concomitant with this, I agree with Mike that, and with other sentiments that

[59:17] have expressed, that because the millage passed,

[59:20] and because the general fund is taking this $413,000 from MERS hit, I don't feel

[59:26] obliged to continue the 487,645 transfer from the general fund to the police.

[59:32] That's my general feeling on this, and I welcome other comments, disputes,

[59:37] arguments, whatever.

[59:39] I still feel like that was a commitment we made going into this.

[59:44] It's committed.

[59:44] We did. And it's well documented.

[59:45] And we can... Well, I would argue that we can't look shortsighted year one.

[59:51] We got to look at tenures. I've ran one of these on a tenure millage for an

[59:55] organization, and that year one foundation is huge for the success of

[1:00:01] that tenure millage. And we know every time we do this, we get ourselves into a

[1:00:06] very tight position towards the end of that.

[1:00:10] And, I just think that it should still be something that we do, we've committed to,

[1:00:15] we budgeted for, um.

[1:00:18] But if we decide

[1:00:23] that the police are going to live on their millage, that gives

[1:00:29] the township board the opportunity to decide each year as they

[1:00:35] budget what their general fund looks like and whether they want to

[1:00:41] contribute.

[1:00:43] And I had said to the chief, and he disagreed with me, that if he gets to manage...

[1:00:49] No, the point of the millage is he gets to manage that.

[1:00:54] And property is going to go up at least 5% in assessment

[1:00:59] every year at minimum, I believe. So-

[1:01:01] And Hedley's going to prevent that.

[1:01:05] So, that that is going to bring in a little more each year.

[1:01:13] And I know you're worried about 10 years, but we may all be

[1:01:19] cutting different-

[1:01:20] Well, but we do this with every millage.

[1:01:22] Right.

[1:01:23] We're doing this because we're not planning out. I agree 100% with Nick.

[1:01:27] Therefore, I'll make another motion.

[1:01:29] And the motion is that the 470-

[1:01:32] 480. 487. What was it?

[1:01:34] 487-

[1:01:35] 645.

[1:01:37] Thank you. That money remains where it is and does not get to be transferred

[1:01:43] back out from the police budget to general fund or wherever the heck it's going to

[1:01:47] go. That it remains there, we don't take it away.

[1:01:50] We made a commitment, and it's going to help with our long-term projections, so it

[1:01:54] needs to stay. That's my motion. It stays.

[1:01:59] All right. Does anybody want to come second that?

[1:02:02] I'll second.

[1:02:03] All right. Again, move by Harshby, second by Miller.

[1:02:06] I don't think that's prudent. I think that the police projections that we've

[1:02:09] received indicate that B still provides a very healthy, balanced fund for the

[1:02:15] police department, and that for us to eat the 413,000 MERS expense

[1:02:21] and the passage of millage on the part of the voters

[1:02:26] alleviates us of

[1:02:29] the $487,000 contribution that we otherwise had intended to the end, would still

[1:02:34] make if they need it, but they don't.

[1:02:36] And our budget matters just as much as theirs does.

[1:02:39] And Mike pointing out that

[1:02:41] if we spend all this money, if we allocate it as well as eating the 413 from MERS,

[1:02:46] that's going to put our reserves in jeopardy, and I'm not comfortable with that.

[1:02:50] Okay, then the police department would be better off then, by that logic, would be

[1:02:54] better off if we just charge them the 413,000, um-

[1:02:58] My scenario, which was-

[1:03:00] And kept the-

[1:03:01] That's... Yeah.

[1:03:01] Try to do it

[1:03:02] ... they'd be further ahead that way than by-

[1:03:04] 67,000. Is that it?

[1:03:05] 7,000 net. Yep.

[1:03:06] And I'd be fine with that, too. So I don't think the general fund should eat both.

[1:03:11] The other option that we have is if we think we got too much money, we don't

[1:03:15] collect the full millage.

[1:03:18] So when we know we've got enough reserve, then we go to the voters that year, and

[1:03:22] we decrease how much we collect from them.

[1:03:23] Which we've done for the rough. We can do that.

[1:03:25] So let's put us in that position so that we can go to our voters and say, "This

[1:03:30] year we're not collecting it because we have enough reserve in place."

[1:03:33] What are you talk-- For the police?

[1:03:34] Yeah. I'm just saying, like-

[1:03:36] But do you think we're going to be that far ahead?

[1:03:38] I don't want to do it this year. But what I'm getting at is let's do this, let's

[1:03:42] put them in a good spot, and if this board decides, you know what, they have too

[1:03:46] much reserves, then we can go to voters and say, year nine, year 10, whatever it

[1:03:50] is-

[1:03:50] Do it with our budget

[1:03:51] ... we're going to decrease what we collect from you.

[1:03:53] How does that help our budget? Which we also need to be-

[1:03:55] Yes

[1:03:56] Okay, but-

[1:03:57] But we are operating with our budget.

[1:03:59] We just have to have-

[1:04:00] And we're giving them $487,000

[1:04:02] they don't need.

[1:04:03] Well, yeah, but we-

[1:04:03] We've already budgeted for that

[1:04:04] ... we budgeted that.

[1:04:05] I know we have.

[1:04:05] We've given that to them and now because-

[1:04:07] Now because we've given up the 413-

[1:04:08] ... the millage tax, we're saying, "Ha, we're taking it back."

[1:04:10] No, because we've also now we're paying for the 413, and that puts our general fund

[1:04:15] short.

[1:04:15] But that was the intent from the very beginning.

[1:04:17] Just because we messed up and didn't remember that that was a general fund

[1:04:23] contribution or condition or expense, now we have to go back because the police

[1:04:28] millage passed, they've got the money, so let's take it from them. It's not right.

[1:04:33] The whole point of the contribution from the general fund was to supplement the

[1:04:38] hole in the police budget, but they need it.

[1:04:39] Correct.

[1:04:39] They don't need it now.

[1:04:42] We're dealing with a different situation, and our general fund does.

[1:04:45] I don't understand why you're standing on this principle of all of them when this

[1:04:50] suggestion that has been made, that we just not give the 487,000 because it's not

[1:04:56] necessary and because our budget needs it.

[1:04:59] You're going to say that we're obliged to do it because we said we would do it.

[1:05:02] Well, we were going to do it. If the millage hadn't passed, we were going to do it.

[1:05:05] I know, but we don't need to. Budgets are fluid.

[1:05:10] This is where the money is needed now.

[1:05:12] I know, and it looks like they-

[1:05:13] Project B still looks very healthy

[1:05:15] ... and they're going to deficit spend this year then too if we do that.

[1:05:26] Any other comments?

[1:05:30] Well, when I look at this,

[1:05:33] it shows that the 500 and...

[1:05:37] Well, I don't know. But if we've said we're going to

[1:05:44] give them

[1:05:46] money for the budget year that we're in now, then I think that

[1:05:52] lends some weight to following through on what

[1:05:57] we said we were going to do. But I don't see it for fiscal year going

[1:06:03] out to '27, '28.

[1:06:07] So...

[1:06:07] Yeah, so what we're talking about right now is just this fiscal year.

[1:06:11] And then the future, I agree with you.

[1:06:12] But this is '26.

[1:06:14] '26, '27. Yeah, what we've already budgeted for.

[1:06:18] Right. So that's why I say, I think that they get it for that, but I don't

[1:06:24] feel obligated to keep doing it-

[1:06:27] I would agree with you

[1:06:28] ... in the next fiscal year.

[1:06:29] We agree.

[1:06:29] I agree with you on that.

[1:06:30] I agree with you.

[1:06:30] That's not being contemplated now.

[1:06:32] Right.

[1:06:34] Back when we had discussions on the 413, I've heard that the discussion was with

[1:06:39] general fund. That is not correct, because I was in every discussion.

[1:06:43] We never contemplated where it was going to come from, ever, until recently.

[1:06:48] So don't say it was planned from the beginning-

[1:06:50] But then why on July 1st-

[1:06:51] ... out of general fund

[1:06:51] ... why on July 1st did we do a budget amendment for it to come from?

[1:06:54] We did a budget amendment in June, though.

[1:06:56] All right. I'm sorry. June.

[1:07:03] That was six months after that contract negotiation.

[1:07:07] I'm saying-

[1:07:08] Mm-hmm

[1:07:08] ... back when we did this, it was never contemplated where it was coming from.

[1:07:14] Discuss.

[1:07:17] But it was always pitched as it's going to save the township

[1:07:23] a lot of money, and I think that's saying this board felt that that was

[1:07:31] something to do because we-

[1:07:32] Savings from the MERS? We're going to save money on MERS

[1:07:37] for the police and fire.

[1:07:38] The whole point of the 450,000-

[1:07:39] So where does that-

[1:07:40] ... contribution to MERS was to save the township money in the long run.

[1:07:42] Does that money come out of the general fund-

[1:07:44] We have a-

[1:07:45] ... or is that savings going to be for the police fund or the fire fund?

[1:07:48] If-

[1:07:48] So for the last five-ish years, the general fund has given,

[1:07:55] what'd they give? They gave 1 million, 1.2 million to MERS-

[1:07:59] Mm-hmm

[1:07:59] ... over a four-year period or something like that. And then we just gave 400.

[1:08:03] And so that first $1 million or whatever that we did to try to fix the MERS

[1:08:09] unfunding came from where? We took that out of general fund.

[1:08:13] Yeah. Because we didn't-

[1:08:13] But where did the savings go?

[1:08:19] When the MERS-

[1:08:21] From the general fund.

[1:08:22] We will. So the general fund has taken a $1.5 million plus hit to fund MERS

[1:08:28] over the last five years.

[1:08:30] Right.

[1:08:30] So by paying this 413, that's including that 1.5 million, it's a rough number, I

[1:08:36] don't have the exact number here, that's stopping us from having to do that again.

[1:08:41] So the contributions that go into each officer's-

[1:08:45] That comes out of-

[1:08:46] ... comes from what?

[1:08:47] ... the police or fire.

[1:08:48] So they'll see those savings, not us.

[1:08:50] No. So you're talking two different things.

[1:08:52] Right.

[1:08:52] We are funding what those officers and firefighters are not funding because we're

[1:08:57] underfunding-

[1:08:58] Right

[1:08:58] ... the retirement. We have been trying to bring that retirement account up to

[1:09:03] funded status-

[1:09:04] Mm-hmm

[1:09:04] ... out of general fund.

[1:09:05] Mm-hmm.

[1:09:06] So by making the change, we've set it so we're never going to be underfunded.

[1:09:12] That is no longer the township's responsibility.

[1:09:15] Right.

[1:09:15] That is now on the officers and firefighters.

[1:09:17] And if I'm hearing you correctly, that translates into a savings to the general

[1:09:21] fund, which had been the fund we were taking the money out of before.

[1:09:24] Yes, because that's where it came from.

[1:09:26] Yeah. Because we no longer have to do that.

[1:09:27] Yes. Thank you.

[1:09:28] So the police and fire fund are funding their own retirements, but because they

[1:09:32] were underfunding it, this board had made the decision to take that out of general

[1:09:36] fund, right?

[1:09:37] Mm-hmm.

[1:09:39] And-

[1:09:40] Another-

[1:09:40] ... we've made adjustments to prevent that from happening again

[1:09:42] ... I think part two of that is to remember that that $413 or whatever it

[1:09:47] is, is because we signed a contract that

[1:09:53] changed

[1:09:55] the retirement plan that four people, or whatever it was, were in, and that's

[1:10:01] our responsibility.

[1:10:04] Yeah.

[1:10:04] We wouldn't have

[1:10:06] had to make that half a million dollar contribution if we had

[1:10:12] been firm in the negotiations and saying, "No, it's this amount of

[1:10:18] years that you work as a police officer."

[1:10:22] Yeah.

[1:10:24] Yep.

[1:10:25] So-

[1:10:25] Okay. Yeah. So the 487 is what you're discussing.

[1:10:30] Yes.

[1:10:30] Is it all or nothing? Because my only concern, I'm looking at B, which would be an

[1:10:34] all or nothing-

[1:10:36] Right

[1:10:36] ... basically. Well, B would be we'd not paying back the 413 and or taking all 487

[1:10:41] out.

[1:10:42] Right.

[1:10:42] Which I get, but I'm just looking, the operating shortfall, if everything's perfect

[1:10:48] is first 27, 28, 50,000 to 92, 97. That to me in a

[1:10:54] $4.6 million budget is razor thin if anything goes bad.

[1:10:59] Mm-hmm.

[1:10:59] That leaves... And you start hitting early on the overall fund balance.

[1:11:06] My question is, if it's all or nothing, if we could get some money this fiscal year

[1:11:11] out of the 487, whether it's 100,000, 200,000 general fund, I don't know where that

[1:11:16] brings you with the 125, but at least get us going on the right step, where we're

[1:11:21] ahead. Because like I said, I'm worried about what happens if the market crashes,

[1:11:26] what if IT... That's razor thin operating positive, 50,000,

[1:11:32] 90,000 on a budget like that. So that's what I was asking. Is it all or nothing?

[1:11:38] Maybe get it going.

[1:11:41] Wait another six months to hire the two officers.

[1:11:46] And that's still a choice that we can make-

[1:11:48] Wait another what?

[1:11:48] ... because we haven't decided when to start that.

[1:11:51] This board can make that decision.

[1:11:52] Yeah.

[1:11:52] Sure.

[1:11:52] We already discussed it.

[1:11:53] Yeah. So

[1:11:59] Rick, if I can ask you your projection B contemplates the hiring of two officers.

[1:12:04] When? Where are we-

[1:12:05] July 1st. These all contemplate July 1st.

[1:12:08] Next year, the 27th. All right. Yeah, so I would like to get a full year in

[1:12:13] collecting money to get us that cushion, because the last two millages, I've seen

[1:12:18] it go south fast, both of them. The 09 millage, I got here in 11.

[1:12:22] Oh, sure.

[1:12:23] And then by 2017, the general fund kicked in a million dollars.

[1:12:27] Same thing.

[1:12:27] And the same thing this millage, by literally one year, 1.1 million, the last year

[1:12:32] of that millage, and then this one, we got hundreds of thousands.

[1:12:36] We're trying to contemplate- And doesn't it make sense, that cushion idea, does it

[1:12:39] not make sense then to delay hiring both those police officers?

[1:12:44] If you want the true one-year cushion, we would hire December of next year.

[1:12:54] Or we just hire one.

[1:12:54] When the money's realized.

[1:12:56] Right, when the money's fully realized.

[1:12:58] Or we just hire one and put off hiring the second one for a little bit.

[1:13:02] Sure. But we have not discussed when these officers are going to be hired yet, and

[1:13:05] we would have to approve that.

[1:13:07] Yeah. I think that's all.

[1:13:10] I think he's asking that all of these questions be answered today, I believe.

[1:13:15] No, just what are we doing?

[1:13:17] Well, yeah.

[1:13:20] For sure, the 4/13-

[1:13:22] The 20

[1:13:22] ... we have an answer on. Now, the 4/87, I guess that's my problem, is we're trying

[1:13:27] to

[1:13:29] forecast out, but we don't know what the rules are.

[1:13:31] Mm-hmm.

[1:13:32] So, I guess, I don't have a problem if we want to sit down and say, "Hey, we're

[1:13:35] going to do one July 1, and one December 1, or two December," but we don't have

[1:13:40] rules to do that, is what I'm asking.

[1:13:49] All right. So, we have a motion on the table that the general fund

[1:13:54] continue with our budgeted $487,000 contribution to the police fund this

[1:14:00] fiscal year.

[1:14:02] To continue it?

[1:14:03] Yeah.

[1:14:05] Okay.

[1:14:05] That's the motion, to make that contribution as stated.

[1:14:10] Other permutations have been suggested, which I think can be discussed, but right

[1:14:13] now, our only motion is whether or not we're going to pay the $487,000 as planned.

[1:14:20] Is that correct?

[1:14:21] Yes.

[1:14:22] Yes.

[1:14:22] All right.

[1:14:26] Any more discussion or comment?

[1:14:29] All right. All in favor?

[1:14:31] Aye.

[1:14:32] Aye.

[1:14:35] Aye.

[1:14:39] Let's go.

[1:14:39] Opposed?

[1:14:40] No.

[1:14:41] No.

[1:14:42] Okay. Motion fails.

[1:14:51] As we just said, it certainly does not preclude any other sort of transfers we

[1:14:55] might make.

[1:14:56] Okay.

[1:14:56] And I would certainly want to take a closer look and see what impact any proposed

[1:15:00] transfer is going to have on the general fund's

[1:15:03] balance. But I'm certainly not opposed to making some contribution if we think it's

[1:15:07] necessary. And the hiring of the two officers, the timing of that is also in front

[1:15:10] of us.

[1:15:11] Well, that's the reason I voted no. I think we still should contribute something.

[1:15:16] Okay.

[1:15:17] And the timing of the hiring, one in July, one in December.

[1:15:23] Yeah.

[1:15:23] It'll be time to build some money up.

[1:15:27] That's the way I look at it.

[1:15:28] Right. And in terms of making sure that we have a sound fiscal cushion to move

[1:15:33] forward,

[1:15:34] I don't know that we need to decide right now when we're hiring those officers

[1:15:39] unless we feel very strongly about it, but that seems to me to be squarely the sort

[1:15:42] of variable that is within the chief's discretion, depending on the money he's got.

[1:15:47] No, but what we're sending back to the chief is that

[1:15:54] the $487,000 is coming out of his budget.

[1:15:59] So he's going to be in a budget shortfall this year.

[1:16:01] So he's going to be-

[1:16:01] We just put him in a budget shortfall for this year.

[1:16:04] Right. As things stand right now.

[1:16:06] We did. Yeah, we did.

[1:16:08] No, we didn't.

[1:16:09] He's $462,000 short.

[1:16:14] This motion-

[1:16:14] Did you check that?

[1:16:15] That didn't include the two officers though.

[1:16:16] I've got to check it.

[1:16:16] This motion changed nothing. If you want to really change it, we have to bring a

[1:16:21] budget amendment back to vote on. We haven't done that.

[1:16:27] Thank you, Mike.

[1:16:28] Yeah, but he's still getting the money.

[1:16:29] Thank you.

[1:16:29] Another bite at the apple?

[1:16:31] So, just got to make a more compelling case.

[1:16:34] Okay, so we haven't accomplished anything with that motion.

[1:16:38] No.

[1:16:38] Because a budget amendment has to come before us in order for the general fund to

[1:16:43] take back that money. I'm sorry, sir. You're right back where you started.

[1:16:47] Well, at least we've got some direction now. Right?

[1:16:50] We know not to bring forth budget amendments that aren't going to pass muster at

[1:16:53] this table.

[1:17:00] All right.

[1:17:01] So I guess the money's still there until we do a budget amendment.

[1:17:04] That's correct.

[1:17:06] What about the 4/13?

[1:17:08] No, 4/13, that's a done deal.

[1:17:10] Sorry.

[1:17:14] So what did we vote on?

[1:17:17] I don't...

[1:17:18] Yeah, let's figure the money out.

[1:17:18] If that wasn't a budget amendment, what was the vote?

[1:17:22] The vote was-

[1:17:23] It was more just for direction

[1:17:24] ... the vote was to continue the transfer of $487,000-

[1:17:30] Yeah

[1:17:30] ... from the general fund to the police department.

[1:17:32] We said no to that. Isn't that a budget amendment?

[1:17:34] I thought it was for a year.

[1:17:36] What is that?

[1:17:37] No, no. A budget amendment, you have to show also the bottom lines of the effect on

[1:17:42] the department's budget.

[1:17:43] But we just said we are not doing that. Correct?

[1:17:48] No, the motion was to-

[1:17:49] Was to not continue

[1:17:51] ... we did. The question is, does that count as a budget amendment even though it

[1:17:53] wasn't stricken as such?

[1:17:56] We're playing semantics at work here, folks. I don't want to play games, man.

[1:18:00] We just said we're-

[1:18:02] I don't want to play games either. I want to do it the right way.

[1:18:05] Again, we just told the chief we are not transferring

[1:18:10] $487,645 into his budget. We are not

[1:18:16] doing that this year, and we just voted on that.

[1:18:19] And my follow-up statement was-

[1:18:21] But this is how we do a budget amendment

[1:18:21] ... is that we still have to bring a budget amendment back to make it official.

[1:18:23] And we can reargue this whole thing over again.

[1:18:26] Every time we vote on something, we still have to make

[1:18:29] it official.

[1:18:29] And we can still add something to it.

[1:18:31] So,

[1:18:34] as I said, and as Mike just

[1:18:37] articulated in a parallel way, I want to see the effect on our general fund budget

[1:18:43] now and play with some numbers and see if maybe some contribution to the police

[1:18:47] fund is going to be appropriate.

[1:18:48] If asked, I could have brought the variables, the different budget amendments to

[1:18:53] this board meeting, if that's what anybody wanted to contemplate, and we could have

[1:18:57] made it efficient.

[1:19:01] I just think it's interesting how not that many moons ago,

[1:19:08] there was some expression that we had such an enormous amount in the general fund-

[1:19:14] We do

[1:19:14] ... that

[1:19:17] we should start doing things for people.

[1:19:21] But now we sort of aren't so sure about that.

[1:19:25] We got north of 125% of our annual expenditures.

[1:19:30] That is extremely healthy. Extremely.

[1:19:34] But we set the rule to make sure that we have a good fund balance.

[1:19:38] That 125 rule, before we had that rule, you would have said that number is high,

[1:19:44] but we set the rule at 125.

[1:19:46] Right. Which I think is high. I would argue for 100.

[1:19:48] But we don't stop it at 125.

[1:19:51] Well, we could drop it down.

[1:19:52] We allow it to-

[1:19:52] Or introduce it.

[1:19:53] We allow-

[1:19:53] What was it before? Was it higher?

[1:19:56] No, we didn't have one.

[1:19:58] We didn't have it. We didn't have it.

[1:19:59] And we allow it to drop to 100% without any penalties, without any repercussions.

[1:20:05] We just say if it gets below 125, the supervisor has to bring a plan that says over

[1:20:10] the next four years, we are going to fix this, this way.

[1:20:13] Mm-hmm. Which might be part of what we do, but I want to see where we are.

[1:20:17] It first says, "Don't go below 125."

[1:20:19] Right.

[1:20:19] If it happens-

[1:20:20] Yes

[1:20:21] ... but we're ignoring the don't do it.

[1:20:25] All right.

[1:20:26] We still can contribute something-

[1:20:28] Something

[1:20:28] ... to this fund.

[1:20:29] We set that 125 not including the existing committed

[1:20:35] expenditures that we have. And so we made a decision to do that 125

[1:20:40] based on

[1:20:42] not including that information.

[1:20:49] If you take that we didn't have a police millage and a fire

[1:20:55] millage, it was just a general fund-

[1:20:59] Yeah

[1:20:59] ... I think the point of having a reserve is that you are going to dip into

[1:21:05] it and be below what you have because you've run into a rough time, and you have

[1:21:11] to-

[1:21:12] That's right

[1:21:12] ... file a plan into the future how you're going to get out of that.

[1:21:17] I know.

[1:21:17] So...

[1:21:20] I don't think we're in a place that's rough yet. Don't need to dip into it yet.

[1:21:24] No, but we still might be in danger of violating our stated policy.

[1:21:27] No, that's what I mean.

[1:21:28] Just like I said.

[1:21:28] I think we need to dip into it.

[1:21:29] Right. And if we need to change the policy, we will.

[1:21:32] But that's something to figure out.

[1:21:35] Oh, I just have a hockey game to go referee.

[1:21:38] Oh, okay.

[1:21:38] And I guess my only last comment would be is the board still doesn't get it as far

[1:21:42] as staffing, because we've been arguing that we're short-staffed for 15 years, and

[1:21:47] now we've been told, "Well, maybe next December we'll okay it." So that's my

[1:21:52] comment

[1:21:54] on that. Thank you.

[1:21:58] Thank you.

[1:22:07] This is a very topic that I think work studies were created for, when

[1:22:13] we contemplated creating work studies, and why we're doing it this way in the

[1:22:18] moment.

[1:22:18] Yes.

[1:22:19] This should've been work study.

[1:22:21] Well, except we intended to take action.

[1:22:24] Oh, boy. Look, who intended?

[1:22:27] There was too much discussion today.

[1:22:28] He asked us to take action because he needs direction before he presents to the

[1:22:31] client. He needs to figure out what he's working with.

[1:22:33] It wasn't an unreasonable request for him to ask the board for direction.

[1:22:36] We didn't give it to him.

[1:22:37] You didn't give it to him?

[1:22:37] No, we didn't give it to him.

[1:22:39] No, but the intent was, which is why it's in a board meeting, not a work study

[1:22:42] session.

[1:22:46] Right.

[1:22:47] That's my point.

[1:22:47] The direction is clear out of work studies.

[1:22:51] We changed the purchase policy based on a nod from the board, not even a vote.

[1:23:00] All right. I believe that concludes our agenda.

[1:23:04] There's nobody in the general public to say anything, so board comments.

[1:23:10] I have a comment.

[1:23:12] Okay.

[1:23:12] With regards to the recent river cleanup, I just want to say thank you.

[1:23:17] Number one, to Freedom River, and number two, to Mike Dolan for stepping up and

[1:23:25] doing what he did. He was a tremendous help.

[1:23:30] Yes.

[1:23:30] So Mike, I want you to understand that it does not go unrecognized.

[1:23:34] I appreciate that.

[1:23:34] People appreciate what he did. Thank you.

[1:23:37] I volunteered for it, to do it.

[1:23:40] Mm-hmm.

[1:23:40] I was happy to do it. My wife did not volunteer.

[1:23:42] I volunteered her, so I passed that on to her.

[1:23:46] Well, tell her thank you.

[1:23:46] Well, it's really his help.

[1:23:48] No, the real thanks.

[1:23:49] Because she did a lot as well.

[1:23:50] We were in a position, and Freedom River was in a position, where we needed some

[1:23:55] commitment and some help, and Mike stepped up and made it happen.

[1:23:58] So just thank you, Mike, for that.

[1:23:59] We did both.

[1:24:00] Good.

[1:24:03] The subs were good, and the paint selection was perfect for that.

[1:24:10] All right.

[1:24:10] I'm

[1:24:12] not happy the way this worked anywhere.

[1:24:16] It was horrible.

[1:24:18] I think we should've had an executive session.

[1:24:21] We're responsible for running the township.

[1:24:23] That's what the book says, that all day-to-day operations is the responsibility of

[1:24:28] us three. We should've had these meetings with the chief long before this rolled

[1:24:33] out this way.

[1:24:40] It was last minute and

[1:24:42] confusing at times.

[1:24:45] It didn't need to be that way.

[1:24:49] Okay. Any other board comments?

[1:24:52] All right. Adjourned.

[1:24:54] Move to adjourn.

[1:24:57] Second.

[1:24:58] Move by Neyzi, second by Harshby to adjourn. All in favor?

[1:25:01] Aye.

[1:25:04] All right. Thank you, everyone.

[1:25:05] Go in.

[1:25:06] I don't think that's-

09/01/2026 Board of Trustees Regular Meeting

Transcript