[0:12] Yeah, I'm the one

[0:15] $10 million.

[0:29] Oh yeah.

[0:31] » Good evening everyone and welcome to

[0:33] Delta Township's board meeting for

[0:35] September 21st already. If you are able

[0:39] to stand to join us for the pledge,

[0:41] please do.

[0:43] » I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[0:46] United States of America and to the

[0:48] republic for which it stands. One nation

[0:52] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:55] justice for all. Thank you so much.

[1:00] » Now we will have roll call by treasur.

[1:04] » All right.

[1:06] » Trusty

[1:08] » Present. Sorry

[1:12] » Here

[1:16] » Present.

[1:20] » Clark is absent.

[1:23] » Supervisor

[1:24] » Present. Okay. You have a qualified

[1:26] treasure.

[1:27] » Thank you, Treasure Fed. Now, we are on

[1:30] to presentations and proclamations. And

[1:32] we are thrilled to have um we have

[1:35] Marcus Service from EC Do.

[1:39] » Yeah. Heaton County drain office.

[1:40] » Haten County Drain Office. And we have

[1:42] Chris Madson who is with Spicer. And we

[1:46] also have Stacy Hassan Fhe. Did I get

[1:48] that right? Schultz. We're gonna put

[1:50] that last name on there too. Stacy Bay

[1:53] Schultz is the name of the firm. Very

[1:54] good. Oh, thank you so much. So, we're

[1:56] delighted to have them and they're going

[1:58] to talk about um they've got a

[2:00] presentation for us and they're going to

[2:02] go over there's four things that they're

[2:04] going to cover. So, welcome. Our podium

[2:06] is your podium.

[2:12] » Good evening everybody. Um we got Chris

[2:15] with Matson or Chris Matson with Spicer

[2:17] Group here and Stacy Hassang with Fehee

[2:19] Schultz. uh they're going to go over the

[2:21] construction progress for the bank inner

[2:23] county project and uh Stacy is also

[2:26] going to go through the grant funding

[2:27] and how that's going to work and what

[2:29] refunds or um reductions in your

[2:33] assessment will look like. So, thank

[2:35] you.

[2:35] » Thank you.

[2:40] » Thank you, Marcus.

[2:45] » Wait for the presentation to come up. So

[2:48] yeah, so as Marcus mentioned, I'm going

[2:51] to go over um just a brief construction

[2:53] update. I've been in a few times to give

[2:55] construction updates on the project.

[2:58] We'll kind of give you kind of where

[2:59] we're sitting right now and we can talk

[3:00] about when Sagena Highway will be open.

[3:03] » Um and then grant updates with Stacy

[3:06] afterwards. So

[3:09] » All right. So, um, just getting into a

[3:13] little bit of an update here. As I

[3:14] mentioned, the the construction and the

[3:16] schedule. So, some of the updates, um,

[3:19] we'll go to next slide here. Uh, we're

[3:21] going to cover each of the five

[3:22] divisions. Uh, yep, next slide here. Uh,

[3:25] so these are our five divisions. Our

[3:27] contractors, Bolle, Taplan, Jackson Dirt

[3:29] Works, Seal Trucking, and ET McKenzie.

[3:31] So, on our next slide, we'll jump into

[3:33] division A. So, division A was our uh

[3:36] demolition and abatement contract. Uh we

[3:39] had demolition and abatement at four

[3:40] different properties. Uh the first

[3:42] property 4300 West Sagen is the former

[3:44] Ora High School, the Westside Catholic

[3:46] High School. Uh as well as four

[3:48] residences on uh West, East and Thomas

[3:51] Parkway. So the work in this division is

[3:55] is complete. That contract um has

[3:57] reached final completion, is closed out.

[3:59] The contractor is no longer on site. Uh

[4:02] so that work there is complete. Uh

[4:04] moving next to division B, Taplan

[4:07] Enterprises. So Taplan is digging the

[4:10] detention ponds for the project. So

[4:13] there is an excavation of three separate

[4:15] detention ponds. The first and the

[4:16] largest being at 4300 West Sagono

[4:18] Highway and then there will be two ponds

[4:21] um constructed next year uh in the year

[4:24] after uh along Waverly Road. There's a

[4:26] there's one at 219 North Waverly and 511

[4:28] North Waverly. So we had kind of put

[4:31] this presentation together in sort of a

[4:33] tour of updates um with different

[4:35] stakeholders and as of September 11th we

[4:37] were about 60% complete um with the

[4:40] contract as a whole. So the the main

[4:44] part of this is the large pond at 4300

[4:46] Sageno Highway and we're looking to have

[4:48] that complete by the end of 2026 and

[4:51] we'll go over that a little bit more in

[4:52] our update and then the remaining work

[4:54] on that contract complete through 28.

[4:57] Um next to division C. So, Jackson Dirt

[5:00] Works, uh, this is the contractor, uh,

[5:03] who has been working on our outlet storm

[5:05] sewer. So, the large pond at 4,300, the

[5:08] the storm sewer that runs out of that

[5:10] pond to the river, uh, is under the

[5:12] contract of Jackson Works. So, their

[5:14] 60-in outlet storm sewer was the main

[5:16] portion of their work, and they are

[5:17] substantially complete. Um, the main uh,

[5:20] remaining portion of work here is

[5:22] restoration. If you've heard from any of

[5:24] your residents on Clark, Thomas Parkway,

[5:27] Waverly on restoration and getting that

[5:30] final completion, getting the the the

[5:32] roads paved on that northern part of the

[5:34] drainage district that would be our

[5:36] Jackson Dirt Works group here. So, their

[5:38] restoration work is to be is is planned

[5:40] to be completed this fall and um after

[5:43] that they will be finally complete.

[5:45] » Chris, is that 60inch drain is that

[5:48] normal a normal size? Is this a newer

[5:50] size? Is standard? It it's it's bigger

[5:54] than what was

[5:54] » Sounds big.

[5:55] » Yes. So, there was a 30-inch and a 48

[5:58] inch storm sewer in there before. They

[5:59] were side by side. Um it's similar in

[6:01] size, but it is um it is a new pipe. Uh

[6:04] it is larger than either of those two

[6:07] were before um we had replaced them. Um

[6:10] 60in on its own is pretty is pretty

[6:12] reasonable. Uh our next division is

[6:15] going to have the pipe that we've talked

[6:16] about before that is very very large um

[6:18] for a project.

[6:21] So, let's move next to division D. CL

[6:24] Trucking and Excavating is our

[6:25] contractor on division D and they

[6:26] actually started at the beginning of

[6:28] 2026 and they're currently about 35%

[6:31] complete. Now, this is the contractor

[6:33] who's going straight down the center of

[6:34] Sagena Highway. They're putting in an

[6:36] 8x6 ft box sewer uh right down the

[6:39] middle. And actually, as of uh I believe

[6:41] middle end of last week, that traffic

[6:43] shift has occurred and um the work down

[6:47] the center line is complete. They're

[6:49] right now working to turn that corner

[6:51] and get off of the Sageno Highway right

[6:53] away. Their MDOT permit concludes at the

[6:55] end of this construction season. So,

[6:56] they need to be done and paved and have

[6:58] the road completely open um on Sagena by

[7:01] the end of 26. Now, they will continue

[7:04] to start the work on Dibble at the end

[7:06] of this year and work to complete that

[7:08] through the 2027 season. Um this

[7:11] contract is just this box sewer. So,

[7:13] they've started at the school. They're

[7:15] turning the corner now to to head south

[7:17] on Dipple and that will conclude when

[7:18] they hit Michigan Avenue.

[7:21] So that will be through the end of 27

[7:23] that this division will be complete.

[7:26] Moving next to division ET Mackenzie

[7:29] Company. They have been building

[7:30] tributary storm sewer and other storm

[7:32] sewer improvements throughout the

[7:33] drainage district. Um as of uh early

[7:36] September they were about 68% complete.

[7:39] Um there are some pieces of work that

[7:42] they're doing yet this year. The two

[7:44] main um uh portions of work is a section

[7:47] of storm sewer on Hume Boulevard. This

[7:49] is just north of St. Joe. Um this work

[7:52] was kind of delayed. There was some

[7:54] landowner coordinations um some things

[7:56] that we were dealing with um directly

[7:57] with um manager Reed just to have some

[8:00] transparency and communication on on the

[8:02] matter. We've come to a resolution with

[8:04] the property owner. We're moving

[8:05] forward. We're having that um storm

[8:06] sewer built uh this fall and we will be

[8:10] doing final paving. So, I had mentioned

[8:12] um a moment ago all of the paving and

[8:14] restoration north of Second Highway.

[8:16] Now, we're talking on paving and

[8:17] restoration south of Michigan Avenue. We

[8:20] will be paving up to the top level and

[8:22] matching up with all of the driveways,

[8:25] every street except Dibble

[8:28] um down south of Michigan. A Now, Dibble

[8:31] is going to experience some traffic with

[8:32] construction over the next year and a

[8:35] half. So, we're going to hold off on

[8:36] that just so we don't ruin that final

[8:38] pavement. So all of the side streets and

[8:40] anything that was um disturbed and paved

[8:43] and partially paved back to this point,

[8:45] we'll have a final coat of pavement um

[8:47] in October uh of this year and we'll be

[8:50] done. So that'll actually cross St. Joe

[8:52] um head south into the neighborhood

[8:53] south of St. Joe there and we'll have

[8:55] that finished at the end of this year.

[8:57] Next year, main work items are lean

[9:00] clayborn area um tying into Dibble. Uh

[9:03] and also there is some reconfiguration

[9:05] of storm sewer um at Clark uh near

[9:09] Sageno Highway. So there will be some

[9:10] more lane closure. It'll be a lane

[9:12] closure on the north side just to

[9:13] reconfigure some storm sewer. It will

[9:15] just be localized um to that location

[9:18] where they're doing that reconfiguration

[9:19] just east of Clark. And that will wrap

[9:22] up division E's work through the end of

[9:24] this year.

[9:27] So, I wanted to show this on a map just

[9:29] to kind of point things out. This is now

[9:31] all divisions big picture looking at

[9:33] work completed as of early September.

[9:35] Um, one thing to note, north is to the

[9:38] left. So, up here on the screen, north

[9:40] is going to be off to this side. You can

[9:41] see the river peeking out of the photo

[9:43] there on the left hand side of the

[9:45] screen. The freeway is to the right. Uh,

[9:47] and that is to the south. So uh what

[9:50] we're showing here is all the sections

[9:51] of drain the bank inner county drain and

[9:54] the sections highlighted in yellow is

[9:55] what we're talking about having complete

[9:57] up to this point uh this presentation

[10:00] more or less early September. So you can

[10:02] see that section the large rectangle

[10:05] there uh is showing the 4300 property

[10:08] and the progress on that pond uh and

[10:10] then from that pond to the left to the

[10:12] north uh to the river. So that's that

[10:14] outlet storm sewer section. You can see

[10:17] sort of middle of the image kind of

[10:19] going up and down is a yellow highlight

[10:21] there. That is a sageno highway uh

[10:23] section of box sewer that has reached

[10:25] that corner and they're getting ready to

[10:26] turn down dibble. That section is

[10:28] complete. And then all of the yellow

[10:31] highlights to the right hand side is all

[10:33] of the ET Mackenzie company project work

[10:36] um that is complete uh as of um early

[10:40] September. So, we'll go to our next

[10:41] slide here. Through the end of the year,

[10:43] there'll be a lot of activity still at

[10:45] the 4300 property. Um, hauling dirt off

[10:48] of that uh that site there. Uh, you can

[10:52] see at the north end of Dibble where it

[10:53] meets Sageno Highway, there's that

[10:54] section where they've turned the corner

[10:56] and they're installing that box sewer.

[10:58] And the Dibble Avenue work off to the

[11:00] right. That is that um sort of kinkedked

[11:02] yellow highlight there um near that

[11:05] Waverly Road label. Uh that's the little

[11:07] bit on Hume that we're going to be doing

[11:08] this fall yet. So this is the the bits

[11:11] to remain into the fall and at the end

[11:13] of 2026. And if we go to our next slide

[11:16] here, we'll see that the work plan for

[11:18] 2027 is really concentrated to that

[11:21] block on Dibble between Sagenol and

[11:23] Michigan Avenue. So we're talking about

[11:25] Arlene and Clayborn are the streets that

[11:28] are curved there just below the straight

[11:30] line which is Dibble Avenue. We've got

[11:32] that northern pond um which our pond

[11:35] contractor will be digging. Uh that's

[11:37] the 511 North Waverly and um that work

[11:40] will extend on Dibble all the way to

[11:42] Michigan Avenue where it will connect

[11:43] with previously completed work.

[11:46] Moving next to 28, we're really getting

[11:48] into some cleanup. As far as major work

[11:50] items go, this is the main work item is

[11:53] completing this last and final pond and

[11:55] connection. Uh both of these ponds,

[11:57] these smaller ponds on Waverly will have

[11:59] cuts in connections across Waverly Road

[12:02] uh in Dingham County. So there will be

[12:04] some minor delays there with um that

[12:06] storms who are crossing Waverly and

[12:08] those pavement patches being performed.

[12:11] So essentially this gets us through sort

[12:13] of a graphical image of the different

[12:15] work areas. I think the main thing to to

[12:18] hone in on is 2027 is going to have a

[12:20] lot of work around that dibble corridor

[12:22] between Sageno and Michigan.

[12:25] » Question for you. Um Chris, the um drain

[12:28] ponds that you're creating,

[12:32] do you believe or I'm sure there's a

[12:34] plan for this, you know, exactly in

[12:36] those areas where that water is going to

[12:38] go, which drains are going to go are

[12:41] going to be impacted by those which

[12:43] area.

[12:44] » Yeah. So the the the areas where we're

[12:46] constructing those those ponds, um for

[12:49] the most part, they're being set up as

[12:52] regional detention for the system. So,

[12:54] they're going to take storm water input

[12:55] directly from the drain or parts of the

[12:57] drain that are plumbed right into it.

[12:58] So, the main pond at 4,300 is going to

[13:01] have um the essentially the portion of

[13:05] the bank inner county that um collects

[13:08] storm water south of Sagena Highway. So,

[13:10] that's a large portion of that drainage

[13:12] district, but also the Briggs drain off

[13:14] to the west, which is down below the

[13:17] image stretching almost over to um to

[13:20] the mall and to Meyer uh over to the

[13:22] west there. So there's a large portion

[13:24] of of the drainage district that's

[13:26] plumbed into that large pond. The other

[13:28] two ponds um and really this played into

[13:32] the benefits of county and uh planning

[13:34] for the future um are uh constructed as

[13:40] additional regional detention to provide

[13:42] some more resiliency for the system to

[13:43] get the the size of the pipes and the

[13:45] size of the project smaller and building

[13:47] these ponds, but also an opportunity for

[13:50] um connections for the district that had

[13:53] historically been flowing into Eaten

[13:56] County to Delta Township. ship. Um the

[13:58] pipe that served these areas

[14:00] historically was very undized. Um there

[14:03] was chronic flooding along Waverly. So

[14:05] this is going to help solve that. And

[14:07] then uh really the benefit is to those

[14:09] undeveloped parcels over on the Ingam

[14:11] side, which um is is something that was

[14:14] taken into account when Ingam County did

[14:15] their their aortionments.

[14:17] » Chris, can you explain are those going

[14:18] to be what are those ponds going to look

[14:20] like aesthetically? They're not

[14:22] necessarily full of water.

[14:24] » Right. So, the two smaller ponds um are

[14:26] actually uh designed to be dry most of

[14:28] the time. So, they will um they'll be

[14:30] under drained and those will dry out in

[14:32] between storms. So, they will be

[14:33] mowable. It's not going to become like a

[14:35] mosquito risk or any sort of hazard like

[14:37] that. The large pond is going to have a

[14:40] channel through the bottom. So, that low

[14:42] flow and that that amount of storm water

[14:44] that's just it's a large there's a large

[14:46] area connected to it. So, sump pumps um

[14:49] and other uh other things contributing

[14:51] flow to this system. uh we feel like

[14:54] there's going to be more water more of

[14:56] the time and that water will flow

[14:58] through that low flow channel and not

[14:59] just sit in pools on the bottom. So the

[15:01] intent for the larger pond is to have a

[15:03] place for that water to flow through and

[15:05] not just spread out and it it keeps

[15:07] moving. Just Cascola.

[15:10] » Yes, thank you. Um, so just a question.

[15:12] You made the comment um about the um

[15:17] the two ponds that all sit off Waverly

[15:21] and the benefit they bring to the Amount

[15:24] County property to the east.

[15:28] And you mentioned that that was

[15:32] factored into the assessment.

[15:36] Um, I'm just wondering because that

[15:39] property today is largely vacant, so

[15:43] storm water is absorbed, but if that's

[15:46] developed and you've got parking lots

[15:48] and structures that are

[15:53] uh limiting the ability to to absorb

[15:56] that water just into the ground.

[16:00] Is there going to be any kind of

[16:01] assessment to for that impact to the

[16:05] system or you're just saying that's

[16:08] already calculated in as vacant land?

[16:11] » So there there was some consideration

[16:13] for a certain level of development and

[16:16] essentially that additional storm water

[16:18] coming into those areas. One thing to

[16:20] keep in mind that these two ponds along

[16:22] Waverly were not built to have

[16:26] development void of storm water

[16:28] management across the county line. So

[16:29] there will still be a need for storm

[16:31] water management on that um that vacant

[16:34] golf course parcel across across the

[16:36] county line there across Waverly. So

[16:38] it's dealing with a portion of a

[16:40] developed state. It is not providing

[16:43] um say a development that's got 80%

[16:47] pavement um on an extreme end. Not it's

[16:50] not built or designed for a very large

[16:52] impervious development, but it is taking

[16:54] into account some of that development

[16:56] » And any improvement

[16:59] needed to the system for development on

[17:02] that property will be the responsibility

[17:05] of those developing or owning that

[17:07] property, not others in the drainage

[17:10] district.

[17:11] » Correct. And and essentially there's

[17:13] there's a couple options for developers

[17:15] in most situations. either maybe it's an

[17:17] improvement to the system you're

[17:18] draining into or you need a very much

[17:20] more robust system on your own parcel.

[17:22] So, a lot of it comes down to storage

[17:24] and if you need more storage and the

[17:25] storage isn't available regionally where

[17:27] most systems don't have that regional

[17:29] storage, it's got to be built at the

[17:31] developer cost on those development

[17:33] projects.

[17:33] » And and so, a couple things, Chris.

[17:36] First, the golf course property, believe

[17:38] it or not, does not all flow to the bank

[17:40] or county drain.

[17:41] » About a third of it does,

[17:42] » Right? And then the rest of it flows to

[17:44] this be very beautifully named bogus

[17:47] swamp.

[17:47] » The bogus swamp drain

[17:48] » Drain.

[17:49] » Um, that's just an Ingam County drain.

[17:51] So, we're really looking at from a

[17:53] watershed standpoint, we're only a third

[17:55] of that property there. And there was

[17:58] significant discussions with Ingam

[17:59] County drain staff as to how much water

[18:02] would be let off the site when it is

[18:04] developed. That was communicated to the

[18:06] developers. And so, these detention

[18:08] ponds aren't really um accommodating

[18:12] that development anymore than we would

[18:14] accommodate any other developer

[18:15] regardless of the county. So when he

[18:17] said it's for that benefit of Ingam is

[18:19] the Ingam water's coming in but it's not

[18:21] being treated any differently than

[18:23] anybody else throughout probably Ingam

[18:25] or Eaton County. Mhm.

[18:27] » And so the reasons that we're having

[18:28] those ponds is early on the design

[18:32] alternative that was selected was do you

[18:35] go bigger pipe than we already have big

[18:37] pipe and no detention ponds or do we

[18:40] have detention ponds to try to get the

[18:42] pipe a little bit smaller actually

[18:44] significantly smaller as it goes

[18:46] downstream. And so the decision and luck

[18:49] luck of the draw was that big property

[18:51] was for sale and we were able to

[18:53] purchase these is the three detention

[18:57] ponds end up saving the project probably

[19:00] over $10 million in cost and the

[19:04] constructibility of the bigger the pipe.

[19:06] Can you imagine putting a bigger pipe

[19:08] than we already are under Sageno Highway

[19:10] and and after that down Waverly? the

[19:12] constructibility of putting an even

[19:14] bigger pipe where there's so many things

[19:16] going on was next to impossible. And so

[19:19] that's kind of why we have these

[19:20] detention basins there to hold water

[19:22] during those storm events for the two um

[19:25] that are I have to remember to turn my

[19:27] head sideways because that's how I think

[19:28] to the east. Um those are dry basins

[19:31] that are only going to hold water in

[19:32] storm events so we can have that smaller

[19:34] pipe size. I hang around with engineers

[19:36] enough where I think I talk like one. So

[19:38] did I get that right, Chris?

[19:40] » Absolutely. Okay,

[19:40] » Good job. Awesome.

[19:42] » Any other questions thus far?

[19:44] » Okay, please continue.

[19:46] » All right, so um moving next to um I

[19:49] just want to talk a little bit about

[19:50] some of the communication uh tools that

[19:52] we're using. Um we have a website, we

[19:55] have a um we have an email subscription

[19:59] service uh where essentially we're

[20:00] putting together uh monthly updates or

[20:03] any sort of urgent notices to go out via

[20:06] email blast. Um, this was actually born

[20:08] out of conversations with the manager's

[20:10] office here and we're using, I think,

[20:12] some of the same tools as the township

[20:14] is, um, to make these things happen. But

[20:16] just some statistics here. Um, I think

[20:18] one thing to notice is email blast and

[20:21] getting your information via email is

[20:23] one option for property owners to learn

[20:25] about the project. We have a project

[20:27] website. All of those project updates

[20:29] are loaded up on that website. We have

[20:31] some live um maps that show where work's

[20:34] happening, where detours and road

[20:36] closures are in effect. Um and

[20:39] essentially uh just trying to provide

[20:41] different options for the different um

[20:44] ways to communicate. And if we go to our

[20:45] next uh slide here, you can see just

[20:47] some of the the different types

[20:49] » Up for the email alerts. Those are

[20:50] really good. So I recommend all of the

[20:53] residents to enroll in the email

[20:55] updates.

[20:56] » Absolutely. and and and it shows what

[20:58] each of the contractors are doing

[21:00] monthtomonth. Um if we feel like there's

[21:02] some certain events that are notable,

[21:04] some traffic alerts, new road closures,

[21:06] if we're going to do some major paving,

[21:09] things like that, flood watch for some

[21:10] large storm events that are on the

[21:12] horizon. Um those are things that we can

[21:15] fairly quickly put together and send out

[21:17] without needing weeks and weeks to

[21:19] develop that communication. So we um we

[21:22] found success with that.

[21:25] And at this point, we're going to jump

[21:27] into some of the grant funding,

[21:30] um, refund, aortionment, if there's any

[21:33] other questions on construction.

[21:35] » Yeah, feel free to ask any questions

[21:37] that you might have. Um,

[21:39] » I think your township staff has done a

[21:42] great job working with the drain office

[21:44] on um, responding to property owner in

[21:47] I'm going to call them inquiries um,

[21:49] with regard to construction. Um the

[21:52] drain uh the work trailer where Spicer

[21:55] Group meets with the contractors has a

[21:57] map up where anytime there's a property

[21:59] owner inquiry whether it's an email or

[22:02] phone call it lights up that property

[22:04] and then we know which ones have been

[22:06] responded to or not responded to and so

[22:08] they go through that and then we meet

[22:09] weekly with the drain office uh to

[22:12] ensure that everybody's needs are being

[22:14] met and somebody's getting a call back

[22:16] and trying to respond to their needs as

[22:18] quickly as possible. So, we appreciate

[22:20] the coordination um with with the

[22:22] township and and making sure that we're

[22:25] timely responding to to property owners.

[22:28] Um so,

[22:31] with regard to the property um the

[22:34] project aortionment, I'm just going to

[22:35] remind everybody a little bit about what

[22:38] those costs were. I know you probably

[22:40] don't want to see this again, um but we

[22:42] want to remind everybody how the cost

[22:44] was aortioned. And again, Delta

[22:46] Township, uh, the township itself was

[22:49] the largest rate payer or assess

[22:51] received the largest assessment for the

[22:54] project of 25% of the project. And then

[22:56] these are kind of the the different

[22:58] percentages for the Eaton County share.

[23:01] And then the next slide shows the

[23:03] aortionments in in Ingam County, which

[23:06] um same type of situation. The Ingam

[23:09] County drain commissioner assesses in a

[23:11] different manner. And so uh a larger

[23:14] percentage in this county went or in

[23:16] inum county went to the residents

[23:19] um with 6% of the total project cost.

[23:24] So

[23:26] it is very unusual to receive a grant

[23:29] after construction begins, but I guess

[23:31] we're we're very fortunate um with the

[23:33] hard work of Representative Whitworth

[23:35] that that happened. Uh Eaton County, the

[23:38] admin the controllers's office is the

[23:40] grant administrator. We have two grants.

[23:42] So, we're going to go through each of

[23:43] those today. The first one was $2.5

[23:46] million, and it's it's been just a joy

[23:50] to figure out the logistics of trying to

[23:53] » Take care of grant money afterwards, but

[23:55] we're we're getting through that

[23:57] process.

[23:59] And so what we are doing is the county

[24:04] is gi uh providing that information to

[24:08] the drain office and then or to the

[24:10] drain commissioner and the drainage

[24:12] boards and then if property owners have

[24:15] fully paid an assessment they will or

[24:19] any entity that fully paid an assessment

[24:21] they will get a refund a check in the

[24:24] mail um for their prata portion of that.

[24:27] And so that's kind of why I showed you

[24:29] the 94% and 6%. Everything's based on

[24:32] the construction needed to curve for the

[24:34] grant and everything's based on those

[24:36] same percentages in terms of who gets a

[24:38] refund or a rebate or reduced assessment

[24:42] um for the next couple of years.

[24:45] And so in terms of Eaton County um

[24:49] public corporations, these are the

[24:50] refunds where there was a uh a

[24:53] prepayment or etc. So MDOT 52% Eaton

[24:57] County 493,500

[25:00] that's split with the road commission

[25:02] and then Delta Charter Townships this

[25:04] year's uh refund will be $587,500.

[25:10] That's not the property owners, that's

[25:11] the township itself.

[25:14] In Ingam County, again, we're just

[25:16] dealing with 6% and their percentages to

[25:18] the uh ATLA the public corporations were

[25:21] a bit smaller. So, a significantly

[25:23] smaller refund to Ingam County, MDOT,

[25:26] and Lancing Charter Township for this

[25:28] year for the $2.5 million grant.

[25:32] In terms of the property owners, um,

[25:35] everybody's is a little bit different

[25:37] because everybody's assessment was a

[25:39] little bit different. Everybody's

[25:40] percentage was a little bit different.

[25:42] So, we have some averages for you. The

[25:44] average residential refund or credit for

[25:48] the 2026 grant is $575.

[25:52] of those we had um

[25:55] 135 full prepayments. So, they'll get a

[25:57] check in the mail. Um some partial

[25:59] prepayments because if they still have

[26:01] an assessment left, they'll get a credit

[26:02] rather than a check in the mail. Um we

[26:06] had 41 full payoffs. That meant after we

[26:10] bonded, there was a sale of the house,

[26:12] something happened, and the mortgage

[26:13] company said, "You have to pay off your

[26:15] assessment before we can close." So,

[26:16] that's a payoff instead of a prepayment.

[26:19] Um, so we had 41 of those who will

[26:21] receive a check, seven partial payoffs,

[26:23] and then 1,650

[26:26] uh Delta Township residents in the

[26:28] district will receive anredit a credit

[26:30] on this year's assessment

[26:32] and the average of $575.

[26:36] Now, your commercial properties, your

[26:38] church and school property, their their

[26:41] uh credits are significantly different

[26:43] than that. Uh in Ingam County, you're

[26:46] looking at much smaller assessments to

[26:49] the residents. And so they're getting a

[26:51] whopping $20 either $20 check or refund

[26:55] on average for full prep payments in

[26:57] Ingam County, one partial prepayment,

[27:00] and then 54 assessments. Uh 54

[27:03] assessments were the total residents

[27:04] that had that that will get a credit in

[27:06] in county.

[27:09] » Stacy, can I ask you a question with

[27:11] regard to the Eden County? Um, you

[27:13] mentioned a category about refunds for

[27:16] folks who may have sold their property.

[27:18] » Yeah.

[27:19] » So, and I don't like to really speak in

[27:22] arbitrary sort of thing, but if somebody

[27:24] sold their property and let's say they

[27:26] got the buyer to pay that,

[27:30] » Who is the refund going to go to?

[27:33] » So, my understanding is that whoever cut

[27:36] the check, I think, is is the one that's

[27:38] getting the refund.

[27:40] But we thought of this situation and so

[27:43] if you paid the refund you're getting or

[27:45] if you paid the payment you're getting

[27:46] the refund.

[27:50] » I'm not sure how that works in real

[27:51] estate world. If

[27:53] » We did go through this with the county

[27:55] and uh office to make sure so if so if

[28:01] you sold your property 95% of the time I

[28:04] would say it's going to be the the

[28:06] seller

[28:07] » Right

[28:07] » Who prepaid.

[28:08] » Absolutely. Uh, and so in that

[28:11] situation, the check is going to go to

[28:13] the seller who made the prepayment.

[28:15] » Mhm.

[28:16] » Um, in situations, if it was the buyer

[28:18] that made the prepayment, which I I

[28:20] don't know if we have any of those

[28:21] situations here, but we kind of set the

[28:23] policy, then it would go to whoever made

[28:25] who who wrote the check.

[28:27] » So, the language is whoever paid for it

[28:28] basically.

[28:29] » Correct.

[28:30] » That's a great question. We had rounds

[28:32] and rounds and rounds over that and

[28:33] differences of opinion and that's where

[28:35] we landed.

[28:38] » Any questions? treasure feed away.

[28:39] » Yeah. Um I understand full numbers in

[28:43] terms of what the credit or rebate would

[28:46] be.

[28:46] » Yeah.

[28:47] » That now that varies drastically

[28:50] depending on the individual portion that

[28:52] the particular property is but is the

[28:56] ratio is the percentage even the board

[29:00] if it isn't why not

[29:02] » So it is pro rata depending on your

[29:05] aortionment. So, if you had a 20 acre

[29:09] parcel and you paid I'm making numbers

[29:11] up, you your assessment is $1,000 this

[29:14] year and somebody else had a 1acre

[29:16] parcel and their assessment is $100.

[29:18] They're not going to get the same refund

[29:19] or rebate. It's based on the actual

[29:21] assessment you paid in a percentage of

[29:23] that.

[29:24] » I understand that.

[29:27] in terms of the the grants and the

[29:30] credits. I mean it seems to me that the

[29:34] » The methodology

[29:36] is being followed as you described but

[29:38] basically the percentage would be the

[29:40] same across the board.

[29:42] » Correct.

[29:42] » Okay. I was just double check on that.

[29:44] » Absolutely. Yep. There there is I was

[29:48] going to say um

[29:50] » There is a small uh administrative fee

[29:54] taken out of the overall grant for the

[29:56] county.

[29:57] » So in county was going to charge a

[30:00] $75,000 administrative fee of their time

[30:03] to to do this and they decided to wave

[30:06] it and the controllers's office is

[30:08] taking all the activities without charge

[30:10] under the grant for administration of

[30:12] the grant.

[30:13] Yep. That was just recently decided. So

[30:18] apologize that we need. Yes.

[30:20] » Question. Um will this schedule or a

[30:23] schedule for each of the residents be

[30:25] available somewhere so they can see

[30:27] this? Yes. And know what's coming?

[30:28] » We intend to send every resident a

[30:30] letter. We're working on I think the

[30:33] letter should go out maybe as soon as

[30:35] next week or in the next couple of weeks

[30:37] letting people know that there'll be a

[30:38] reduction or a refund. If there's a re,

[30:41] so everybody in the district is going to

[30:43] get that letter. If there's a refund and

[30:46] we know which properties are which,

[30:48] we're going to send them a letter with a

[30:50] self-ress stamped envelope saying, "We

[30:51] need you to sign a W9. We need you, we

[30:54] need your information, your new updated

[30:56] mailing address, email address, etc."

[30:58] Because we can't cut a check unless we

[31:00] have a W9. So, um, once we do that, then

[31:04] we'll start cutting checks for those who

[31:06] we get refunds, and we're hoping to have

[31:08] those out in December.

[31:10] Okay. Um, so we're hoping to have that

[31:13] information out very soon and we've been

[31:16] working closely with uh your township

[31:19] office to make sure that they have a

[31:20] list of everybody too. Like we'll have a

[31:22] we have a list of exactly what

[31:24] everybody's supposed to get and then

[31:25] we're keeping track of who who we have

[31:28] information back, etc. And I hope we get

[31:30] really good at it because next year we

[31:32] get to do the exact same thing again um

[31:36] under a separate grant that's not

[31:37] available yet um for that's not the

[31:40] funds aren't available to us yet um for

[31:43] $2 million additional dollars. And so

[31:45] instead of wait having residents wait to

[31:48] get their first check and their first

[31:49] reduction, we're going to cut two

[31:51] different checks um so that they can get

[31:53] their money one each year and then have

[31:55] a reduction, not quite the same amount

[31:57] because we're looking at $2 million

[31:58] instead of $2.5 million in the same

[32:01] pattern for next year. So it would be a

[32:04] reduction uh this year on the 2026

[32:06] winter taxes. 2027 winter tax is a

[32:09] reduction and then unless we find a

[32:12] third grant in another year then we're

[32:14] back to normal in 2028. But these are

[32:16] the

[32:16] » The admin fee will be waved for that

[32:18] second one as well.

[32:19] » It will and these are the important

[32:21] years in my opinion to do this because

[32:23] interest is so high in the first couple

[32:25] of years of of a 40-year assessment and

[32:28] so these are the years where it matters

[32:30] most. So, I'm going to go

[32:31] » Final interest rate because I know it

[32:33] changed.

[32:34] » I don't remember it went down, but I

[32:36] thought

[32:37] » 3. Okay, we're going to look at it. Um,

[32:40] so I'm going to go quick through these

[32:42] slides. Uh, as riveting as drains are,

[32:46] um, so $2 million, same kind of

[32:48] situation we're going to go through.

[32:49] Next slide. Um, these are the Eaton

[32:52] County refunds. And again, the Eaton

[32:55] County share of 39 3094800 split with

[32:58] the road commission.

[33:01] Same with the Ingam County share. Uh the

[33:05] significantly smaller because it's 6%

[33:08] instead of 94%. Next slide. So we're

[33:11] looking at $462

[33:13] um either credit or refund for Eaton

[33:17] County and $16 in Ingam County.

[33:20] And then um this is the grand totals

[33:23] between the two grants. So, um, to the

[33:27] Delta Charter Township 1,57,500.

[33:30] The average residential, uh, deduction

[33:34] or refund is $1,37. And again, these are

[33:37] all going to be different. I don't doubt

[33:39] that any two are exactly the same.

[33:41] They're based on as as your uh,

[33:44] treasurer mentioned, they're based on

[33:45] the percentages for the aortments. Will

[33:48] the 2027 grant redistribution of the

[33:52] funds happen at the end of 27 like it is

[33:54] that sooner than that this time? Uh in

[33:57] terms of the checks we just don't have

[33:59] it available. Okay. So the bond

[34:02] percentage interest rate was 4.68%

[34:06] assessed with a 1% fee making it 5.68%.

[34:13] » Yes.

[34:14] » Um just a quick question. I I believe

[34:17] based on what you said um these the

[34:21] whether it's a credit

[34:24] I suppose when it's a credit is that

[34:27] made as if it were a payment of the

[34:29] principal?

[34:31] » Yes.

[34:32] » Okay.

[34:33] » Yeah. So it will be to the property

[34:35] owner. Well so we're not going to go and

[34:38] uh so we still have to we we can't

[34:41] prepay on our bond for a period of years

[34:44] yet. So there's a little bit of a price

[34:46] to be paid where we have some money

[34:48] coming in. It's just as if it came in

[34:49] from the property owners instead of

[34:51] instead of uh from the grant. So um yes,

[34:56] I think I made that more confusing

[34:57] rather than less confusing. I apologize.

[35:01] » All right. Any other questions? We just

[35:03] have one more slide on this before. Did

[35:06] that answer your question or

[35:08] » Yeah. I I was a little confused by what

[35:10] you were saying, but yes, you're saying

[35:12] that will be applied as if it were a

[35:14] principal payment. Correct.

[35:17] Thank you.

[35:19] » And then the Ingram County total grant

[35:21] amount. I think that's the last slide we

[35:23] have on this.

[35:27] All right. So, everybody should be

[35:28] getting a letter in the mail. If you

[35:30] have questions, of course, we'll

[35:32] coordinate with the township uh

[35:34] administration with regard to questions

[35:36] from property owners and and the only

[35:38] issue that will come up is if someone

[35:40] doesn't give us give us a W9, we can't

[35:43] get them a check. So, I think that's the

[35:46] only hiccup is making sure people

[35:47] respond to us in a timely fashion so

[35:49] that we can so that we can administer

[35:52] checks. So, all right, with that, I

[35:54] think we can move on to the next lovely

[35:56] drain item.

[35:59] Thank you.

[36:10] » Okay. So, the next portion I'd like to

[36:12] talk to everybody about is over this

[36:15] year, probably early summer and late

[36:17] summer, the Eden County Drain Office did

[36:20] a series of 197s on drains. And a 197 is

[36:24] a redistricting.

[36:26] Um, and the purpose of that is to add

[36:28] land or remove land. Um, a lot of the

[36:31] time when the mapping was done for drain

[36:34] districts before, it followed a lot of

[36:35] the property lines and didn't follow the

[36:37] exact topography to catch the runoff uh

[36:40] where it was supposed to. Um, and again,

[36:44] it updates our assessing role so we can

[36:46] assess a drain out properly. Um, makes

[36:49] it so Brian wouldn't be paying 20% when

[36:52] he should only be paying 17% or vice

[36:54] versa. Um, and we worked with two of our

[36:58] consultants on this. We worked with LRE

[37:00] in the spring and I think we talked

[37:02] about this one time at the previous

[37:04] meeting I was attending. And then Spicer

[37:06] did a second round of 197s for a whole

[37:09] different batch of drains. And um,

[37:12] Chris, would you like to talk more on

[37:13] that? Okay.

[37:18] » All right. So the the main group of

[37:20] drains that Spicer Group worked on uh is

[37:23] the Carrier Creek and its tributaries.

[37:25] So um the bank in our county takes up a

[37:28] large portion of the eastern part of the

[37:29] township and the Carrier Creek is a lot

[37:31] of that central western portion of the

[37:32] township. Um essentially, uh we were uh

[37:36] assisting the the drain commissioner's

[37:38] office with um different drains that um

[37:42] didn't have uh a good role on file there

[37:46] in their office or their role needed to

[37:48] be updated. Um maybe we had a drainage

[37:51] district from the 40s, 50s or 60s and it

[37:54] wasn't uh in in a sense in an assessment

[37:57] role format in their system um to

[37:59] assess. And also back in that era, the

[38:02] the drainage district now is is still a

[38:06] uh generally topographic tool. Uh you

[38:09] had two foot contour maps uh issued by

[38:12] the USGS and nowadays we've got aerial

[38:14] LAR um that's flown countywide. Uh that

[38:18] really helps us hone in on that

[38:19] information. So really boxy old district

[38:22] lines become a little bit more organic.

[38:25] Um sometimes we uh similar to you know

[38:28] trying to explain the shape you see in

[38:30] the clouds we try to you know see shapes

[38:33] and different things in these drainage

[38:34] districts because sometimes they look

[38:36] completely organic and and um not at all

[38:38] like how they used to. They're not as

[38:40] boxy. Um so we go through that process.

[38:42] Uh I believe there were um the the batch

[38:46] that we had uh worked through were 33

[38:49] different drains. Most of those were the

[38:50] Carrier Creek and its subcatchments

[38:52] other parts of the county as well. Um

[38:54] but we did the work to uh perform field

[38:57] work. Uh we basically drafted a a

[39:00] proposed line, district boundary line,

[39:03] went out to see if that was accurate um

[39:06] in the field making sure storm sewer and

[39:09] cross culverts were respected and that

[39:10] we don't have any water flowing in or

[39:12] outside of that line. Um and that all of

[39:15] that contributing area gets to the drain

[39:17] that gets to its outlet. Um there's a

[39:19] large part of that that's verifying the

[39:21] legal extent and uh other portions of

[39:24] the drain and what is legally drained

[39:26] and what's not legally drained. And uh

[39:27] Fahhe Schultz helped with um all of

[39:30] those reviews and sort of coupled with

[39:31] the engineering um put all that

[39:34] together. We sent notices to all of the

[39:38] residents and at large entities hosted a

[39:40] day of review. Um I believe Spicer's day

[39:43] of review was end of August. Eller's day

[39:46] of review was maybe early July, June

[39:50] maybe. Okay. So, hosting that day of

[39:53] review and essentially those who want to

[39:55] come in and review the drainage

[39:56] district, that boundary line, the

[39:58] physical line on the paper and if they

[39:59] have any disputes or want to uh

[40:02] challenge or discuss that and also the

[40:04] aortionment and that percentage that's

[40:06] assigned to their property, they want to

[40:07] review how those numbers were arrived um

[40:10] or discuss those. So those are the two

[40:13] opportun the opportunity to review those

[40:15] two items um for both at large entities

[40:18] MD dot county township cities and the

[40:21] property owners. So um that this process

[40:26] um started with a law change in 2013

[40:30] across the state these these reviews um

[40:33] sort of as needed have been going on

[40:35] since early 2014. So there's been other

[40:38] 197 reviews in Delta in the in Delta

[40:40] Township in the past. um lots around the

[40:42] county, lots more even around the state.

[40:44] So, it is a pretty um pretty common

[40:48] procedure. One thing to note too,

[40:51] because there is a 197 review and a

[40:54] change, it doesn't necessarily mean that

[40:56] there is a large project coming. We had,

[40:58] you could tell in some of the

[40:59] interactions we had with property owners

[41:01] wanting to understand the benefits of

[41:03] paying off versus um you know, utilizing

[41:08] the assessment over the multiple years.

[41:09] and we were talking maybe 2 or 3 years

[41:11] on an assessment for maybe $ 20 to $30 a

[41:14] year. So these are they're they're

[41:15] generally smaller numbers. They are um

[41:19] recouping and essentially uh assessing

[41:22] back maintenance expenses. Um and going

[41:25] forward on all the drains that we had

[41:27] worked on uh there aren't large projects

[41:30] that these are basically setting an

[41:33] aortionment role for.

[41:36] » Sorry to interrupt. Can you just explain

[41:39] a little more in a little more detail?

[41:41] You said recouping maintenance

[41:45] maintenance expenses.

[41:47] » Yes.

[41:48] » That have already occurred. So can you

[41:50] and is that with everyone in the

[41:53] drainage district or just the new people

[41:56] added?

[41:56] » It would be with everyone. So what the

[41:58] way I like to explain it is drain

[42:00] maintenance is kind of and drainage

[42:01] districts are kind of like a charge

[42:03] account. uh there's an allowance for the

[42:05] drain the drain commissioner and the and

[42:06] the drain office to spend for each drain

[42:09] district depending on the length of that

[42:11] drain each year. So it's an allowance.

[42:13] It's not an assessment every year to

[42:15] build a capital fund. It's just an

[42:17] allowance to do maintenance or to uh to

[42:20] work on the drain and at the end of the

[42:21] year that cost gets assessed back to try

[42:24] to bring that account back to zero. So

[42:26] essentially like a charge account. So a

[42:27] lot of the uh all of the work that was

[42:31] essentially realized on that computation

[42:33] of cost and all those different costs is

[42:35] work that's already happened

[42:36] » For each of those drains and and those

[42:38] were assessed to each drainage district

[42:42] as a whole not just the added folks.

[42:45] » Okay. Is there included in that? You

[42:49] mentioned this um 197

[42:55] effort to to kind of reassess the

[42:58] drainage district lines, you know, those

[43:02] maps.

[43:04] I'm assuming there's a cost to that. Is

[43:06] that also assessed on property owners?

[43:10] That's all the the cost for the the

[43:12] process and to go through the procedural

[43:14] changes and all of that is included in

[43:16] in that uh those assessments that will

[43:18] be going out this this uh December for

[43:21] the first time.

[43:24] So that would be included in those

[43:25] costs.

[43:28] These assessments that you have on um I

[43:32] think it's the second page of the memo

[43:34] that we have.

[43:37] These are for This is for maintenance

[43:39] that was already done. Work was already

[43:42] done. What year or years would that have

[43:45] been? Do you know? Do you recall?

[43:47] » It would be different

[43:48] » For each drain. Um

[43:49] » How far back would you say? We're

[43:52] talking

[43:54] » I wouldn't say any more than a couple

[43:56] years maybe.

[43:58] » Yeah. So, and it depends on each drain

[44:00] because each drain would have had

[44:01] different work done. And that's the

[44:03] other thing that's important too is is

[44:04] each account is kept separate. So work

[44:06] done on that drain is put into that

[44:08] account and is assessed against those

[44:10] drainage district entities

[44:13] » And some are one year, some are two,

[44:16] some are three. What's the determination

[44:18] or why are some just one year and some

[44:20] are two and some are three?

[44:22] » So uh we take the standpoint of there

[44:24] there's I'm going to say wrong and

[44:26] you're going to be mad, but it's $10,000

[44:28] per mile and and it's a little bit more

[44:30] with inflation. Every year it goes up

[44:32] every year. Um, so if we've got a

[44:35] three-mile drain, we've got $30,000 that

[44:37] we can use for maintenance. And and

[44:39] again, it's not money we get, it's money

[44:42] that we can assess out. Um, so on like

[44:45] the Carrier Creek drain, and I'm just

[44:47] throwing numbers out there. Say it was a

[44:50] five mile drain, I would take $50,000.

[44:53] So if the assessment was more than 50,

[44:55] 50 would be what I could assess out in

[44:57] one year. So if it was over that, I

[45:00] would assess it for more than one year.

[45:02] If it

[45:03] » There's another reason too if I can help

[45:04] you out. Sure. So let's say you have a a

[45:08] thousand person district and you're

[45:10] spending $10,000. So that's not going to

[45:12] be that much.

[45:13] » But if you have a 10 person district,

[45:16] you're assessing out 5,000. That that's

[45:19] a lot more. And so I think Marcus and

[45:21] the engineers go through and look at

[45:23] affordability for each of these drainage

[45:25] districts and say that seems a little

[45:27] that seems a little rough for one year.

[45:28] And so they also spread it over for a

[45:30] couple years to make sure that the

[45:31] affordability is there.

[45:33] » Is that correct?

[45:33] » That that is definitely a factor we look

[45:35] at.

[45:35] » Okay. So my question on top of this one

[45:37] is let's say I'm in year two of a

[45:41] three-year and you need to do another

[45:43] maintenance. Is that does could that

[45:45] happen

[45:46] » And I would have yet another assessment?

[45:48] » Yep.

[45:50] » So you can have multiple assessments

[45:53] going on at the same time. So normally

[45:56] if so normally you wouldn't have

[45:59] multiple assessments for the same drain

[46:00] going on at the same time. If there was

[46:02] an assessment they'd probably wait one

[46:04] more year to assess it so you don't have

[46:07] » We finish that third year.

[46:09] » Yeah.

[46:10] » Or whatever.

[46:11] » Now you might be in two different

[46:12] drainage districts and for both of them

[46:15] on the same year and that is not

[46:17] uncommon.

[46:17] » Right. And I wanted to make sure that

[46:19] came out as well because you guys have

[46:21] said that before but I want to make sure

[46:23] that we're clear. You can have multiple

[46:25] drains in your area and they can be

[46:28] separately ass we do and they will be

[46:31] separately assessed but it could be

[46:32] happening at the same time.

[46:34] » You are blessed with a lot of drains in

[46:36] Delta Township.

[46:36] » I know supervisor.

[46:40] » Any other questions? Yeah,

[46:43] » Thank you. Um so just a question on

[46:48] drain maintenance. Do you well and the

[46:52] the 197 process is that something

[46:57] you redo on a regular basis re-evaluate?

[47:01] We've just gone through it sounds like

[47:04] you've done Delta Township assessed

[47:06] those drainage assessed is probably not

[47:09] the right word because we assess in a

[47:12] different way. you've evaluated those

[47:14] drainage district maps and adjusted

[47:17] those and

[47:20] um

[47:22] added or removed properties as deemed

[47:24] appropriate. How frequently can or would

[47:28] you be redoing the 197 process for

[47:32] drains? And I guess I'm not necessarily

[47:35] concerned about other communities in the

[47:38] county, but in Delta Township, like is

[47:40] that something every 10 years, every 20

[47:42] years, or we should be good for a long

[47:45] time because we have good technology now

[47:46] to to appropriately map.

[47:49] » So part of the 197 is um deals with

[47:55] splits and combos for land. So, in the

[47:57] urbanized area, there's going to be a

[48:00] lot less chance of that happening on a

[48:01] regular basis because there's not going

[48:02] to you're not going to have the splits

[48:04] and combos. Uh you're not going to be

[48:05] selling parcels and dividing land and

[48:07] and changing that much. Uh more in the

[48:10] rural areas, that'll happen. Um

[48:12] especially

[48:14] more like Charlotte and and Onidita

[48:16] Township, Grand Lodge area that you

[48:18] would see that happen more often. But I

[48:20] would still say that that's it's not

[48:22] something that happens every 5 years

[48:24] even and probably not even every 10

[48:26] years unless our roles are just that out

[48:30] of whack from what has happened

[48:33] » Land change wise.

[48:34] » I don't think we would see that in our

[48:35] lifetimes with that we need to do this

[48:38] process again. We didn't have the

[48:40] statutory ability to do it for a hundred

[48:42] years and then we got it you know in

[48:44] 2014. So we're slowly making our way

[48:46] through. The big item that I saw in

[48:49] Carrier Creek watershed is anytime

[48:52] there's a development that changes the

[48:54] drainage pattern, that also changes

[48:57] where the drainage district boundaries

[48:59] are. And so I think we're going through

[49:01] the process if if a developer is going

[49:03] to change the drainage pattern and

[49:05] change districts, we're probably going

[49:06] to have them pay for the cost of

[49:07] updating the rules and the district

[49:09] boundaries now instead of the property

[49:11] owners to do that. We're we're doing a

[49:14] couple decades of catchup on these. And

[49:16] so I can tell you Chris and I went

[49:18] through Carrier Creek and who did what

[49:21] and Verdale Lakes and everything else

[49:23] from where it was originally um designed

[49:26] and it was like spaghetti like it felt

[49:29] like you were looking at spaghetti by

[49:31] the end of the day with all the changes

[49:32] that had made and we we went through

[49:34] that as this process and got it all

[49:35] worked out.

[49:37] » That clarity is really helpful. I

[49:38] appreciate that. And then just one

[49:40] follow-up question if I may. Um, on the

[49:43] maintenance side of things, because

[49:44] you're doing the work and then building

[49:46] for that, do you give notice

[49:51] in advance or do you have a schedule of

[49:53] what your plan of maintenance is for

[49:55] drains that property owners either one

[49:59] can be notified about or can find that

[50:02] information to know like, oh, we're

[50:05] coming up on another regular

[50:07] maintenance, regularly scheduled

[50:09] maintenance work on the drain that I'm

[50:11] then I can expect an assessment to come

[50:15] following that.

[50:16] » So, generally maintenance through our

[50:18] office is probably 95% complaint based.

[50:22] So, a lot of the time we're out there

[50:23] doing maintenance because of an issue

[50:25] that a resident called on. Um, and it's

[50:28] it's usually more than one resident.

[50:30] There's a flooding issue. So, that is

[50:33] one way that they know that we're coming

[50:34] out there. Also, we have to provide

[50:36] notice to the land owners if we're going

[50:38] to be on their property working on the

[50:40] drain. So there is notice with that as

[50:42] well. Um on a larger scale maintenance

[50:46] project, we try and bid those out to get

[50:49] the best price we can for the drain

[50:50] office and for the residents. Um and

[50:53] aside from that, we we do reach out to

[50:55] our residents if they're in the affected

[50:57] area, whe whether it's going to be

[50:59] traffic wise or we're going to be

[51:01] digging in their yard, we we let them

[51:03] know.

[51:04] » Yeah. I I definitely I don't know if

[51:06] there's a better way to communicate

[51:08] because I know with some of these, you

[51:10] know, there are folks that got added in

[51:12] um but even folks that have been in

[51:14] drain, you know, multiple drainage

[51:17] districts, they're used to getting small

[51:19] assessments

[51:20] and then all of a sudden it's like, oh,

[51:22] I've got a much larger one that I didn't

[51:25] budget for. And

[51:28] for some residents in the community,

[51:31] they just don't have the extra cash to

[51:35] cover those unplanned expenses and it

[51:38] really hits hard. Um, so if there's some

[51:41] way to know, I mean, when someone's

[51:43] seeing, you know, a couple hundred

[51:44] dollar assessment that they usually get

[51:46] a few dollars, I mean, that's big

[51:48] enough. It just they're not budgeting

[51:51] for it. It It's hard. And so I don't

[51:53] know if there's notice any kind of

[51:55] notification going out, but I'm guessing

[51:57] that was a larger maintenance project

[51:59] that

[52:01] » Yes. Yep. It was larger maintenance

[52:02] project. And and again, like Stacy

[52:04] touched on earlier, one thing that we do

[52:06] in the drain office is we look at the

[52:08] assessment roles and we do look at it

[52:10] from an affordability standpoint. Um, I

[52:13] mean myself, if I had to pay something

[52:15] like that, I look at that and see what

[52:17] would be more manageable. And if we've

[52:19] got to extend it out more than one or

[52:21] two years, we do that. So the burden is

[52:24] isn't as great over like a one-year

[52:28] period.

[52:31] » I appreciate that. And again, I think

[52:33] any notice that can be given because

[52:35] again, a lot of the property owners

[52:37] getting assessments don't have the drain

[52:40] on their property. They don't know

[52:42] necessarily about that work, but they

[52:44] get the bill after the fact. And again,

[52:47] they may not even know there was

[52:48] maintenance work ever even happening.

[52:50] And knowing there will be an assessment

[52:53] coming and trying to plan for that, I

[52:55] think helps

[52:57] tremendously for a lot of households.

[53:00] » Sure. Thank you.

[53:01] » And and I can pass that on to John to

[53:03] try and include that. Um you also have

[53:05] to understand that the harder part is on

[53:07] these larger districts. I mean, when we

[53:10] include the mailers out there, that's an

[53:11] added cost to send a mailer up to to

[53:14] notify everybody that there's going to

[53:16] be maintenance done and it's going to be

[53:17] on the assessment. So, um, as much as

[53:20] it's helpful, it's also an added cost.

[53:23] So,

[53:24] » Leave it on the website. I don't know if

[53:26] there's ways to put the schedule up. I

[53:29] Yeah, anything that can be a source of

[53:32] information. Thank you.

[53:35] » Thank you. Any other questions for this

[53:38] portion?

[53:40] Hearing none, we're on to the Keller

[53:42] drain petition and assessment.

[53:46] » I don't ever get to sit down. I don't

[53:48] think

[53:48] » I'm so the color drain is in the uh it

[53:54] would be in the southeast quarter of

[53:58] Delta Township

[54:00] » And it's it's technically over there by

[54:02] Waverly and Jolly area obviously to the

[54:05] west of Jolly Road. Um it is just an

[54:08] eaten county drain is not in county

[54:09] shared with Ingam County. Um and we had

[54:12] some issues this last April where there

[54:15] was some major flooding happening. uh we

[54:17] had quite large volumes of rain that

[54:19] fell uh within about a two-eek period

[54:23] and working with the city of Lancing

[54:25] because that is their jurisdiction as

[54:27] well. We went out there and we were

[54:30] assessing it. We were trying to fix it.

[54:31] We were trying to help it drain. There

[54:33] was um especially two large areas. It'd

[54:36] be just south of Jolly Road on Waverly.

[54:40] Um, one is a developed area um, off of

[54:44] Old Farm Lane and there's like a

[54:46] detention area where the drain starts

[54:48] there. Um, there was major flooding

[54:50] causing uh, basement flooding for the

[54:52] residents in that area and then there's

[54:55] an area just a little bit north of that.

[54:57] That is the consumer's energy property

[54:59] where their easement runs through and a

[55:01] lot of people said it's the old railroad

[55:02] grade. Um, and that area flooded from

[55:06] April. I believe it didn't those two

[55:08] areas didn't dry up until about July. Um

[55:12] so the city of Lancing came to us and

[55:14] they wanted to petition the drain for

[55:16] improvements to see if they could um

[55:19] stop that health hazard of that standing

[55:21] water for such long periods of time.

[55:23] We've done a survey of the drain um to

[55:27] see where it's at. And then the next

[55:30] step in the petition process is to hold

[55:32] a board of determination. There's going

[55:34] to be um three board members and an

[55:37] alternate and they all are disinterested

[55:40] parties. They do not live within Delta

[55:42] Township. They don't live within that

[55:44] district. They don't live in Windsor and

[55:46] they don't live within the city of

[55:47] Lancing area either. Um they will review

[55:51] the evidence. They will review all the

[55:52] notes that are taken on the drain from

[55:54] the flooding issues and they will

[55:56] determine whether the um petition is

[56:00] necessary or unnecessary. If it's

[56:02] unnecessary, that drain can't be

[56:04] petitioned again for another year. Um,

[56:07] and then we would just have to work

[56:09] through any issues with that drain

[56:11] through maintenance. And we're limited

[56:13] on on our dollar amount there as well.

[56:16] » Um, tell me the entryways to get in to

[56:21] request a

[56:23] drainage assessment. So, yeah. So, it

[56:26] sounds like like the city of Lancing

[56:28] came to you with this one and I know

[56:30] residents can, but how many residents

[56:32] does it take or can a municipality start

[56:36] that process? It sounds sounds like they

[56:38] can. Can you tell us the

[56:40] » Um the road commission MDA anyone m city

[56:43] village or township or five property

[56:45] owners?

[56:46] » Five property owners can talk and then

[56:48] it would go through this same process

[56:50] where there is a board of determination

[56:52] that takes place. Is there a timeline

[56:54] when that happens? Like so the five

[56:58] people will get it's a petition

[57:00] » The residents can sign.

[57:01] » Yep.

[57:02] » And then and then uh that drain

[57:04] commissioner can set up the board of

[57:05] determination after there's been a

[57:08] gathering of information. So the the

[57:10] color drain just went through that

[57:12] updating of its assessment role and

[57:14] drainage district boundaries. And so

[57:16] right now I can't remember exactly what

[57:18] Delta Township's portion of that was or

[57:20] percentage of that was, but that's

[57:22] likely very similar proportion moving

[57:24] on. It's nothing like the bank inner

[57:26] county drain percent uh for Delta

[57:28] Township, nor do we envision this to be

[57:30] a project scope of a similar nature. So

[57:33] don't stress too much county will be

[57:35] assessed.

[57:36] » No, the city of Lancing will be

[57:37] assessed, but not county.

[57:39] » Not the not the county.

[57:41] » Yep. Okay. And that's the first petition

[57:43] you've received in a couple of years. Is

[57:45] that correct?

[57:46] » Yeah. Um in probably three or four

[57:50] years, I believe. Y

[57:54] » So then unless there's other questions

[57:56] about that

[57:57] » About Keller,

[58:00] » When could we expect to get a map of

[58:02] this drain district?

[58:04] » All right. So

[58:05] » I believe there was a map of that drain

[58:07] district sent with the 197s that were

[58:09] done this year. I don't know if it was

[58:11] the first batch or I think it was the

[58:13] first batch that was sent. So the top

[58:15] chip was sent that information. Brian

[58:17] should have that.

[58:18] » So it's it's buried in the 197 multiple

[58:20] different

[58:21] » Have a PowerPoint that we're going to be

[58:23] showing tomorrow night of the board of

[58:24] determination. We can certainly email

[58:26] that to Brian

[58:28] » Just for yourformational purposes unless

[58:30] you want to come tonight and watch or

[58:31] tomorrow night watch. We'll be happy to

[58:33] have you.

[58:34] » That would have been in the it would

[58:36] have been in our it was I believe it was

[58:38] June. There was a June when we had three

[58:43] » Um

[58:44] » Yeah I can't remember if I I may have

[58:47] included it in this packet as well.

[58:50] » It's in this packet

[58:50] » 300 pages in this one.

[58:52] » Yeah the audience

[58:55] » For tomorrow night

[58:57] » Page what' you say

[58:58] » 25 of this packet.

[59:01] » Thank you. I believe I don't want to

[59:03] speak. I I believe for this assessment

[59:05] the township at large was either 4% or

[59:09] 9%. It was a small amount on the less

[59:14] there's a lot less of the township

[59:15] within the district. Yes.

[59:18] » Yep.

[59:20] » Okay.

[59:21] » Okay. The last one

[59:24] » The last one is an ask of the township.

[59:28] So, we have a PowerPoint for this one

[59:30] and I believe this information is also

[59:32] in your board packet. And this is a a

[59:36] problem that that um Marcus can go

[59:39] through the specifics of what's actually

[59:41] happening, but we're asking for uh the

[59:45] township to enter into an agreement with

[59:47] the drainage district because some

[59:49] things can be done. We can't do this

[59:52] without either a petition or an

[59:54] agreement to do it. and an agreement to

[59:57] do it um means that the township pays

[1:00:01] for it instead of the property owners,

[1:00:02] but it means we don't have to get a

[1:00:04] petition to do it, which is a much

[1:00:05] lengthier, more expensive overall

[1:00:08] process. And so, uh I'll leave that to

[1:00:10] Marcus to I just wanted to let you know

[1:00:12] where we were going before we started

[1:00:14] the conversation. So,

[1:00:15] » Thank you. Thank you.

[1:00:18] » Okay, first slide, please.

[1:00:22] So, the Clemenson Underh Hill drain is

[1:00:24] over on um Mount Hope over by Lancing

[1:00:28] Road. Um and it actually goes a lot

[1:00:30] further. It goes across Lancing Road.

[1:00:31] There's different portions, but the

[1:00:33] portion that um I'm coming to you guys

[1:00:35] with tonight is this area. It's between

[1:00:38] the GM parts plant and um the brewery

[1:00:42] there on Mount Hope.

[1:00:44] Um,

[1:00:47] one issue that we're having, next slide

[1:00:49] please, is the existing drain. As you

[1:00:52] can see, it diagonals. It goes under

[1:00:54] both of those uh structures there. It

[1:00:57] goes directly underneath the one house

[1:00:59] and it goes under the garage on the on

[1:01:00] the house to the east.

[1:01:02] Um, so what we are asking is

[1:01:06] to Well, it's not in this slide either.

[1:01:09] We're asking to relocate that section of

[1:01:11] drain and eliminate that because there's

[1:01:13] a lot of flooding between um those three

[1:01:16] houses and then the one over um there's

[1:01:18] one over to the east as well.

[1:01:20] » Yep.

[1:01:21] » There we go.

[1:01:24] » And in the again in the April storms

[1:01:26] that we had, we received a lot of phone

[1:01:28] calls on a very regular basis that the

[1:01:30] water was creeping up to their door.

[1:01:32] There was water in their basement. um

[1:01:34] they could not do anything and they were

[1:01:36] asking for help and you know the drain

[1:01:38] was working the best that it could but

[1:01:41] it is a 10-inch drain that goes from the

[1:01:43] top part up there and diagonals under

[1:01:44] the house and it's very old and it goes

[1:01:47] way down before it even gets to a pond.

[1:01:50] Um, so what we're asking in the 425

[1:01:53] agreement is to use a directional bore

[1:01:56] and drill a new line from the manhole

[1:01:59] there on the north end and drill all the

[1:02:02] way across Mount Hope and set a new

[1:02:04] structure where there's the Clemenson

[1:02:06] underhill drain is also there and that's

[1:02:08] a 60-in line there. So it would be able

[1:02:10] to handle the flow from everything

[1:02:12] coming from that north end.

[1:02:21] So I can handle this part. So

[1:02:25] in order to relocate the route and

[1:02:27] course of the drain and this is this is

[1:02:29] beyond maintenance. So this is like

[1:02:31] moving pipe. We either need to get a

[1:02:33] petition for this and if we open it up

[1:02:35] to a petition it's a very costly and

[1:02:37] lengthy process or we can do it under an

[1:02:39] agreement um under the drain code. And

[1:02:42] so we're asking for uh permission or an

[1:02:46] agreement with the township to perform

[1:02:48] the maintenance uh subject to us getting

[1:02:51] a a drain or an a new easement from the

[1:02:55] property owner. I want to explain a

[1:02:56] little bit like how did you let this

[1:02:58] happen that somebody built a house over

[1:03:01] the top of the drain? This happens quite

[1:03:04] often. We dealt with this problem on the

[1:03:06] banker county drain a lot. Um, and that

[1:03:09] is because the legislature chose

[1:03:11] historically for any drain easement

[1:03:13] obtained before 1956, it was validly

[1:03:16] recorded in the office of the drain

[1:03:18] commissioner, not in the register of

[1:03:19] deeds. And so if you're a homeowner

[1:03:24] going to buy a piece of property, you

[1:03:26] don't know that there's a drain easement

[1:03:28] there. And then there's an exception in

[1:03:30] the title work that says we don't check

[1:03:32] with the drain office

[1:03:34] on drain easements. And so this happens

[1:03:37] from time to time. If the building

[1:03:38] department doesn't check with the drain

[1:03:40] office, then then these things happen.

[1:03:42] So the reason I'm mentioning it, that's

[1:03:44] how this happened. But also in that 197

[1:03:46] and the cost for that for these the

[1:03:48] drains we did this year, we included the

[1:03:50] cost of going and getting those

[1:03:52] historical easements that are in the

[1:03:54] drain commissioner's office and

[1:03:55] recording. We're going to record them in

[1:03:56] the register of deeds for those pre-1956

[1:03:59] easements to try to avoid these types of

[1:04:01] problems in the future. So all the

[1:04:02] drains that we're going to be working on

[1:04:04] and levying assessments for in Eaton uh

[1:04:06] in Eaton County all over, but

[1:04:08] specifically Delta Township, we're going

[1:04:10] to try to start recording those

[1:04:11] historicalments so they do show up in

[1:04:13] the title work and we can avoid any more

[1:04:15] of these problems.

[1:04:17] And so then um Marcus worked with the

[1:04:20] engineer to come up in the next slide

[1:04:21] with the with what that would look like

[1:04:24] and then and then a potential cost.

[1:04:29] » Okay. So again, you can see the existing

[1:04:31] drain goes underneath those two

[1:04:33] structures. Um, and what we're asking in

[1:04:35] the agreement is for Delta to cover the

[1:04:38] cost of going from the north end across

[1:04:41] south, boring a new 12-in line, um, and

[1:04:45] tying into the 60-in main. Um, also

[1:04:48] there's a picture there. Those folks at

[1:04:49] that house, um, she calls very often

[1:04:52] under heavy rain events. So that

[1:04:54] structure set in her yard is essentially

[1:04:56] an outdoor sump croc and she's got cords

[1:04:59] running up to her house and she plugs it

[1:05:01] in during heavy rain events because it

[1:05:02] gets so deep you can't even um get back

[1:05:06] there to set a new pump or anything

[1:05:07] else. So there's always a pump there.

[1:05:09] She has also has one in her front yard

[1:05:11] and they just pump out to the road and

[1:05:14] go down the catch basins and the drain.

[1:05:16] Um,

[1:05:18] so I did work with Brian a little bit on

[1:05:21] the um, pricing. He asked me to get in

[1:05:25] contact with a couple contractors that

[1:05:27] the township uses regularly for boring

[1:05:30] projects that you guys may have. Uh, we

[1:05:32] reached out to them. We also had a

[1:05:34] couple of our own. Um,

[1:05:37] the price that we have for directional

[1:05:39] drill on this one would be 61,165.

[1:05:43] Um, then we've got the 4ft catch basins,

[1:05:47] 12-in storm sewer line, uh, for the

[1:05:49] boore. Um, all in total with engineering

[1:05:53] costs and surveying, we're we're at

[1:05:56] approximately $99,915.

[1:06:00] Um, again, this is a a large ask, I

[1:06:03] know, but we're trying to avoid doing a

[1:06:06] petition and remedy a flooding issue

[1:06:08] that is ongoing.

[1:06:11] Any

[1:06:14] questions? Yes, Trusty Cascarella and

[1:06:16] then Treasure Feet.

[1:06:19] » How many I have a couple questions. How

[1:06:22] many

[1:06:25] property owners are in this,

[1:06:29] if it were an assessment, how many

[1:06:31] property owners would be paying

[1:06:35] for this improvement?

[1:06:37] » I can get that information or Brian. Oh,

[1:06:41] » And then my other question, and I don't

[1:06:43] know if you know the answer to this. You

[1:06:45] mentioned the work being done to I guess

[1:06:50] more to prevent.

[1:06:54] I I think my concern is I understand um

[1:06:57] I I feel for the property owners that

[1:07:00] are being flooded to this severity.

[1:07:03] Um,

[1:07:05] but I don't know if we have any sense of

[1:07:07] how many more homes we have sitting on

[1:07:11] drains that we may run into the same

[1:07:14] situation and are we creating a

[1:07:16] precedent that the township's going to

[1:07:19] carry all that cost for all these

[1:07:22] mistake. I don't know whose

[1:07:23] responsibility and what you know if

[1:07:27] there's

[1:07:28] fault where the fault lies and and how

[1:07:31] you have homes permitted to be built on

[1:07:35] drains and creating these issues I guess

[1:07:38] over time. Um,

[1:07:42] but I I worry this could be a huge

[1:07:45] problem throughout the township

[1:07:49] and we have I'm guessing no kind of

[1:07:52] sense of what that could be unless you

[1:07:55] do.

[1:07:57] » Uh, and this is one thing that Brian and

[1:07:59] I talked about when I was preparing this

[1:08:02] information to give to the board. uh he

[1:08:04] was concerned about the same thing and

[1:08:05] and I just said, you know, one thing you

[1:08:08] need to remember is there's there's

[1:08:10] about two options to fix this flooding

[1:08:12] issue and one would be a petition, which

[1:08:15] as we know the the cost for the township

[1:08:17] would be a lot higher than the $100,000

[1:08:20] that we are requesting. Um the other

[1:08:23] portion of it, when you open up a

[1:08:24] petition, you get the the board of

[1:08:26] determination meeting where a resident

[1:08:28] can speak up and say, "Well, what about

[1:08:30] my area? What about this area?" So,

[1:08:32] we're focusing with this agreement on

[1:08:34] one particular area where a petition

[1:08:36] process can open it up to the entire

[1:08:39] drainage district if people are having

[1:08:40] issues.

[1:08:42] » Yeah. So, if there is So, we Chris

[1:08:44] looked it up. There's 333 property

[1:08:46] owners in the Clement Underh Hill

[1:08:48] District. So, absent a petition or this

[1:08:52] agreement, we cannot fix the problem.

[1:08:56] Um, so we're trying to fix the problem

[1:08:59] in a more financially efficient way that

[1:09:02] has its pros and cons. That's why we're

[1:09:03] presenting it to you. Um, than than just

[1:09:06] going to a big petition project each

[1:09:08] time.

[1:09:13] » Thank you. I understand this right is

[1:09:15] that if it goes through petition

[1:09:16] process, then it could be expanded to

[1:09:20] the entire drainage district. Correct.

[1:09:23] » Yeah. So when you do a petition um then

[1:09:26] you have to look at the entire drain,

[1:09:27] not even the what the petitioner's ask

[1:09:29] is and as you folks have PA222 issues

[1:09:33] with storm with sanitary sewers. When

[1:09:35] we're doing a project, we have to make

[1:09:37] sure that we're not leaving a defect in

[1:09:40] the system. So we have to look at the

[1:09:42] entire drain from top to bottom with a

[1:09:43] petition to make sure there's no defects

[1:09:45] and fix all of them at that time. which

[1:09:48] again when you're talking about

[1:09:49] 100-year-old drains there's a lot this

[1:09:52] pipe is old there's a lot of problems

[1:09:54] and so we either can't help her we open

[1:09:57] it up to a petition to look at the

[1:09:59] entire drain or we deal with this issue

[1:10:01] in this manner is kind of what we're

[1:10:02] looking at now

[1:10:04] » So in comparison with the bank inner

[1:10:06] county uh it was determined that the

[1:10:09] township was responsible for 25% of the

[1:10:11] cost if this was to be

[1:10:15] a a drain districtwide petition, for

[1:10:18] example, what would the township's

[1:10:20] percentage be of that?

[1:10:22] » So, we would look at the situation with

[1:10:25] the petition itself, but I think Chris

[1:10:26] is looking up your historic percentage

[1:10:28] during petitions. We're not always

[1:10:30] settled with the exact same percentage.

[1:10:32] We'd have to look at that. We haven't

[1:10:34] looked at the drain itself if it was

[1:10:36] petitioned, what the wide array of other

[1:10:38] issues are that we'd have to to uh fix

[1:10:42] during it. And so I don't have the math

[1:10:44] to tell you whether it's going to be a

[1:10:46] million-doll project and you're at 10%

[1:10:48] or it's going to be, you know,

[1:10:51] » If the township were the board to decide

[1:10:54] to be generous and,

[1:10:59] you know, um,

[1:11:01] spend $100,000 to help a few residents

[1:11:03] out. Do we have any legal authority to

[1:11:06] be able to assess them? Anything for

[1:11:08] partial of the cost?

[1:11:10] So I am not your legal counsel, but

[1:11:13] generally when you enter into that

[1:11:15] agreement, it's a general fund expense.

[1:11:18] » When a township I'm not going to give

[1:11:19] you legal when a township enters into

[1:11:21] that type of agreement in my experience

[1:11:23] has been a general fund.

[1:11:24] » No, I understand that. But do we have

[1:11:26] and we may have to have some legal, you

[1:11:28] know, counsel on that, but I'm just

[1:11:30] wondering if we have any legal authority

[1:11:32] to be able to assess the

[1:11:34] » Normally you'd have to. So, normally I'm

[1:11:36] going to answer in the hypothetical

[1:11:38] abstract, not for your particular

[1:11:40] situation. The only time a township can

[1:11:43] normally assess uh for drain work is if

[1:11:46] it's a chapter 20 drain, which is this

[1:11:48] is not, or you create a um you take it

[1:11:51] over, I guess, and create a 188

[1:11:53] district. But normally, you can't assess

[1:11:55] back to property owners for drain

[1:11:57] projects. No, no township can.

[1:11:58] » Is this drain that's underneath this

[1:12:00] property, is that a functioning drain or

[1:12:02] is it not?

[1:12:05] Not really. It's it's because of the

[1:12:07] size of it and the foil water that comes

[1:12:09] to it. It backs up and that's what's

[1:12:11] cing causing a lot of the flooding

[1:12:12] issues. And that's why we want to upsize

[1:12:15] the pipe to a 12 in and bring it and

[1:12:17] give it to that 60in across mile hole to

[1:12:20] give it a place to go.

[1:12:23] » Do we know how old that portion of the

[1:12:25] drain is?

[1:12:27] » Uh I don't know off the top of my head

[1:12:30] that one. No.

[1:12:31] » Billions and billions of years.

[1:12:32] percentage is 15%

[1:12:35] for this drain.

[1:12:37] » Okay.

[1:12:42] » About 15%.

[1:12:44] » Yeah, between. Do we know how old that

[1:12:47] drain is?

[1:12:48] » Okay. And do we know when that house was

[1:12:51] built on top of it?

[1:12:53] » We do not.

[1:12:55] » Okay.

[1:12:57] Might be good to have that information.

[1:13:00] » Thank you.

[1:13:02] of it. Trusty,

[1:13:04] » Why this particular flooding area?

[1:13:10] » There are probably other areas in the

[1:13:12] township that have flooding due to

[1:13:14] insufficient draining. Why this one in

[1:13:17] particular?

[1:13:18] » This one has received a lot of calls in

[1:13:20] the last few years uh for the flooding

[1:13:23] issue and there's there's nothing more

[1:13:25] we can do for it. A lot of the other

[1:13:27] there there's some other areas of the

[1:13:29] township that have flooding issues that

[1:13:31] we've been actively working on uh

[1:13:34] rotoring the line on a very regular

[1:13:36] basis until we can get to a point where

[1:13:40] we can do a lot more maintenance and

[1:13:42] expend more maintenance dollars for that

[1:13:44] for the repair. Um I think portions of

[1:13:49] those areas that flood like that would

[1:13:51] be within the bank district as well. So

[1:13:54] to assess them, multiple assessments for

[1:13:57] um a petition project or a larger

[1:14:00] project. Um we just don't see that fit

[1:14:04] to do to folks right now.

[1:14:06] » This drain was established in 1894 and

[1:14:09] it looks like the perhaps the last time

[1:14:11] that part of the drain was worked on is

[1:14:13] probably going to be about 1950.

[1:14:15] » Okay.

[1:14:16] » Has the residents in this area ever

[1:14:19] petitioned for this? And if so,

[1:14:23] » No,

[1:14:24] » You know, I don't know if it was denied,

[1:14:25] what what happened. I'm surprised really

[1:14:28] with the number of years of of drain

[1:14:31] issues that they haven't petitioned. I'm

[1:14:35] surprised we're at this place. But it's

[1:14:37] only these two houses that have this

[1:14:40] flooding issue from this portion of the

[1:14:42] drain.

[1:14:43] » I believe there's uh three houses there.

[1:14:45] » Okay. So, three houses out of 333

[1:14:48] property owners in the whole drain. But

[1:14:50] you don't know if there's a history of

[1:14:52] any petitions?

[1:14:54] » Not that I'm aware of. I know.

[1:14:55] » Oh. Um, in 2019 there was a resolution

[1:14:58] to exceed on the Clemens and Underh Hill

[1:15:00] drain. Um, but that was a portion of the

[1:15:03] drain that is way further to the east.

[1:15:05] Um, it's on the other side of Lancing

[1:15:06] Road and that was to armor the bank of

[1:15:10] an open channel portion of the drain.

[1:15:12] And when I say armor, I mean they

[1:15:14] brought in a bunch of boulders and

[1:15:16] brought it down both sides because there

[1:15:17] were slumping issues where it kept

[1:15:19] eroding.

[1:15:20] keep having to dig it out every year.

[1:15:22] » So besides 1894, there was projects in

[1:15:25] 1938, 1950. There was a project in 1989,

[1:15:29] but I think that was to add a branch.

[1:15:32] And then there was um uh agreements like

[1:15:35] these this 425 we're suggesting with

[1:15:37] General Motors and then with Snow Road

[1:15:40] Property LLC. Those are that's the

[1:15:42] activities. But we haven't had, you

[1:15:44] know, in this century a petition from

[1:15:46] proper.

[1:15:47] » Sorry. Well, you said this century. So,

[1:15:50] I mean, that tells you an impact. We're

[1:15:52] already like so far into the century.

[1:15:56] » There's no

[1:15:57] » Both of those properties are were built

[1:15:59] approximately 55 years ago,

[1:16:01] » Right? Okay. Thank you. according to our

[1:16:04] question

[1:16:05] » If there

[1:16:08] we want to

[1:16:10] deal with

[1:16:13] right

[1:16:15] » So is there anything else that you have

[1:16:18] for us tonight that's

[1:16:20] quite a bit and we appreciate you coming

[1:16:22] out I know how crazy your schedules

[1:16:24] crazy busy they are um with this

[1:16:27] particular request um it will be if it

[1:16:30] is of the interest of the board to bring

[1:16:33] it back to a meeting to have it take

[1:16:35] action, we will do that. I'm not seeing

[1:16:38] that right at this time, but if it is

[1:16:40] the desire of the board and you want

[1:16:42] this to come back uh on an agenda,

[1:16:45] please let Brian or myself know. But

[1:16:47] right as of now, thank you for the

[1:16:49] presentation and the request.

[1:16:51] » Thank you for having me.

[1:16:53] Thank you.

[1:17:04] Okay, believe it or not, we haven't

[1:17:06] approved the agenda yet. We haven't

[1:17:07] gotten down to that part. So, this is

[1:17:10] the time for the board to approve the

[1:17:12] agenda, but I'd like to recommend to um

[1:17:15] amendments uh to the agenda. Before we

[1:17:19] move forward with that, it's going to be

[1:17:20] item number 10, uh set a public hearing

[1:17:23] for the FY 2027 budget. And item number

[1:17:27] 13, the intergovernmental police service

[1:17:30] agreement for Waverly Schools, their

[1:17:32] school resources officer. So, if there

[1:17:35] is a motion to accept the amended

[1:17:37] agenda, I would greatly appreciate it.

[1:17:40] » And is there support?

[1:17:43] » Support.

[1:17:44] » Thank you. All right. Any discussion?

[1:17:47] And we're going to do a roll call vote

[1:17:49] on this because we've amended the

[1:17:50] agenda. Treasurer Fidel is going to help

[1:17:53] us with that tonight.

[1:17:55] » All right. Trusty Kasparella.

[1:17:57] » Yes.

[1:17:58] » Trusty Lyman.

[1:18:00] » Hi.

[1:18:00] » Trusty Moa.

[1:18:02] » Trusty Mullen.

[1:18:03] » Yes.

[1:18:05] » Yes.

[1:18:07] » Uh, Supervisor Brewer.

[1:18:08] » Yes.

[1:18:09] » And

[1:18:11] exposing the affirmative to the agenda.

[1:18:14] » Thank you. That motion passes

[1:18:15] unanimously. We are going to move

[1:18:17] further down on our agenda. And we have

[1:18:19] one communication item that was in your

[1:18:21] packet and for the public to review.

[1:18:23] That's the BWL wholesale water rate

[1:18:26] adjustment and the details for that

[1:18:28] again was in the packet for all of you.

[1:18:31] We are now down to public comment and

[1:18:33] we'd welcome public comment from our

[1:18:36] community. Um if there's something we'd

[1:18:38] like to discuss, you're going to be

[1:18:39] addressing the board. Uh we would be

[1:18:41] happy for you to do that. We are not

[1:18:43] going to answer during the public

[1:18:46] comment, but a board member may provide

[1:18:48] feedback or comment later on or you may

[1:18:51] see someone from administration may uh

[1:18:53] try to see you if there was something

[1:18:55] that they could help you with after the

[1:18:56] meeting. So, you will have we welcome

[1:18:59] you to three minutes to come and speak

[1:19:01] to us for three minutes. If there's

[1:19:02] anything you desire to do, you'll just

[1:19:05] need to come up and give your name and

[1:19:06] address, please.

[1:19:10] » Thank you.

[1:19:11] » Well, hello. Welcome.

[1:19:13] » My name is FA Norris and I live at 616

[1:19:16] Kenway Drive, Delta Township. And um I'm

[1:19:23] addressing the policy update on data

[1:19:25] centers.

[1:19:27] And I would just like to say that I

[1:19:30] would that I feel that it would be good

[1:19:33] to have a one-year moratorum on data

[1:19:36] centers. Um there's it's a political

[1:19:40] major issue right now, but it's one

[1:19:43] thing that the Democrats and Republicans

[1:19:46] agree on that that um the great majority

[1:19:50] of people, the public are against them.

[1:19:53] You know, you see that all over the

[1:19:55] country, protests and everything and

[1:19:59] meetings and and they did a study where

[1:20:02] at least 86% of the people oppose them

[1:20:06] in their area.

[1:20:08] And also a lot of politicians that are

[1:20:12] running for office, they're part of

[1:20:15] their agenda is they're opposed to data

[1:20:18] centers

[1:20:21] um trying to win votes by saying they're

[1:20:25] opposed to them. And um I just want to

[1:20:29] mention the Michigan Township

[1:20:31] Association recently released a draft

[1:20:34] ordinance regulating the development and

[1:20:36] operation of data centers and townships.

[1:20:39] But there's just a lot of um unanswered

[1:20:42] questions as to the effects of the on

[1:20:46] the environment and on humans.

[1:20:49] And

[1:20:51] I would I would feel better if a

[1:20:54] third-party environmental study was made

[1:20:58] by an independent engineering firm

[1:21:02] to um look at all the environmental

[1:21:05] effects on um humans and animals and

[1:21:09] everything. And

[1:21:13] it my my big desire would be to um if we

[1:21:18] could vote on issues like this.

[1:21:22] Um I'm not sure if that's ever an

[1:21:26] option, but if the township

[1:21:29] um I just don't feel should be seeking

[1:21:33] tax incent um offering tax incentives.

[1:21:38] So, it's kind of seeking data centers by

[1:21:42] offering tax incentives.

[1:21:45] And if anything, they should be offering

[1:21:48] incentives to us and possibly doing a

[1:21:52] bidding process

[1:21:56] if they so chose if there was more than

[1:21:59] one that they should compete and offer

[1:22:03] us the best deal we could get. But

[1:22:08] basically, I'm against them coming and

[1:22:10] and I would like to I I moved here

[1:22:14] because I feel like, you know, this is I

[1:22:17] lived in Lancing and I moved here out of

[1:22:19] the big bustle and you know, of Lancing

[1:22:23] and to because there's more um green

[1:22:28] space and I just hate to see all of that

[1:22:31] taken up with industry.

[1:22:34] » Thank you. Your three minutes are up and

[1:22:36] thank you for your comments.

[1:22:37] » Okay, thank you.

[1:22:39] » Anyone else?

[1:22:42] » Not seeing any movement. We will

[1:22:44] continue on with the agenda. We are at

[1:22:48] the consent agenda. What is the desire

[1:22:51] board?

[1:22:53] » I move to

[1:22:56] consent agenda as presented.

[1:22:58] » Support.

[1:22:58] » It's been moved and supported. Any

[1:23:00] discussion?

[1:23:02] » Hearing none. Treasurer Fido, will you

[1:23:04] do a roll call, please?

[1:23:05] » Trusty Bowen,

[1:23:09] » Trusty Moika made the

[1:23:10] » I thought you made the motion.

[1:23:12] » Okay. Trusty Mo.

[1:23:15] » Yes. But

[1:23:16] » Thank you.

[1:23:17] » I supported it.

[1:23:18] » Okay.

[1:23:20] » I'm good at this job.

[1:23:21] » We're trying to help.

[1:23:24] » Lyman.

[1:23:25] » Hi.

[1:23:26] » Trusty Kasparella.

[1:23:27] » Yes.

[1:23:28] » Treasure Fed. Yes. Supervisor Brewer.

[1:23:30] » Yes. Please.

[1:23:31] » Six in the affirmative. Excellent. That

[1:23:33] motion passes unanimously. We are now

[1:23:35] down to let's see items of new business.

[1:23:40] Uh our first is item number 11. And I

[1:23:42] see Mr. Mensu coming right up to talk to

[1:23:46] us about the resoning request for the

[1:23:48] eye development. Number 11.

[1:23:50] » Thank you. Good evening. I'm Peter Mens.

[1:23:52] I'm the planning and economic

[1:23:53] development director here at Delta

[1:23:54] Township.

[1:23:56] Starting on page 216 of your 383 page

[1:24:01] packet today, um you'll see a memo from

[1:24:04] me regarding the proposed reszoning from

[1:24:06] I development. The request is to reszone

[1:24:08] almost 54 acres located on the east side

[1:24:11] of South Marketplace Boulevard north of

[1:24:13] uh West St. Joseph Highway

[1:24:16] from a mix of office or mix of office

[1:24:19] and agricultural. So agricultural,

[1:24:21] residential, and office. there's split

[1:24:23] zoning um approximately

[1:24:26] 40 acres of office and 13 acres of AG2

[1:24:29] land to RM multiple family and there's a

[1:24:33] condition on this resonance was

[1:24:34] voluntarily offered by the applicant to

[1:24:36] limit development on the project site in

[1:24:38] this case the project site being that 54

[1:24:40] acres to a maximum of 480 dwelling units

[1:24:43] total.

[1:24:46] So the request um is basically the

[1:24:49] entire there's a a location map in your

[1:24:51] meeting packet but is the area around

[1:24:53] executive court that is cited really um

[1:24:56] surrounding executive court bounded by

[1:24:59] um Interstate 9669

[1:25:02] west St. Joseph Highway on the south and

[1:25:04] then Marketplace Boulevard on the west.

[1:25:07] The planning commission had a public

[1:25:09] hearing on this at their meeting last

[1:25:11] Monday of the September 14 and they

[1:25:14] voted to recommend approval of the

[1:25:15] request based on four five reasons. I

[1:25:18] want to go over these because they come

[1:25:19] up in the staff memo to the plan

[1:25:21] commission as well. And keep in mind

[1:25:23] this is the first reasonzoning that has

[1:25:25] been considered under the township's new

[1:25:27] uh 2026 master plan. So, it's a little

[1:25:30] bit different and I did include a couple

[1:25:31] of the references

[1:25:34] for this area in the materials for the

[1:25:37] planning commission to consider and for

[1:25:39] and also you also see everything that

[1:25:41] the planning commission saw. So I just

[1:25:43] wanted to make that kind of connection

[1:25:44] because there this particular area was

[1:25:47] identified as a potential developable

[1:25:49] area in our draft master part no longer

[1:25:51] draft adopted master plan

[1:25:54] » And it's um kind of an area that is

[1:25:58] zoned office and there's a question of

[1:26:00] whether or not office zoning is really

[1:26:02] viable in that area and the office

[1:26:04] market in general has been pretty soft.

[1:26:06] Um, so the master plan envisions a

[1:26:09] different look here of of mixed or

[1:26:11] excuse me of port port of mixed use and

[1:26:15] multiple family. So the five items that

[1:26:19] the planning commission based their

[1:26:20] recommendation of approval on are that

[1:26:23] the resoning meets the criteria

[1:26:25] specified in the zoning ordinance. So

[1:26:27] there are specific criteria those are

[1:26:29] enumerated in the staff memo. subject

[1:26:32] set meets the minimum standards for lot

[1:26:33] area and lot width of the proposed RM

[1:26:36] zoning district. Pretty standard. The

[1:26:38] pro proposed resoning addresses the

[1:26:40] township board goal of encouraging a

[1:26:42] diverse population by establishing a new

[1:26:44] area for potential multiple family

[1:26:46] residential development. Proposed

[1:26:48] resoning aligns with the designation of

[1:26:49] mixed use and multiple family

[1:26:51] residential on the future land use map

[1:26:53] from the 2026 master plan. And then the

[1:26:56] public water and sanitary sewer are

[1:26:58] available to serve the site. both are

[1:26:59] located in the general area would have

[1:27:01] to be extended to any specific

[1:27:03] development site.

[1:27:06] So um that is the request that's before

[1:27:09] you tonight. Mark Claus from I

[1:27:11] development is here to answer any

[1:27:13] questions and to explain the request

[1:27:14] further and of course I'll be here to

[1:27:16] answer any questions as well.

[1:27:19] » Are there any questions for the

[1:27:21] developer

[1:27:22] » Before we go into a motion? Anything

[1:27:25] else you need to hear?

[1:27:26] » Yeah, I do. I was just curious the

[1:27:28] developer um

[1:27:31] » The timeline maybe Peter maybe you can

[1:27:33] answer it. I'm just curious about the

[1:27:34] timeline for any actual construction.

[1:27:39] » Good evening.

[1:27:41] » Good evening. My name is Mark Clo. I'm

[1:27:42] here on behalf of I development this

[1:27:44] evening. Um we did appear before the

[1:27:47] planning commission a week ago uh

[1:27:49] tonight and presented the information

[1:27:52] and I apprec appreciate Peter's help

[1:27:54] with this. the the site is, as you

[1:27:57] pointed out, 54 acres. I'm I was so used

[1:27:59] to having it up on the uh on the screen,

[1:28:01] so I guess we won't be able to do that,

[1:28:03] but you have it on your packet. Um it is

[1:28:05] uh on Marketplace Boulevard with some

[1:28:07] frontage on St. Joe. Uh it is property

[1:28:10] that is currently zoned office and a a

[1:28:12] portion of it uh is zoned egg 2. The

[1:28:15] proposal is to bring it into the

[1:28:17] multifamily, which is consistent with

[1:28:19] your uh 2026. Have to get used to saying

[1:28:22] that uh master plan. uh it actually is

[1:28:26] considered an infill or an area in which

[1:28:28] I think the the master plan actually

[1:28:30] supported uh development of residential

[1:28:34] uh units. Um even though the allow uh

[1:28:38] within the requested resoning is for 11

[1:28:40] units per acre. Uh we did uh condition

[1:28:44] our resoning request to make it about

[1:28:45] 8.9 which is I think 48

[1:28:49] » 80

[1:28:50] » 80 units. Thank you. um in total as

[1:28:53] opposed to about 600. The uh the site we

[1:28:57] did present a concept plan and we're

[1:29:00] always leerary to do that because as

[1:29:02] soon as someone sees something they

[1:29:04] think that's exactly what will happen.

[1:29:05] In all honesty, the plan that we're

[1:29:07] working with um our engineers and

[1:29:11] planners on right now is that plan. Uh

[1:29:14] we're working on it. Uh, in fact, we

[1:29:15] have a couple meetings this week still

[1:29:17] to continue to to work down that with

[1:29:19] the goal of hopefully having your nods

[1:29:22] tonight. Uh, so that the the site itself

[1:29:26] will be developed in that manner. Uh, it

[1:29:29] is

[1:29:31] uh a series of 24 unit buildings. Each

[1:29:35] of the buildings um are three stories

[1:29:37] and will have two and threebedroom units

[1:29:40] within them. Excuse me, one and

[1:29:41] two-bedroom units within them. the um

[1:29:45] overall count is 384 units on the

[1:29:49] portion of the the site that's about 40

[1:29:51] acres and you'll see that in the plan

[1:29:53] that was submitted to you with our

[1:29:55] request. Um we are have met with the

[1:29:59] township staff on several occasions with

[1:30:02] regard to the site. It does uh currently

[1:30:04] have both water and sewer available to

[1:30:07] it. uh the the unit count works within

[1:30:10] the um categories for the sanitary sewer

[1:30:13] and for the water. The um road pattern

[1:30:17] has not been totally just uh worked out,

[1:30:20] but the the main entrance will be

[1:30:22] through executive court, which is a

[1:30:24] boulevard uh that serves currently like

[1:30:27] the secretary of state and we have I

[1:30:28] think we have four buildings there.

[1:30:30] » I'll be glad to answer any questions

[1:30:32] that you have. Um we're excited to move

[1:30:34] forward with this project.

[1:30:36] Treasured,

[1:30:37] » You know, some of this property is u

[1:30:40] drains. I mean, not that we've not

[1:30:42] covered drains in this meeting, but um

[1:30:45] obviously you can't

[1:30:46] » I think I've learned a lot more in the

[1:30:48] last hour and a half and I think Angela

[1:30:50] I sent Angela a text message while we

[1:30:51] were here saying her name was up on the

[1:30:53] screen a few times. So, um I think

[1:30:55] » Well, welcome to the club on that.

[1:30:57] » Maybe she can help us out with this one.

[1:30:59] » Part of this is uh is is is drains, you

[1:31:02] know, uh detention uh drains it looks

[1:31:04] like. So, and I know you can't, you

[1:31:07] know, build on those and the county

[1:31:09] drain commission you maintains those and

[1:31:11] everything. So, um the question though,

[1:31:13] if they're three-story units, uh each

[1:31:17] one of those units equipped with an

[1:31:18] elevator.

[1:31:19] » No, these are these will have um the

[1:31:22] first floor unit will be ground level,

[1:31:24] which will be available for anyone that

[1:31:26] needs um that is not able to use the

[1:31:28] steps, but but the threetory does not

[1:31:30] require elevators, but so it will be a

[1:31:32] walk up.

[1:31:33] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:31:37] » Trustee Kascarella, did you have a

[1:31:39] question?

[1:31:39] » I did. Um,

[1:31:42] just wanted to understand, so you

[1:31:44] mentioned a couple things. First of all,

[1:31:47] um, you know,

[1:31:49] appreciate the comments about kind of

[1:31:52] the lack of demand for office. Totally

[1:31:54] understand that. And we have a huge

[1:31:55] demand for housing in the the community.

[1:31:59] So um appreciate um the project

[1:32:04] uh but have a couple questions you

[1:32:06] mentioned. So I think Peter mentioned

[1:32:09] you know 500 and some would be allowed

[1:32:13] maximum density just kind of based on

[1:32:16] our zoning requirements.

[1:32:19] um you're offering to limit that to 480,

[1:32:24] but then you said the plans for

[1:32:26] development were at 3 384.

[1:32:31] And the the dis uh the difference there

[1:32:34] is there is a parcel of land that the um

[1:32:37] the plan that you have before you, the

[1:32:39] concept plan does not include all of the

[1:32:42] land on the site. There is a parcel

[1:32:45] can't point to anything. Um that is

[1:32:48] along Marketplace Boulevard just north

[1:32:52] of the detention pond. If you're

[1:32:54] familiar with the corner there, the

[1:32:56] detent detention pond on St. Joe and

[1:32:58] Marketplace. Just north of that

[1:33:00] detention pond is part of the parcel

[1:33:02] that is also being res requested to be

[1:33:04] reszoned.

[1:33:05] » Um that parcel we set aside the idea of

[1:33:08] perhaps doing up to 96 units on that

[1:33:12] site as well

[1:33:13] » As like a second phase. Is that what

[1:33:16] you're saying?

[1:33:16] » It would probably not be the same type

[1:33:18] of unit. Uh we're considering and

[1:33:21] looking at doing more of a townhouse

[1:33:23] style along Marketplace Boulevard. It's

[1:33:25] not been finalized yet and we thought

[1:33:28] that the was appropriate to go ahead and

[1:33:30] request the resoning on that entire

[1:33:32] parcel. It is uh again it's consistent

[1:33:34] with the you guys are seeing something

[1:33:36] I'm not the um 2026 master plan.

[1:33:42] » Okay. Thank you. Sorry, there were a lot

[1:33:44] of numbers being thrown around on that.

[1:33:46] I was just trying to understand.

[1:33:49] » I appreciate your question.

[1:33:50] » Yeah, thank you.

[1:33:52] » So, it's the the area that is um if I

[1:33:56] may kind of respond a little further to

[1:33:57] your question now that this up on the

[1:33:59] screen, the green area that's within the

[1:34:01] red dotted lines, if you will, the

[1:34:03] detention pond, that area, thank you. um

[1:34:06] is the area that was not shown as part

[1:34:09] of the concept plan at this point, but

[1:34:12] it would it would um in our estimation

[1:34:16] uh be approximately 96 units and that

[1:34:19] would be the maximum. I'm not even sure

[1:34:20] that would happen, but we thought if we

[1:34:22] limited it, we wanted to be careful not

[1:34:24] to limit it too far.

[1:34:25] » Understood. Thank you. I appreciate the

[1:34:27] clarification.

[1:34:29] » Trusty Bowling. So you said that these

[1:34:32] uh 24 unit buildings that are three

[1:34:34] stories will be one and twobedroom only.

[1:34:39] » That's the plan currently and I again

[1:34:40] this is a concept plan. We are we will

[1:34:43] present um as required under the

[1:34:45] ordinance assuming the resoning goes

[1:34:46] forward. Um that the details of each of

[1:34:49] that along with the construction type

[1:34:50] and the and the floor plans and so on.

[1:34:53] Um the the units that we've been looking

[1:34:55] at currently and the design that we've

[1:34:57] worked with on that layout are one and

[1:34:58] two bedrooms. Um, and I think that will

[1:35:01] probably continue to be the the process.

[1:35:03] » So, you don't anticipate this to be

[1:35:05] family housing?

[1:35:06] » Um, I don't know that three bedrooms

[1:35:09] that there are certainly many families

[1:35:10] live in two bedrooms, my home. Okay. Uh,

[1:35:14] but so it would be both families and um

[1:35:17] perhaps young younger professionals.

[1:35:20] It's

[1:35:21] » Students. Do you anticipate students? We

[1:35:23] don't um I from our

[1:35:27] development over the last I've I've

[1:35:29] worked for the company almost 41 years.

[1:35:31] We we have not done student housing. Do

[1:35:34] we have students that live in apartments

[1:35:37] that we've built for market rate? Yes.

[1:35:39] Um because we don't you don't

[1:35:42] discriminate. And we also um there are

[1:35:45] many that work part-time and go to

[1:35:46] school part-time and and live in the

[1:35:48] apartments, but it's not intended to be

[1:35:50] student housing. We don't rent by the

[1:35:52] bed, we rent by the unit.

[1:35:53] » Right.

[1:35:54] » And and the image isn't up there

[1:35:56] anymore, but I have it here. So, you

[1:35:58] said that green portion that's within

[1:36:01] the red outline, that will not be the

[1:36:03] first place that you're developing.

[1:36:06] » That is not the intent at this point,

[1:36:08] but we've the the plan that we we shared

[1:36:11] uh within your packet is in the blue

[1:36:14] area.

[1:36:14] » So, the entry would be that executive

[1:36:17] drive there. That is correct.

[1:36:18] » That's where you would get into the

[1:36:19] Okay.

[1:36:20] » Yes, ma'am. Boulevard.

[1:36:22] » Thank you. Any other questions? If not,

[1:36:25] please we accept on a motion for

[1:36:28] » Yes. I was going to move uh that the

[1:36:30] Delta Township Board approved the

[1:36:32] request to reszone 53.98

[1:36:35] acres located on the east side of South

[1:36:37] Marketplace Boulevard

[1:36:40] of West St. Joe Highway comprised of the

[1:36:43] entirety of parcel number

[1:36:45] 04-016-400-220-

[1:36:52] 0 and a portion of parcel number

[1:36:55] 04-016-3000-148-02

[1:37:03] from O office and EG2 agricultural

[1:37:07] residential to RM multiple family with a

[1:37:11] condition uh voluntarily offered by the

[1:37:14] applicant to limit the development on

[1:37:16] the project site to a maximum of 480

[1:37:20] dwelling units for the following reasons

[1:37:23] of which there are five in the packet. I

[1:37:26] won't read through all of those. That's

[1:37:29] not necessary.

[1:37:30] » Fine. Is there support?

[1:37:33] » Support.

[1:37:34] » It's been moved and supported by Trusty

[1:37:36] Monica. Any discussion? I'd just like to

[1:37:40] make one comment now that the uh motion

[1:37:42] has been made that you know we here in

[1:37:45] Delta Township are very cognizant of we

[1:37:48] need more housing. We need more

[1:37:50] multifamily housing and we hope that as

[1:37:54] your project moves forward or I hope I

[1:37:56] won't speak for the rest of the board. I

[1:37:58] hope as your project moves forward that

[1:38:00] you're able to consider uh attainable

[1:38:03] housing, affordable housing, you know,

[1:38:05] so that we can house more people who

[1:38:08] work in Delta Township so that they can

[1:38:10] live here as well.

[1:38:11] » I appreciate that. Thank you.

[1:38:17] » Thank you. I want to just say thank you

[1:38:19] for bringing this project to us because

[1:38:21] you don't have to do anything in Delta

[1:38:23] Township. We appreciate it and there is

[1:38:25] a great need for housing. So, thank you

[1:38:28] so much on behalf of the board. And so,

[1:38:31] we're just going to take a vote. All in

[1:38:33] favor?

[1:38:34] » I.

[1:38:35] » Any opposed? That motion passes

[1:38:37] unanimously. Thank you so much.

[1:38:42] » We are now on to number 12.

[1:38:45] » Thank you.

[1:38:47] » So, number 12 starts on page 264 of the

[1:38:50] meeting packet. Excuse me. So, this is a

[1:38:53] zoning amendment request. Um, and I just

[1:38:55] want to characterize it very briefly. So

[1:38:57] there are three ways that policy

[1:38:59] initiatives start in Delta Township

[1:39:00] specifically. One is planning commission

[1:39:03] can initiate a zoning amendment. The

[1:39:05] township board can initiate a zoning

[1:39:06] amendment or we have a provision that

[1:39:09] allows a resident through the submitt of

[1:39:12] an application, the payment of a fee and

[1:39:15] the submitt of ordinance like preferred

[1:39:17] ordinance language to initiate it

[1:39:19] themselves. That third option is what

[1:39:22] we're reviewing tonight. So this is an

[1:39:24] application that is proceeding through

[1:39:26] our our um process here. So I just want

[1:39:30] to make that very clear. It's initiated

[1:39:32] by Nicholas Buroa. So um he filed an

[1:39:35] application on behalf of Cedar Classical

[1:39:36] Academy. That is a private school

[1:39:38] located at 7520 West Shire just over

[1:39:41] here um off of Canal. U they've applied

[1:39:45] to request an amendment to a section of

[1:39:47] our township ordinance. deals with the

[1:39:49] standards for location of schools.

[1:39:52] Primary and secondary schools are

[1:39:55] required to be located on what are

[1:39:57] called primary roads.

[1:39:59] There's a map in your meeting packet

[1:40:01] that shows exactly what the county

[1:40:03] primary roads as established by Eaton

[1:40:05] County,

[1:40:06] what which ones they are, and they're

[1:40:08] all the ones you probably think they

[1:40:09] are. Canal crites, all the major roads

[1:40:12] are pretty much are identified as

[1:40:14] primary roads.

[1:40:18] So, the proposed amendment and and one

[1:40:21] step back. Our zoning ordinance allows

[1:40:24] schools in commercial

[1:40:27] um I'm sorry, I'm skipping around a

[1:40:28] little bit. Um

[1:40:31] get my bearings.

[1:40:40] » Is it page 270 or

[1:40:42] » Yeah. No, I'm I'm taking care of I just

[1:40:43] want to make sure I'm I'm starting at

[1:40:44] the right place here because this is

[1:40:46] kind of complicated.

[1:40:49] Apologize for that. Okay. So, the we we

[1:40:53] have a map that shows the primary roads.

[1:40:54] This amendment would the township

[1:40:56] requires through it zoning ordinance

[1:40:58] that schools be located on primary

[1:41:01] roads. The proposal is to remove that

[1:41:04] requirement for non-public schools or

[1:41:06] private schools. I'm using the generic

[1:41:08] term non-public schools from that

[1:41:11] process. So, um, as noted, this is a

[1:41:15] private or like I'm calling it a

[1:41:17] private, but it's a third-party

[1:41:19] application or individual application.

[1:41:21] So, it's not initiated by staff. So,

[1:41:23] we're we're essentially the way I've

[1:41:26] like philosophically been addressing

[1:41:27] this is we have language that was

[1:41:29] proposed. Staff hasn't particularly like

[1:41:32] tinkered with it. I mean, we've reviewed

[1:41:33] it and helped the applicant kind of

[1:41:36] state what they wanted to say

[1:41:37] specifically, but with I would not recom

[1:41:40] I wouldn't call this a staff

[1:41:41] recommendation necessarily or um it it

[1:41:45] we're we're reacting to a proposal from

[1:41:47] a private individual. Let's let's say

[1:41:50] that.

[1:41:52] Okay. So, the request is specific to

[1:41:56] this school, Cedar Classical Academy.

[1:41:59] They are wanting to move over to a

[1:42:01] property on Eastberry Drive that is not

[1:42:04] a primary road. There was an instance in

[1:42:07] the past, the reason they got to their

[1:42:09] location right now on Westshshire.

[1:42:11] Westshshire is not a primary road.

[1:42:13] Planning staff in the past sent the that

[1:42:17] request to our zoning board of appeals.

[1:42:19] Zone of appeals granted the variance

[1:42:21] allowed them to locate on WestJ. I um

[1:42:25] when first approached by the school

[1:42:28] about moving over here, we read through

[1:42:30] the ordinance and I noted the the

[1:42:33] requirement of the the primary road

[1:42:35] requirement

[1:42:36] and looked into the history of it and

[1:42:38] kind of find out how they how they got

[1:42:40] there to start with and the the

[1:42:42] challenge that I faced was that is not

[1:42:45] the zoning board of appeals is a

[1:42:47] dimensional they grant dimensional

[1:42:48] variances. So, a structure too close to

[1:42:51] a property line, those kind of things.

[1:42:54] The in what they were asked to at the

[1:42:56] time was to um make a policy decision.

[1:42:59] So, allowing something where it wouldn't

[1:43:01] otherwise be allowed and determined that

[1:43:03] that was an inappropriate request to the

[1:43:05] zoning board of appeals. Um I did confer

[1:43:08] with township attorney. She agreed with

[1:43:10] me that that was not the right approach

[1:43:11] to this and that's kind of how we got to

[1:43:13] here. Um, so and that's how the I just

[1:43:16] wanted to explain the background and how

[1:43:18] they got to a location already and why

[1:43:20] this isn't back in front of the zoning

[1:43:21] board of appeals. So the the way that

[1:43:25] they approached this was to file for a

[1:43:28] zoning amendment to change it. And as

[1:43:30] noted, that's how the lang that's the

[1:43:31] proposed language in front of you today.

[1:43:33] Speaks specifically to non-public

[1:43:35] schools and specifically to their

[1:43:37] location on whether or not they're

[1:43:38] required to be on a primary or a non-

[1:43:40] primary road. planning commission held a

[1:43:44] public hearing on this issue, ultimately

[1:43:46] recommended denial. They made several

[1:43:48] motions and amended each other's motions

[1:43:51] um regarding the proposed amendment, but

[1:43:53] ultimately they failed on a 3 to five

[1:43:55] vote. Um I think they took three

[1:43:56] different votes. So really the planning

[1:43:58] commission discussion centered on and

[1:44:00] where I think as a staff where my focus

[1:44:03] is on is the breadth of the proposed

[1:44:05] amendment. It's not about this specific

[1:44:08] applicant. it is with this policy would

[1:44:11] apply to all non-public schools,

[1:44:13] current, future. So, that's um that's

[1:44:17] one of the challenges with this is it's

[1:44:19] it's a great story and it's a great that

[1:44:21] property it would be potentially um

[1:44:24] could be a good spot for a school, but

[1:44:25] it's it's what we don't know and where

[1:44:27] other locations are um that we don't

[1:44:30] know about yet. Um, as noted, I think

[1:44:33] just to um, color that a little bit is

[1:44:35] we do allow schools in residential

[1:44:38] office and commercial zoning districts

[1:44:40] subject to special land use permit. So,

[1:44:42] they can go a lot of places in the

[1:44:43] township. And so, that's what we what we

[1:44:46] just don't know is if there was property

[1:44:48] in um, assemblage in a in the middle of

[1:44:50] a neighborhood, if there might in the

[1:44:52] future be a location that might not be

[1:44:54] completely appropriate for a school. And

[1:44:56] right now the requirement at least

[1:44:58] allows or at least requires them to be

[1:45:00] on a primary main road. Essentially the

[1:45:03] issues there and this school handles it

[1:45:05] well based on the size of it um and the

[1:45:08] number the number of students and where

[1:45:09] they're at um is the pickup and drop off

[1:45:12] of kids, the stacking of cars during

[1:45:14] drop off times. They don't utilize a bus

[1:45:17] system and most nonprofit or non or

[1:45:19] non-public schools do not. However, um

[1:45:22] there are still a lot of traffic around

[1:45:24] potentially around pickup and drop off.

[1:45:25] So, that's kind of where I've been

[1:45:27] looking at this is like from the 10,000

[1:45:29] foot view of what's the kind of what's

[1:45:30] the wor I always go to what's the worst

[1:45:32] what's what could go wrong here and

[1:45:34] that's um the board or the planning

[1:45:37] commission really talked about kind of

[1:45:38] the breadth of the application of a

[1:45:41] amendment like this.

[1:45:48] So, um the applicant is here this

[1:45:50] evening. We have this lined up um as a

[1:45:53] decision tonight. So, typically a zoning

[1:45:55] amendment would have public hearing of

[1:45:57] the plan commission, which it did, and

[1:45:58] it would come here tonight for re um

[1:46:01] potentially reading for introduction. I

[1:46:03] recognize the complications of this

[1:46:05] issue. So, um if the it's it's the

[1:46:08] board's pleasure, um

[1:46:11] they could um approve an amendment

[1:46:13] change as proposed by the resident,

[1:46:14] really just adopting the the language

[1:46:16] that they proposed. You can approve an

[1:46:18] amendment with revised language

[1:46:20] addressing the board's policy

[1:46:21] preferences specifically or deny the

[1:46:23] proposed amendment. Um since this as

[1:46:26] noted this was filed by an applicant, we

[1:46:28] place this on for introduction just to

[1:46:30] follow the typical procedure as we would

[1:46:32] for other types of applications.

[1:46:33] However, the um the board could move

[1:46:35] this item if you prefer to move it to

[1:46:37] committee whole to discuss prior to

[1:46:39] taking action at a future meeting. So it

[1:46:42] or if you choose there is a motion on

[1:46:44] page 265 to consider the request kind of

[1:46:46] as proposed.

[1:46:49] Hope I provided some good background on

[1:46:51] that. Um I'm certainly here um if you

[1:46:53] have any questions Caroline Hmel the um

[1:46:55] administrator of the school is here on

[1:46:57] behalf of the resident that filed the

[1:47:00] zoning amendment application if you have

[1:47:01] any questions for her.

[1:47:03] » So in this case normally we'll do a

[1:47:04] motion first but here I want to have

[1:47:07] discussion first before we move any

[1:47:10] motion. So, I'm going to open up the

[1:47:12] floor for discussion. Trusty

[1:47:13] Kaskcarella.

[1:47:14] » Thank you. Um, Peter, so just a question

[1:47:17] because I did look through the, you

[1:47:19] know, the planning commission minutes

[1:47:22] and in the series of I guess motions and

[1:47:26] amended amendments and all of that. Um

[1:47:29] and and I saw kind of I didn't follow

[1:47:33] the full discussion but at least the

[1:47:34] references or considerations about

[1:47:37] public whether it's just non-public or

[1:47:41] both non-public and public

[1:47:44] um but I didn't see much on a discussion

[1:47:47] on size or

[1:47:50] um kind of provisions

[1:47:54] around the basis of what why we would

[1:47:57] require a primary road and basically to

[1:48:01] have sufficient capacity for vehicle

[1:48:04] stacking and things like that. Um, and

[1:48:08] so I just wonder if it's not a it can

[1:48:12] you provide any feedback if it's not a

[1:48:14] primary road like some conditions

[1:48:17] whether it's on size or you know around

[1:48:21] the I don't know if it's just vehicle

[1:48:23] stacking or bus stacking because you

[1:48:25] never know if they could have but do you

[1:48:28] in your mind is there a way to design

[1:48:31] the an ordinance change to ensure those

[1:48:35] protections are being built in and I

[1:48:38] understand it especially we just had the

[1:48:40] conversation on the housing front office

[1:48:42] space not being in demand as you know

[1:48:45] and having that surplus and so you have

[1:48:48] probably some of these properties in the

[1:48:50] township that could serve other uses a

[1:48:53] school may be one of those and so is

[1:48:56] there a way we can think about an

[1:48:57] ordinance that ensures it's appropriate

[1:49:01] for that property if it isn't on a

[1:49:05] primary road.

[1:49:07] » There certainly could be a policy

[1:49:08] approach to that. I have not sharpened

[1:49:10] my pencil to to craft one as of yet. And

[1:49:13] that really goes back to and not that I

[1:49:15] want to ignore or leave the applicant

[1:49:17] hanging. It's just I process this more

[1:49:19] as an application to be vetted kind of

[1:49:21] as is. Um there I think there probably

[1:49:24] I'm sure there's a policy most most

[1:49:26] issues there's a policy solution to it.

[1:49:28] There probably is a way to find

[1:49:30] something that would work. I I'll say

[1:49:32] better for lack of a better way to say

[1:49:34] it right now, but I have not gone in

[1:49:36] deep on that yet.

[1:49:40] » Oh, I'll finish. Okay. Treasure feed.

[1:49:43] » Yeah. Thanks, Peter. Um, I understand

[1:49:45] your position and bring it before the

[1:49:47] board is because it was just an

[1:49:48] application and um understand the

[1:49:51] discussions.

[1:49:53] I believe that probably the planning

[1:49:54] commission was somewhat um

[1:49:58] uh divided uh on this. Um I I'm

[1:50:03] concerned that you know every other

[1:50:07] exception that has been to the playary

[1:50:09] road has gone through the process that

[1:50:11] we have in place now. And this gives a

[1:50:16] blanket exception

[1:50:18] uh in perpetuity if we were to change if

[1:50:20] we were to adopt this. And I guess that

[1:50:23] there was probably some semblance of a

[1:50:26] rationale for requiring a non-public

[1:50:30] school to be, you know, um located on a

[1:50:33] primary road,

[1:50:35] not just traffic and things like that.

[1:50:37] But my concern is is that given a

[1:50:40] blanket exception like this then

[1:50:44] then it could really hamstring the

[1:50:47] township in the future. And we just had

[1:50:50] I think a issue before us regarding that

[1:50:53] uh drain that could potentially set a

[1:50:58] precedent. My concern is about setting a

[1:51:00] precedent here and approving this

[1:51:05] request as is. I I feel more comfortable

[1:51:08] in having further discussion on it. Uh

[1:51:11] along the lines of what Trustee

[1:51:12] Guscarella said, is there a policy that

[1:51:15] we can look at this better, still

[1:51:17] accommodating reasonable requests for an

[1:51:21] exemption to the requirement of being

[1:51:24] placed next to a primary road. uh but

[1:51:27] then also preserve the protections that

[1:51:30] were presumably made when that

[1:51:33] requirement was initiated in law to

[1:51:36] begin with. So yeah, I mean that's just

[1:51:39] my feeling on this as we sit here

[1:51:41] tonight.

[1:51:44] » Any other comment trusty Bowen?

[1:51:47] » As a mother of public school kids who I

[1:51:50] have to do the drive and the pickup and

[1:51:52] the drop off and all that sort of thing.

[1:51:53] I think the big issue about the uh major

[1:51:57] roads here that we're not talking about

[1:51:59] is safety.

[1:52:01] If these roads are not plowed because

[1:52:05] they're not trunk roads in the

[1:52:07] wintertime, then you've got kids out

[1:52:09] there, you know, walking around on un

[1:52:12] unplowed roads and sidewalks. You've got

[1:52:15] cars. there's more potential there for

[1:52:18] accidents and god forbid children

[1:52:20] getting hit or I mean I know you said

[1:52:23] they don't do buses but there have been

[1:52:25] horror stories about kids that slip on

[1:52:26] ice under buses that are moving and and

[1:52:29] all that sort of thing and I think that

[1:52:31] there is a very good reason why we want

[1:52:33] our schools whether they're public or

[1:52:35] non-public to be on a major road and I

[1:52:37] know that Wester is not a major road but

[1:52:39] they're right at the corner of Sagena

[1:52:41] um and I'm looking at the property that

[1:52:43] they want to buy and it's tucked back in

[1:52:46] behind a bunch of hotels and and I would

[1:52:51] worry about safety there as well. Just

[1:52:53] it's isolated. There's a lot of green

[1:52:55] space around it. You've got a bunch of

[1:52:57] hotels and you know I would speak to our

[1:53:00] deputies about you know what they would

[1:53:02] feel about the safety of locating a

[1:53:04] school there. But I am also concerned

[1:53:06] about yeah changing an ordinance with

[1:53:09] blanket without having adequate

[1:53:11] discussion.

[1:53:14] » Any further discussion?

[1:53:17] » I had a question about and I said they

[1:53:19] don't use busing but as far as it looked

[1:53:21] like it said that there's 126 students.

[1:53:23] What would they do about drop was there

[1:53:26] a drop off and pickup plan at all?

[1:53:29] » The applicant is here if you want to

[1:53:30] hear from them about how their

[1:53:32] particular school works. Keeping in mind

[1:53:34] this it's just their one school.

[1:53:35] » Please Mr. Caborio.

[1:53:40] » Oh, Mr. I apologize.

[1:53:42] » Hello.

[1:53:43] » I'm Caroline Hmel from Cedar Classical

[1:53:45] Academy representing our board and also

[1:53:47] Nico Burl who is not able to be here

[1:53:49] tonight. Um I can start with your

[1:53:51] question. You guys are welcome to come

[1:53:53] and see our uh car poolool pickup and

[1:53:56] drop off 255 to 3:10. Um it's 136

[1:54:01] children. We have 55 families. They all

[1:54:03] collaborate for car pooling. Um, and we

[1:54:06] really are cleared out in just 10

[1:54:07] minutes. It's a it's a feat to behold.

[1:54:11] Um, I'd love to answer your other

[1:54:13] questions, but if it's okay, I'd love to

[1:54:14] kind of intro this from my sports

[1:54:17] perspective. Yours.

[1:54:18] » Thank you.

[1:54:19] » So, seven years ago, I helped found

[1:54:21] Cedar Classical Academy, which is a K12

[1:54:23] non-public school. Um, we opened Okamus

[1:54:26] with 31 students in K6. We've added one

[1:54:29] grade each year and graduated our first

[1:54:31] class of seniors. Last year they were

[1:54:33] only four. Uh this year we have five

[1:54:36] seniors, so 25% growth. That's pretty

[1:54:39] incredible. Um but my hope this evening

[1:54:41] is to communicate um reasons why it

[1:54:44] could benefit the township to allow

[1:54:46] nonpublic schools and non- primary

[1:54:47] roads. I'd like to briefly present two

[1:54:50] things. First of all, the context

[1:54:52] outside Delta Township that I included

[1:54:55] in your packet, the research there um

[1:54:58] for how some other Michigan townships

[1:54:59] handled the location of non-public

[1:55:02] schools. And then second, our

[1:55:03] perspective, just my own school's

[1:55:05] perspective on the traffic impacts in

[1:55:08] those mixeduse areas. So, first staff

[1:55:11] noted that every school in Delta

[1:55:12] Township with the exception of Cedar

[1:55:14] sits on a primary road. Um, but from my

[1:55:17] very amateur research, that pattern does

[1:55:20] not seem to me to be the rule across

[1:55:21] Michigan. In Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids,

[1:55:24] Jackson, and um, other Lancing

[1:55:27] communities outside Delta Township,

[1:55:30] non-public schools are often located on

[1:55:32] non- primary roads. So, to me, this just

[1:55:34] suggests that there might be many other

[1:55:36] fine locations for schools and that it

[1:55:39] may be better to review each proposed

[1:55:41] school on a case-byase basis on its own

[1:55:44] merits and on the merit of the fit

[1:55:46] between property and use rather than

[1:55:48] keep this blanket restriction.

[1:55:51] Um, you have already discussed that it

[1:55:53] it might seem like this ordinance is the

[1:55:55] only protection against a huge school

[1:55:57] opening up in a place where it really

[1:55:59] doesn't fit. Um, I don't believe that

[1:56:01] that this is the case. This would be my

[1:56:04] third time through the special land use

[1:56:06] permit process for our school. Um, so

[1:56:10] even if this ordinance is amended, the

[1:56:12] township would still sort of have the

[1:56:13] authority to govern where schools are

[1:56:15] located. We would still have to do a

[1:56:17] traffic study. We'd still have to submit

[1:56:18] our carpool plans and our site plan and

[1:56:20] all of those different things. All of

[1:56:22] those are checks against where schools

[1:56:24] can open up. Um, so that seems to me

[1:56:27] like it would ensure a built-in vetting

[1:56:29] process to make sure that the use

[1:56:31] matches the location. Second, when it

[1:56:34] comes to traffic in the mixeduse area, I

[1:56:36] understand that this requirement

[1:56:37] probably exists to ensure that a school

[1:56:39] is placed um where there's already

[1:56:42] infrastructure that can handle the new

[1:56:44] traffic. Now, we've already talked about

[1:56:46] how my nonpublic school does not have

[1:56:47] busing. Um, but I'm sure that the

[1:56:50] traffic burden will be a question

[1:56:51] wherever we go.

[1:56:53] So, as you've already mentioned, our

[1:56:55] location at Westshshire is surrounded by

[1:56:58] hotels, uh, restaurants, commercial, and

[1:57:01] multif family housing just around the

[1:57:02] corner. That's the same mix over at

[1:57:04] Eastbury. Um, our past traffic study for

[1:57:07] our Westshshire location has found that

[1:57:09] we have offset peak traffic time. So,

[1:57:12] our school starts at 8, we get out at 3.

[1:57:15] Um and then that's offset from the 4 to

[1:57:18] six peak rush hour traffic that most of

[1:57:21] those other uses are seeing. Um in

[1:57:24] almost 3 years on Weshire, we have not

[1:57:26] seen significant backups during our peak

[1:57:28] periods. And so that suggests to me that

[1:57:31] the different uses are complimentary

[1:57:33] rather in than in competition. Um at

[1:57:36] last week's planning commission meeting,

[1:57:38] some members had safety concerns about

[1:57:40] the Eastbury building being offset from

[1:57:42] a primary road. That's by 4/10en of a

[1:57:45] mile. Um, and so you know better than I

[1:57:48] how significant that is. Um, we will get

[1:57:51] the fire department's feedback on this.

[1:57:54] You know, we go through extensive BFS

[1:57:55] and BCC processes with the state and

[1:57:58] then we also work with the township when

[1:58:00] we're trying to figure out if these

[1:58:01] things will fit together. Um, but we

[1:58:05] discussed in the last commission meeting

[1:58:07] that even though it is not a primary

[1:58:10] road, it is still a public road. it is

[1:58:11] still plowed by the Eaton County Road

[1:58:13] Commission. Um, so it's not, even though

[1:58:16] it's not a primary road, it's not just a

[1:58:18] rural road or a private road.

[1:58:22] Um, when I first approached our

[1:58:24] schoolboard about this building, I

[1:58:25] actually pointed out that this created

[1:58:27] an ideal situation for efficient car

[1:58:29] pooling. Based on our past experience at

[1:58:32] Okamus Road and out Westshshire, I

[1:58:34] anticipate with Eastbury that the

[1:58:36] existing signal light, the existing stop

[1:58:38] sign, the existing turns, um the

[1:58:41] slightly longer driveway would all just

[1:58:43] sort of naturally pace the carpool

[1:58:45] traffic. And because the sites we are

[1:58:48] considering are already mixed use, I

[1:58:50] expect that one more staggered use is

[1:58:52] unlikely to create a drastically

[1:58:54] different new traffic burden. Um, I

[1:58:56] don't have that data for you yet because

[1:58:58] we're not yes yet in the SLUP

[1:59:00] application process. Um, I've asked my

[1:59:02] traffic engineer to hopefully start

[1:59:04] counting data counting collecting counts

[1:59:07] tomorrow. Um, but I just want to

[1:59:09] communicate those traffic findings from

[1:59:11] our last SLUP and from our current

[1:59:13] experience with the school in a similar

[1:59:15] location and setup. Um, so I do think

[1:59:18] that it would benefit the uh the

[1:59:21] residents and the local businesses and

[1:59:23] schools like ours. Um, this particular

[1:59:26] building we're looking at has now been

[1:59:27] on the market for 767 days, the seller

[1:59:30] is having a really hard time selling a

[1:59:33] 30,000 foot office space. And because

[1:59:35] it's built into a hill, it's very hard

[1:59:37] to subdivide. So, there just a lot of

[1:59:39] little things that make it hard to sell

[1:59:41] it as an office and there are a lot of

[1:59:43] little things that make it great as a

[1:59:45] school. You know, when we are looking

[1:59:46] for a school, you're thinking about

[1:59:49] drains. I'm thinking about what will our

[1:59:51] kids enjoy, right? and there's a lot of

[1:59:53] natural light and there's a lot of green

[1:59:55] space and there are a lot of things that

[1:59:57] to me say this could be a great school.

[2:00:00] Um, but I'd love to answer more of your

[2:00:02] questions about the things that are of

[2:00:04] concern to you.

[2:00:06] » Thank you. Uh, the students that attend,

[2:00:08] it'll be 136 or there's 136 students.

[2:00:11] Are any of those Delta residents?

[2:00:13] » Yes.

[2:00:14] » Do you know how many?

[2:00:16] » I think it's four families.

[2:00:17] » Thank you.

[2:00:18] » Any other questions?

[2:00:19] » Only four families. Do you offer sports?

[2:00:23] » We do not.

[2:00:24] » Okay.

[2:00:24] » So, you won't be building any sports

[2:00:26] fields or anything on this property?

[2:00:28] » I'm not sure if this property will allow

[2:00:30] it. Um, it borders Curior Creek, which

[2:00:33] is really awesome, which will be super

[2:00:34] fun for recess, but it doesn't really

[2:00:37] suggest a soccer field to me.

[2:00:39] » It would all be on a slope.

[2:00:40] » So, you're saying you would let kids go

[2:00:42] out into this wooded area behind the

[2:00:45] school?

[2:00:45] » Yes. Yes. Our kids love building forts

[2:00:48] and playing with sticks and climbing

[2:00:50] trees during recess.

[2:00:52] What if a child falls in the river? We

[2:00:55] would We have recess monitors who are

[2:00:58] out there. Um,

[2:01:00] » Yeah. And I welcome you to come out and

[2:01:01] observe what it's like. There are

[2:01:03] already little bridges and boardwalks

[2:01:05] built out in those woods. So, it's it's

[2:01:08] not like kids are unsupervised. Okay. Do

[2:01:11] you offer special education? We do.

[2:01:13] Okay. Good. And I just I want to point

[2:01:16] out I don't know if you're a frequent

[2:01:18] viewer of our township board meetings or

[2:01:21] anything like that. And when I mentioned

[2:01:23] safety and I mentioned our deputies, I I

[2:01:26] didn't want to bring it up again

[2:01:28] necessarily, but I just want to say that

[2:01:31] there are hotels in that area that have

[2:01:33] human trafficking, that have sex

[2:01:35] trafficking, child trafficking. And so I

[2:01:38] just I just want you to know that

[2:01:41] I don't ever want to be responsible for

[2:01:45] making any decision that puts a child in

[2:01:47] harm's way. And I know that you're

[2:01:50] you're over here on Westerure and it's

[2:01:52] not that far, but that is so much more

[2:01:54] public and visible from those main trunk

[2:01:58] roads than this location is. And and it

[2:02:02] scares me to put a school there. So

[2:02:04] » Yeah, I think that's definitely a valid

[2:02:06] concern. I don't know if that concern

[2:02:08] goes away with a restriction on where

[2:02:11] the primary access is though,

[2:02:12] » Right?

[2:02:13] » Um that really is up to the school

[2:02:16] security. We are right next to a hotel

[2:02:18] right now. Um, we considered putting a

[2:02:22] fence between us and the hotel, but the

[2:02:24] hotel with a we have an arrangement

[2:02:27] where they keep their door open 24/7 so

[2:02:29] that if we had an emergency, our

[2:02:32] students and had if the students had to

[2:02:33] leave the building, they could use that

[2:02:35] property as well. So, there are risks

[2:02:38] and there are benefits when you have

[2:02:41] neighbors like that. Um, and again, I

[2:02:43] think that will be the case wherever we

[2:02:46] go.

[2:02:46] » Very good. Thank you so much. Thank you.

[2:02:49] You're welcome to have a seat.

[2:02:51] » Okay. So, we have an option here. There

[2:02:55] is this request. Um

[2:02:59] you can someone can move it or not.

[2:03:04] If it is not moved,

[2:03:06] » Nothing happens for lack of movement.

[2:03:08] » If someone would like to move it, we can

[2:03:10] move forward with it.

[2:03:12] » What is the desire of the board?

[2:03:15] Well, I thought Peter had laid out a few

[2:03:18] options, not just kind of a yes or no.

[2:03:21] I'm moving forward with this motion.

[2:03:25] I do think there might

[2:03:27] » Have to amend it. It's it's written as

[2:03:31] proof the introduction of the proposal.

[2:03:33] So, if you want to amend it.

[2:03:35] » Yeah, I I would just say I don't know if

[2:03:37] we're prepared to do that tonight. I

[2:03:40] would like to work I would hope we could

[2:03:42] work on language. I don't know what then

[2:03:45] that motion is, but work on language to

[2:03:48] nuance this to provide a little more

[2:03:50] clarity around the policy and not be as

[2:03:54] broad as it's currently proposed.

[2:03:57] » We'll let Peter answer and then treasure

[2:03:59] feeding.

[2:04:00] » I guess the only thing I would we have a

[2:04:02] paid request in front of us to

[2:04:05] adjudicate would are you suggesting then

[2:04:07] staff like take over that process to re

[2:04:09] review the policy and propose a

[2:04:11] different policy to the board?

[2:04:13] that addresses a similar situation to

[2:04:15] this or

[2:04:18] » Yes I as I mentioned earlier I think

[2:04:22] there may be

[2:04:25] because this is written for example just

[2:04:28] to exempt non-public schools

[2:04:31] I think probably the size of the school

[2:04:34] and the appropriateness on you know

[2:04:36] where it's located if there's room for

[2:04:38] state like there are other factors

[2:04:41] beyond being a nonpublic public school

[2:04:44] that are

[2:04:46] also critical to ensure it's an

[2:04:48] appropriate location.

[2:04:51] Not just, you know,

[2:04:54] the non-primary road is an appropriate

[2:04:57] location.

[2:04:59] And I'm not sure with this ordinance we

[2:05:02] have the ability to kind of address

[2:05:06] those issues. Maybe we do. I don't I

[2:05:09] don't I don't think that's what we heard

[2:05:12] from you that those issues about

[2:05:14] stacking vehicles and that for drop off

[2:05:17] or there's nothing to say there couldn't

[2:05:19] be a bus at a non-public school. So, are

[2:05:22] there busing concerns that

[2:05:25] we need to think about in you know a

[2:05:29] broad

[2:05:30] in a policy change beyond just the

[2:05:34] non-public school factor?

[2:05:37] I thought I heard you say yes earlier.

[2:05:40] » Yeah, I would certainly I would reply to

[2:05:42] any and tackle anything assigned by by

[2:05:45] the board for sure. I just wanted to

[2:05:47] clarify I guess the the current

[2:05:49] application under consideration and then

[2:05:51] the assignment like essentially what we

[2:05:53] we would then I'm saying take over but

[2:05:55] we would we would take the policy review

[2:05:58] re it revise it propose something

[2:06:00] different to the board that would work

[2:06:03] out for that would essentially enable

[2:06:05] what they what they're trying to do.

[2:06:08] » I'm open to that and just I guess it'd

[2:06:11] be helpful to know from the applicant. I

[2:06:14] don't know if there are time

[2:06:16] sensitivities,

[2:06:18] what the urgency may be, kind of

[2:06:21] openness to giving us some time to be a

[2:06:24] little more

[2:06:27] um

[2:06:30] maybe narrow in kind of how we change

[2:06:34] the ordinance. Um, and I don't mean

[2:06:37] narrow in a way that's going to be

[2:06:38] prohibitive. I we understand what your

[2:06:40] needs are. Um, but again, this is a

[2:06:44] policy

[2:06:47] that applies townshipwide, not just to

[2:06:49] to this specific situation. So, wanting

[2:06:52] to make sure we're thinking about it in

[2:06:55] that lens and ensuring there's the

[2:06:57] safety provisions built in the way we

[2:07:01] refine our current ordinance. And so

[2:07:04] assuming that's acceptable to the

[2:07:07] applicant, again, I don't know what time

[2:07:09] sensitivities there may be, but I think

[2:07:13] I I'd be hopeful we can come to a place

[2:07:17] um that might work where the board would

[2:07:20] be comfortable

[2:07:22] if we could help support the school.

[2:07:26] » Treasure Fed, I will let him address his

[2:07:28] question and then see where we are.

[2:07:29] » Thank you. Um

[2:07:34] And Peter, you're right. We have a

[2:07:35] single issue before us. And so we say

[2:07:38] yes, we say no. Um we can say no. And we

[2:07:42] would like staff to look at this uh as a

[2:07:45] general policy review um determining

[2:07:49] what was the original intent of

[2:07:52] requiring this. Do those elements still

[2:07:56] are they still valid? And if so, um, are

[2:07:59] they particular to any particular type

[2:08:02] of usage? And I don't know how old this

[2:08:06] ordinance is,

[2:08:08] but one thing I don't agree with is to

[2:08:12] sit there and say work with staff to try

[2:08:15] to make this work for an applicant where

[2:08:17] we haven't even made a determination

[2:08:19] whether we want to change the ordinance

[2:08:20] at all depending on whatever the staff

[2:08:22] comes back with. I think that's sort of

[2:08:25] prejuditial and I don't want to imply

[2:08:27] the staff that they should take that

[2:08:29] avenue. Um I think we should look at

[2:08:32] this objectively

[2:08:33] um and determine that we have

[2:08:38] allowed

[2:08:39] exceptions to this under other

[2:08:42] circumstances

[2:08:43] and why doesn't that avenue exist?

[2:08:48] Why take the all or nothing approach of

[2:08:51] just changing our ordinance as exemption

[2:08:54] carblanc in perpetuity? So I would

[2:08:58] prefer that just a a real good objective

[2:09:01] review of the ordinance, what we've

[2:09:04] allowed in the past, what are the

[2:09:05] reasons, what other criteria is there in

[2:09:07] this day and age and make a

[2:09:09] determination. Do we make is there a

[2:09:13] reason that we should maybe amend the

[2:09:16] ordinance? Okay. and if so, how? And

[2:09:20] that's going to take some time

[2:09:21] » Regardless of whatever the timeline is

[2:09:24] of a particular applicant because again,

[2:09:26] this has far more reaching implications

[2:09:28] than a particular applicant at this

[2:09:30] point in time. That's just that's how I

[2:09:34] feel.

[2:09:34] » Thank you. Any other comments?

[2:09:36] » Should we move to table this to a a

[2:09:40] future meeting or just leave it

[2:09:41] » If

[2:09:42] » For tableabling it or what? what

[2:09:45] » For discussion

[2:09:46] » Staff to explore it further

[2:09:50] » For what it's worth. I mean I could come

[2:09:51] back with something to um Trusty

[2:09:53] Kascrilla's point. I could come back

[2:09:54] with a review of this I think by the

[2:09:57] October 5th meeting

[2:10:00] » If if desired.

[2:10:01] » So if it were tabled we could table it

[2:10:04] until the October 5th meeting and you

[2:10:07] will do more research. I I am concerned

[2:10:10] anytime I see where we're considering

[2:10:13] putting in blanket exception and on an

[2:10:16] ordinance that that's a hands out for

[2:10:19] me. Um and I'm very concerned that this

[2:10:22] is so close to hotel property and just

[2:10:24] the safety issues. I imagine the school

[2:10:27] will turn corners to protect every child

[2:10:30] in that school, but it's hard to protect

[2:10:32] when you're already in an environment

[2:10:34] where there could very well be

[2:10:37] situation. So, I'm really concerned with

[2:10:39] the location and I'm extremely concerned

[2:10:42] with a blanket exception extremely I'm

[2:10:45] very uncomfortable with that. But I it

[2:10:47] is always the desire of the board and

[2:10:49] the body and the majority of the body on

[2:10:51] what they want to do. So having said

[2:10:53] that, what is the desire of the board

[2:10:55] for this particular

[2:10:57] um

[2:10:59] item? Do you want to move it as is? Do

[2:11:01] you want to amend the motion and present

[2:11:04] an alternative motion? I see Treasurer

[2:11:07] Fidawa, Trusty Kascarella.

[2:11:09] » Yeah, I mean this is just my personal

[2:11:11] opinion. Um this thing just does not

[2:11:14] move fair forward if there's not a

[2:11:16] motion and a support and there's no

[2:11:19] action. So, but if we table it, it's

[2:11:21] tabled as is and it comes back as is.

[2:11:25] So, I don't know if that's what we want

[2:11:27] to do. And if

[2:11:28] » Is the right way to say that to postpone

[2:11:30] it to the October 5th meeting? I think

[2:11:33] it's postponed specifically to go to a

[2:11:34] different meeting.

[2:11:35] » But if you postpone it, you're still

[2:11:36] reading language.

[2:11:37] » Yeah, you're bringing back the same

[2:11:38] » Same language. So, unless Hold on, hold

[2:11:40] on.

[2:11:42] » Here and then here. Sorry. Sorry.

[2:11:43] » Yeah. I was going to propose tableabling

[2:11:45] till October 5th. I believe we as with

[2:11:49] any motion proposal we can amend that.

[2:11:54] » You could always amend it.

[2:11:56] » Yes. And so we have that

[2:11:59] » Um privilege at that time when we have

[2:12:03] additional information.

[2:12:07] » One second. One second.

[2:12:10] » You can prop you can you could change

[2:12:11] the if someone applied to go to R A you

[2:12:14] could change it to RB in your approval.

[2:12:16] Just for example, right?

[2:12:17] » Yes, we can do. We have that authority

[2:12:19] to do that. Trusty Moa,

[2:12:22] I was just thinking I'm okay with

[2:12:25] bringing it back maybe with different

[2:12:27] language. I'm not I'm not opposed to

[2:12:29] some type of change. I think what we're

[2:12:32] all having trouble is that whole blanket

[2:12:34] that says to exempt non-public schools,

[2:12:36] which which exempts everybody like D

[2:12:39] everybody. So, I would say if there was

[2:12:41] a way to change that verbiage and then

[2:12:43] bring it back, I think that that would

[2:12:45] be a rational, you know, thing to bring

[2:12:48] back to the board and then we can decide

[2:12:49] on that verbiage. Is that said

[2:12:52] correctly?

[2:12:53] » So, if we postpone it until October 5th,

[2:12:56] that means we don't take any action on

[2:12:59] the motion at this time. We just

[2:13:01] postponing it.

[2:13:03] Is everybody clear? Is that

[2:13:04] » Do we postpone it with a to bring back

[2:13:06] with amended language? That would be the

[2:13:09] goal is that it would not come back the

[2:13:12] way it is here today,

[2:13:14] » Right?

[2:13:14] » And if it does with explanation as to

[2:13:18] why it needs to come back that way,

[2:13:20] » Is that meeting with everyone's thought?

[2:13:23] » Question.

[2:13:24] » Yes,

[2:13:25] » Peter. October 5th, is that enough time

[2:13:27] for you to do the background research on

[2:13:28] this and come up with uh and and there's

[2:13:30] two questions here. One is do we change

[2:13:34] the ordinance and if so, why and how?

[2:13:37] And the other is do we approve this

[2:13:39] period? Okay. Because I've heard some

[2:13:41] concerns about the location for the the

[2:13:43] school which separate and distinct from

[2:13:46] changing the ordinance.

[2:13:47] » Mhm.

[2:13:49] » So I just don't want to confuse the two.

[2:13:52] And then the third thing again is this

[2:13:54] enough time for Peter and staff

[2:13:56] » October 5th to come back to something.

[2:13:58] I'll move quickly. Um just if I could

[2:14:00] repeat what I'm hearing just to make

[2:14:01] sure I'm understanding. So, the the

[2:14:03] intent from the from the board is to

[2:14:06] bring this back at the October 5th

[2:14:07] meeting, have staff look at potentially

[2:14:10] another way that this could be rephrased

[2:14:12] or at least provide some additional

[2:14:14] context and information as to how to get

[2:14:17] to the same place, but maybe with a

[2:14:19] little more um I'll say a little more

[2:14:22] fleshed out language that would provide

[2:14:24] some um safeguards in place or at least

[2:14:27] some reasonings as to why um they may or

[2:14:30] may not work. Am

[2:14:33] I hearing that correctly?

[2:14:34] » And and I think that the top priority

[2:14:37] should be should we make this change at

[2:14:40] all?

[2:14:41] » You know, I want to hear the reasoning

[2:14:43] of why based on the application of one

[2:14:46] person, one applicant, based on one

[2:14:49] location that they're considering

[2:14:50] buying, why we should change the

[2:14:52] ordinances for the whole township. And I

[2:14:55] think that that supersedes, you know,

[2:14:57] how and why we would change it. Do we

[2:15:00] want to change it at all? Do we need to

[2:15:02] change it? You know, is this really a

[2:15:05] situation where we're going to take all

[2:15:06] of this action for one situation?

[2:15:12] » Supervisor Brewer.

[2:15:13] » Yes. Yes, ma'am.

[2:15:14] » Yeah. If I just may, I I just want to

[2:15:16] point out in response to that um

[2:15:20] we do

[2:15:22] already have an example today of

[2:15:27] that the proposed policy working

[2:15:30] effectively.

[2:15:32] Uh the school is located

[2:15:35] in a non-primary road today

[2:15:38] and is operating and and hasn't had any

[2:15:41] safety issues and is operating

[2:15:43] effectively. So, I just want to point

[2:15:45] that out. We have that case example

[2:15:48] today. It was unfortunately done

[2:15:53] inappropriately, not by the school, but

[2:15:56] by township action, but it is operating

[2:16:01] today without issue. They've just

[2:16:04] outgrown that location.

[2:16:06] » Supervisor Brewer.

[2:16:07] » Yes.

[2:16:08] » If I could. Yes, it's a non-m main road

[2:16:12] west, but it is right on the corner of

[2:16:14] canal. It is not hidden back behind all

[2:16:19] kinds of other buildings and with trees

[2:16:21] and things like that. And if we change

[2:16:23] the ordinance to say, sure, if you're a

[2:16:25] non-public school, you can locate on a

[2:16:28] non-main road. I mean, who knows where

[2:16:32] the next non-main road will be. Maybe

[2:16:34] it'll be, you know, a dirt road or, you

[2:16:37] know, something else. And so I think

[2:16:39] pointing to it and saying that it's on a

[2:16:42] non-made road now. I think that's just

[2:16:44] it's it's almost semantics that it's

[2:16:46] Westerure as their address instead of

[2:16:48] canal because they're right on that

[2:16:49] corner.

[2:16:51] » Thank you.

[2:16:53] » So Peter, you have your job cut out for

[2:16:55] you.

[2:16:55] » I understand the direction. I appreciate

[2:16:57] the conversation. So thank you. May

[2:16:59] » I add? It'd be nice if we knew because

[2:17:01] it looks like some of the schools are

[2:17:02] located in Lancing if they have what

[2:17:04] their ordinances and policies are

[2:17:06] surrounding it. and the the schools that

[2:17:09] the applicant the list they provided.

[2:17:10] Yeah, we we'll take a look. Yeah.

[2:17:13] » Thank you.

[2:17:13] » Thanks.

[2:17:16] » So, we are at a place that we're going

[2:17:18] to

[2:17:21] » Um postpone this one. So, there's no

[2:17:24] action needed. Manager Reed, we're just

[2:17:26] going to postpone this until the October

[2:17:28] 5th and um Director Mener will bring

[2:17:32] this back or let us know if you're not

[2:17:34] ready October 5th. don't feel like I've

[2:17:36] got I'm under this mandate October 5th

[2:17:38] and it is if you are not ready to be

[2:17:42] prepared to answer the questions um and

[2:17:45] let allow the board members to either

[2:17:47] say yay or nay um please let us know so

[2:17:50] we're not putting you under any brush

[2:17:52] fire for October 5th. I I'm sure it's

[2:17:55] important um for our um to um the young

[2:18:00] lady, the wonderful lady who presented

[2:18:01] this to us on behalf of her client, but

[2:18:03] we want to make sure that your staff has

[2:18:05] the time to do the research that we need

[2:18:08] done before it comes back to the board

[2:18:10] table.

[2:18:12] Cough and all. Thank you. You okay?

[2:18:14] » Y

[2:18:16] » All right. Good. Um we are now down to

[2:18:18] item number 13 which is the

[2:18:20] intergovernmental police services

[2:18:22] agreement for Waverly schools a school

[2:18:24] resource officer and manager me looks

[2:18:28] like he's going to tell us about this

[2:18:29] one this is uh something we discussed as

[2:18:33] a board um in July at least the concept

[2:18:36] of it uh you saw the agreement um

[2:18:40] somewhat reflected in our budget with

[2:18:42] the $150,000

[2:18:45] u payment from Waverly schools

[2:18:47] Um, we finally uh were able to get to

[2:18:51] agreement on a language triparty

[2:18:54] agreement because it's a somewhat

[2:18:56] complex situation with the employee

[2:18:59] being a county employee through the

[2:19:00] township's contract serving Waverly

[2:19:03] Schools um which I consider serving all

[2:19:06] of um Delta because having the school

[2:19:09] resource officer as we discussed is very

[2:19:12] helpful um to the township and keeps our

[2:19:14] deputies on the road and it and really

[2:19:17] provides a preventative

[2:19:19] um you know whatever the saying is the

[2:19:23] ounce of prevention

[2:19:25] um is uh very helpful and I think

[2:19:27] Captain Block has spoken to that. So,

[2:19:30] the agreement uh just has some

[2:19:32] protections for the township, similar to

[2:19:34] our police agreement. If the county

[2:19:38] strikes a more beneficial deal with

[2:19:40] another school district, that we would

[2:19:42] be able to open up our our contract. Um

[2:19:48] there is some protections if there's a

[2:19:50] long-term injury um or that type of

[2:19:53] thing and some termination uh clauses.

[2:19:57] Um much of this language was built off

[2:19:59] the existing agreement with between

[2:20:02] Waverly and the county. If you just

[2:20:04] remember when we did the police

[2:20:06] contract, we did foresee a time where

[2:20:10] that SRO would be under our command here

[2:20:13] in Delta uh because it just made sense

[2:20:17] um and Waverly Schools are almost

[2:20:20] primarily all in Delta Township. So, um,

[2:20:24] with that, I think my memo spells out. I

[2:20:27] apologize for bringing this forward as a

[2:20:29] purple sheet, but the existing agreement

[2:20:32] expires October 1st. It's my

[2:20:34] understanding that they have an SRO

[2:20:36] candidate ready to

[2:20:39] um start. So, the school has done

[2:20:41] without one so far this school year. So,

[2:20:43] they're eager to get going. So, the the

[2:20:46] stars have kind of aligned um to get it

[2:20:49] on to this tonight's meeting agenda.

[2:20:54] » Thank you. Is there a motion?

[2:20:59] » Oh.

[2:21:01] » Oh, I thought you had your hand up on

[2:21:02] there.

[2:21:02] » I did, but she did it, too.

[2:21:06] I move that the Delta Township Board

[2:21:08] approve the three-year triparty

[2:21:10] intergovernmental um police services

[2:21:13] agreement between the township, Eaton

[2:21:15] County, and Waverly Community Schools. I

[2:21:18] further move that the township

[2:21:19] supervisor be authorized and directed to

[2:21:21] sign the agreement on behalf of the

[2:21:23] township.

[2:21:24] » Excellent.

[2:21:24] » Support.

[2:21:25] » It's been moved and supported. Is there

[2:21:27] any discussion?

[2:21:29] » Hearing none, all in favor?

[2:21:31] » I. Any opposed? That motion passes

[2:21:33] unanimously. Thank you, manager Reed,

[2:21:35] for that.

[2:21:36] » Thank you.

[2:21:37] » We are now down to the manager's report.

[2:21:41] » Sure. Um I will try to keep it brief

[2:21:44] since we've had a long meeting. I just

[2:21:46] wanted to give a quick update on a

[2:21:48] couple of our projects. Um update on the

[2:21:52] pathway. Um that project had stalled a

[2:21:56] couple weeks ago um in order for Board

[2:21:59] of Water and Light to continue to move

[2:22:01] their poles and then they needed time

[2:22:03] for the comm's company to move their

[2:22:07] technology off the poles which uh I

[2:22:10] understand has finally happened. Um so

[2:22:13] BWL still has to remove the remaining

[2:22:16] poles. So, we were hoping that our

[2:22:18] contractor will remobilize um likely

[2:22:22] next week. Um and then uh hopefully uh

[2:22:26] the the pathway will be um completed in

[2:22:29] short order after that as they were

[2:22:31] making very good progress

[2:22:33] um prior to having to pull off the site.

[2:22:37] Um so, we will keep you updated on that.

[2:22:40] We will uh once that project is

[2:22:42] complete, we'll be planning a um a

[2:22:45] ribbon cutting and an event uh both for

[2:22:49] um really kind of a try event for the

[2:22:51] bridge, the pathway and also the Hawk

[2:22:54] metal pathway loop. So um we will keep

[2:22:58] you updated on that. Uh work continues

[2:23:01] on the senior and activity center. Um,

[2:23:04] our staff, uh, Aaron and Marcus had a

[2:23:08] had a planning meeting today,

[2:23:11] um, for the ribbon cutting on October

[2:23:14] 13th. So, um, that is down down to the

[2:23:18] wire uh, on that project as well. Um,

[2:23:22] and then a uh last thing is just um a

[2:23:25] little fun item. I'd like to call up the

[2:23:30] uh deputy fire chief to uh has a has a

[2:23:34] little presentation and a gift for board

[2:23:37] members.

[2:23:40] » I'll be extremely quick.

[2:23:42] So,

[2:23:43] » Uh on behalf of uh Chief Kaylor and

[2:23:45] myself, take a moment and share some

[2:23:47] exciting update with the fire

[2:23:49] department. We've recently adopted a new

[2:23:51] fire department patch that reflects both

[2:23:53] our commitment to tradition and our

[2:23:56] vision for the future. The new patch is

[2:23:58] intended to modernize our appearance

[2:23:59] while better representing our role as an

[2:24:02] integral part of the township

[2:24:03] organization. Our firefighters serve the

[2:24:05] entire community every day. And this

[2:24:08] updated design more closely aligns with

[2:24:10] our identity, the township that we are

[2:24:12] proud to represent. While the look of

[2:24:14] the patch is changing and and the values

[2:24:17] behind it are not, the dedication,

[2:24:19] professionalism, and commitment to

[2:24:21] service that our residents have come to

[2:24:23] expect from the Delta Fire Department

[2:24:24] remain exactly the same. This new patch

[2:24:27] simply provides a visual reminder that

[2:24:29] we are one team working together with

[2:24:32] township leadership and other

[2:24:33] departments to serve our community. We

[2:24:35] are proud of our history, grateful for

[2:24:37] the support of this board and excited to

[2:24:40] carry this updated symbol forward as we

[2:24:42] continue serving the township. Thank you

[2:24:44] for your continued support of the fire

[2:24:46] department and the men and the women

[2:24:47] that wear this patch. So, um, thank you

[2:24:50] for marrying. We have a button for you.

[2:24:52] It's got a patch on it.

[2:24:54] » Kind of go over the patch with you.

[2:24:55] » Okay.

[2:24:56] » You got to stick it to us

[2:24:59] or not.

[2:25:00] » We've been pinned, too.

[2:25:03] » Yeah. for good study.

[2:25:06] » Love it.

[2:25:07] » All right. Thank you.

[2:25:09] » Thank you.

[2:25:11] » Thanks so much.

[2:25:12] » You're welcome.

[2:25:13] » And you got

[2:25:17] » So, if you look at if you look at the

[2:25:18] patch, you can see on the on the picture

[2:25:20] above. Um the biggest thing you probably

[2:25:23] notice is our our Township logo. So,

[2:25:25] when you look at all of our fleet, you

[2:25:26] know, we were the ones that didn't have

[2:25:28] that on our in our in our picture. So,

[2:25:30] we've added that to our patch and I

[2:25:31] think it it really uh continuity across

[2:25:34] the whole fleet of the township. Um, we

[2:25:37] added uh the rescue part of it on the

[2:25:39] right hand side and and our and our

[2:25:40] firefighters are cross trainining both

[2:25:42] EMS and and the fire department. So,

[2:25:44] when you see an ambulance go by, those

[2:25:46] members are also responding to structure

[2:25:47] fires and that's where we get the rescue

[2:25:49] part of that from that. And then if you

[2:25:51] look at the gold on the outside and all

[2:25:54] the gold lettering, if if you look back

[2:25:56] at past uh Delta Township fire trucks

[2:25:59] and also just the history of the fire

[2:26:00] department, we use a lot of gold leaf on

[2:26:02] all of our fire trucks. So it's kind of

[2:26:04] a nod to the old fire trucks from Delta

[2:26:06] Township that had a lot of gold leaf on

[2:26:07] them. And then we also strive to be the

[2:26:09] gold standard in the county. So that's

[2:26:11] kind of why we came up with the gold

[2:26:12] color. And then uh the whole idea of

[2:26:15] Delta Fire Department started in 1952

[2:26:18] with a whole bunch of big fires going

[2:26:19] on. a bunch of residents came together

[2:26:20] and raised money and uh the first fire

[2:26:22] station actually erected in 1953, but

[2:26:24] the whole idea of this whole department

[2:26:26] started in 1952. So, we kind of wanted

[2:26:28] to give a little nod to the history and

[2:26:30] put the established 1952 on there. So,

[2:26:32] that's that's our whole patch and we

[2:26:34] just wanted to share it with you guys

[2:26:35] and let you guys know. So, you'll see it

[2:26:36] around town. It's on our website

[2:26:38] starting today. Mary put it on there. Um

[2:26:40] it's on most of our trucks already.

[2:26:42] Happened this week. So, but we just

[2:26:43] wanted to come and present and show you

[2:26:44] guys tonight.

[2:26:45] » So,

[2:26:46] » Thank you. You're very special.

[2:26:47] » You're welcome. Thank you so much.

[2:26:49] » Good. All right.

[2:26:50] » Oh, beautiful.

[2:26:50] » Oh, you got a question.

[2:26:52] » Well, no, just one question. I was just

[2:26:54] doing some quick math. So, next year's

[2:26:56] the 75th anniversary of our department.

[2:26:59] Got some things planned.

[2:27:01] » We will we will definitely have some

[2:27:02] stuff planned.

[2:27:03] » Wonderful.

[2:27:03] » Absolutely. So,

[2:27:05] » Thank you so much.

[2:27:10] » Is there anything else on your list?

[2:27:12] » Uh, I don't happy to take any questions

[2:27:15] board members.

[2:27:16] » Question. Do you have to cut out?

[2:27:18] » Yeah, thank you.

[2:27:20] » Sorry you guys

[2:27:22] passes.

[2:27:23] » Thanks.

[2:27:24] » Okay, we are now to uh any board member

[2:27:28] have any committee report updates?

[2:27:31] » Committee report updates. Okay, we are

[2:27:34] now down to committee of the whole and

[2:27:36] there are three items. We'll start with

[2:27:37] item number 14, policy update on data

[2:27:41] centers

[2:27:45] » And these are just for discussion.

[2:27:47] There's no action on any of the items

[2:27:50] under this category.

[2:27:52] » So, thank you for um taking the time

[2:27:54] this evening. So, the township's already

[2:27:56] taken some steps on data centers. I

[2:27:58] think we took the first big probably

[2:28:00] most important step and we identified

[2:28:02] the use. We said where it could be. it's

[2:28:05] only in industrial zoning and we added a

[2:28:07] requirement for a special land use

[2:28:09] permit. So I think that was a really

[2:28:10] good initial use clarified the zoning to

[2:28:13] make it very clear how uh proposals if

[2:28:16] if we were to receive one how they would

[2:28:17] be treated.

[2:28:19] So during that zoning amendment process

[2:28:21] the planning commission requested

[2:28:22] additional action specifically the

[2:28:24] development of specific use standards

[2:28:26] for a data center land use. So specific

[2:28:30] use standards we see them in a lot of

[2:28:32] different land uses. one we just talked

[2:28:34] about. Um, for example, with the school,

[2:28:36] one of the specific land use

[2:28:38] requirements was they be on primary

[2:28:39] roads. Uh, but there's other ones like,

[2:28:42] you know, simple examples like a

[2:28:43] drive-thru um would be like requiring

[2:28:46] that we identify the number of stacking

[2:28:49] spaces or the width of the lane or

[2:28:51] something like that. So, it's they're

[2:28:52] use specific standards or regulations

[2:28:54] for different land uses in the community

[2:28:57] and we've got a lot of them. So, but I'm

[2:28:59] back in front of you tonight to tell you

[2:29:00] a little bit more. Um, since the last

[2:29:02] time we talked, um, the there has been a

[2:29:05] I attended a it was a webinar ultimately

[2:29:07] that the Michigan Township Association

[2:29:10] put on that where they released their

[2:29:12] template ordinance or their draft kind

[2:29:14] of model ordinance for data centers for

[2:29:16] townships in Michigan.

[2:29:19] So, um, and that starts on

[2:29:22] our my memo starts on page 290 and then

[2:29:25] the entirety of that sample data center

[2:29:28] ordinance starts on page 293. We don't

[2:29:30] need to get into all of that. I know

[2:29:32] what time it is and you've had a lot of

[2:29:33] items on the agenda this evening.

[2:29:35] » Um but I do want to just follow up and

[2:29:38] say um that the regula so

[2:29:42] excuse me um the our meeting our memo

[2:29:45] and the meeting packet provides just

[2:29:47] kind of an overview of the regulations

[2:29:48] contained therein. I I won't go through

[2:29:50] all those tonight but there is a lot of

[2:29:51] information in there. If you haven't had

[2:29:52] a chance to read our staff memo, what we

[2:29:54] tried to do was um identify all the

[2:29:57] different standards that are in this

[2:29:58] ordinance and then talk a little bit

[2:30:00] about how our current zoning applies or

[2:30:02] doesn't apply or maybe we don't have

[2:30:04] anything on that topic. And in some

[2:30:05] cases, kind of based on the history, the

[2:30:09] culture of the township as an industrial

[2:30:11] area, there is not a lot of um standards

[2:30:15] in that area. They're they're fairly

[2:30:17] basic, I'll say. Um and that's not to um

[2:30:21] share an opinion on that at all. It's

[2:30:22] just that's how how our the area has

[2:30:24] developed.

[2:30:27] So um as to date, the planning

[2:30:29] commission has not um initiated a zoning

[2:30:31] amendment on data centers, but they they

[2:30:34] did make kind of the general request on

[2:30:36] the specific use standards. What I don't

[2:30:38] want to do is ever find um and go back

[2:30:40] and work on something and then come back

[2:30:42] to the board and find that it is at odds

[2:30:44] with the policy preferred policy um

[2:30:47] intent of the board. So what I'm trying

[2:30:49] to do is kind of marry all that and um

[2:30:52] provide an update one that this

[2:30:53] ordinance is now available from the MTA

[2:30:56] um but also ultimately kind of looking

[2:30:58] for some feedback on the board on

[2:30:59] potential next steps. So, if you're

[2:31:01] interested in staff developing ordinance

[2:31:03] language based on that MTA standard or a

[2:31:07] variation of it, um, we could do that

[2:31:09] and bring that back for future

[2:31:11] discussion. I don't want to go through

[2:31:14] that. Not that I wouldn't, but I don't

[2:31:15] want to go through all of that. It would

[2:31:17] be significant time and then we would

[2:31:19] probably involve our township attorney

[2:31:20] to put together detailed standards on

[2:31:23] data centers and then come back to this

[2:31:25] group and say that that's that's way off

[2:31:27] base or we we didn't ask you to do that.

[2:31:29] why are you here kind of thing. So that

[2:31:32] that's really what I'm here um to talk

[2:31:34] about tonight uh briefly. So, if you're

[2:31:37] interested in those developing specific

[2:31:39] use standards for data centers, um I

[2:31:41] found a lot of things in the MTA sample

[2:31:43] ordinance that I found that that would

[2:31:46] be applicable. Um to I I found it to be

[2:31:48] a very comprehensive look and the

[2:31:50] explanations that we received from the

[2:31:51] MTA seemed like they had put a lot of

[2:31:53] time and energy into vetting what they

[2:31:55] what they did and it took months in

[2:31:57] development and they had an attorney on

[2:31:59] the call that really kind of went

[2:32:00] through item by item and explained each

[2:32:02] one. So if we were to pursue something

[2:32:04] like that, I would definitely my first

[2:32:07] action would be to at least follow the

[2:32:08] template that the MTA has provided

[2:32:11] because frankly I wasn't sure where to

[2:32:12] start. Um otherwise I think it's a good

[2:32:14] starting point. Um obviously there's you

[2:32:17] know a lot there could be conflicting

[2:32:19] provisions in other areas for far as

[2:32:21] specifically our industrial area.

[2:32:24] If we were to adopt, let's just say we

[2:32:26] took that MTA ordinance and uh

[2:32:28] customized it for Delta Township, it

[2:32:30] would represent um a policy C change for

[2:32:32] industrial users. Right now, we have not

[2:32:35] applied things like and you can almost

[2:32:36] pick um from some of these list here,

[2:32:40] but for example, um

[2:32:44] the setbacks would be significantly

[2:32:46] larger. Um the screening requirements

[2:32:49] would be larger. We do not currently

[2:32:51] really have and the ordinance actually

[2:32:53] specifically exempts industrial

[2:32:55] manufacturing assembly and similar uses

[2:32:58] in industrial zoning as it relates to

[2:33:00] sound. So we have general like

[2:33:02] construction noise sound regulation but

[2:33:05] nothing that speaks specific to the

[2:33:07] sound being generated by industrial

[2:33:09] processes.

[2:33:11] Same with lighting. Right now industrial

[2:33:13] is exempt from lighting. Vibrations

[2:33:15] there is nothing in our ordinance about

[2:33:17] vibrations.

[2:33:19] water use sustain. I mean, some of this

[2:33:20] stuff is not necessarily zoning. It

[2:33:22] would be pro possibly like a sister

[2:33:24] ordinance in the code of ordinances that

[2:33:25] may address some of these other things.

[2:33:27] Um, generator testing.

[2:33:30] I won't go through the whole list. I'm

[2:33:31] just want to I guess really um make the

[2:33:34] point that it would be a lot different

[2:33:36] from kind of our current approach to the

[2:33:38] industrial zoning district.

[2:33:41] Um, so that's if if you're interested in

[2:33:43] us proceeding proceeding with the draft

[2:33:45] ordinance, we can work with legal

[2:33:46] counsel to develop a draft ordinance

[2:33:48] based on this MTA model for

[2:33:49] consideration at a future meeting.

[2:33:52] » So I think uh we have treasure feda and

[2:33:55] then trusty cast.

[2:33:56] » Thanks Peter. you uh touched upon some

[2:33:58] of the things I was going to ask about.

[2:34:00] Um some of these auxiliary additions

[2:34:04] that are part of the township

[2:34:05] association like the lighting for

[2:34:07] example, you know, and the uh sound uh

[2:34:10] stood out for me and I am my hearing you

[2:34:15] say that

[2:34:17] if the board says go ahead with this

[2:34:19] that some of these elements would apply

[2:34:22] across the entire industrial area. Yes.

[2:34:25] to know or maybe

[2:34:26] » Maybe as of now the the the only request

[2:34:29] I've really received from the planning

[2:34:30] commission is we want to see specific

[2:34:32] use standards specific use standards are

[2:34:33] only for specific uses so we could write

[2:34:35] it so that they only apply to data

[2:34:38] centers I would want to check with our

[2:34:39] attorney to make sure that's a sound

[2:34:40] appro sound approach

[2:34:42] » On how how we apply standards whether

[2:34:44] it's one user only or everybody um and I

[2:34:49] I would need some guidance on that from

[2:34:50] legal counsel

[2:34:53] just My

[2:34:55] initial reaction is that some of these

[2:34:57] standards I think may be beneficial to

[2:34:59] be in place throughout the entire

[2:35:01] industrial

[2:35:02] area may maybe through zoning you know

[2:35:04] maybe through you know the permitting or

[2:35:06] whatever but um and it also probably

[2:35:09] depends on uh you specific too and um

[2:35:14] it's it's quite an undertaking I think

[2:35:17] you know to do this um so much easier to

[2:35:20] say okay let's just apply this to data

[2:35:22] centers but you I mean some of the

[2:35:23] things I think may be very beneficial

[2:35:25] then across the entire you know

[2:35:28] industrial area. So I would like to look

[2:35:31] at that. I would like staff to look at

[2:35:33] that. Um

[2:35:36] but the caveat is is that you know the

[2:35:39] specific use of the setback for example

[2:35:42] you know is

[2:35:44] you know I I don't know what the

[2:35:46] rationale was for the the MTA to do a

[2:35:47] setback of that specific you know um

[2:35:50] dimension. Um

[2:35:53] uh but you know is that in conflict or

[2:35:57] in contradiction to uh what setbacks are

[2:36:00] for their industrial area? Do we really

[2:36:02] want to adopt that and if so why? Uh so

[2:36:07] I think there's a lot of questions

[2:36:09] regarding that but I think we need to I

[2:36:12] personally think we need to move forward

[2:36:13] on it but I would like to see some of

[2:36:15] these things like the uh the lighting

[2:36:16] for example to be seriously considered

[2:36:19] you know industrial wide as well. Uh

[2:36:21] it's just there just a lot of light

[2:36:23] pollution. You know I look out the

[2:36:24] southwest of my house and it's all I

[2:36:26] just see looks like daylight out there.

[2:36:28] You know because the GM plant and the LG

[2:36:31] plant. It's Yeah. So um I think there

[2:36:36] are some elements that would probably

[2:36:39] you know we should consider for the

[2:36:41] entire industrial area but we have to be

[2:36:44] cautious in how we do that because no

[2:36:46] two are alike in our specific use. So

[2:36:49] those are the comments I wanted to make.

[2:36:51] » Thank you Trusty Cascarell. Yeah, in my

[2:36:55] I guess questions, comments along

[2:36:57] similar lines, but um was just

[2:37:00] interested. I I think this is incredibly

[2:37:02] helpful to think about all these

[2:37:04] different factors um that we may that

[2:37:10] probably should be addressed in our

[2:37:12] ordinance. So, appreciate that kind of

[2:37:15] the review of the MTA proposal.

[2:37:18] Wondering and just appreciate kind of

[2:37:21] your opinion

[2:37:24] on these we've already taken the action

[2:37:26] to limit into industrial

[2:37:29] into an ind our industrial district. Um

[2:37:34] do in your mind are there some of these

[2:37:38] issues that make more or less sense?

[2:37:42] Um,

[2:37:45] you know, maybe because of zoning we

[2:37:47] already have there, you know, maybe our

[2:37:50] or maybe not more or less sense, but

[2:37:52] maybe um some more of a greater priority

[2:37:56] over others. Um, and I'm assuming that

[2:37:59] might be part of your evaluation, but it

[2:38:02] just seems we may need to be thinking

[2:38:04] about that even if it is specific to a

[2:38:08] data center use. Um

[2:38:12] I I don't know if MTA approached this

[2:38:15] thinking this could be anywhere in a

[2:38:17] community and

[2:38:20] you know recommendations may have been

[2:38:22] based on that you know it's anywhere and

[2:38:25] this is uh a safeguard when we've

[2:38:29] already safeguarded to a degree by um

[2:38:33] our restriction to ind industrial

[2:38:35] zoning. The other question I had is with

[2:38:39] kind of some of these provisions, can

[2:38:41] you do you know or can you give any kind

[2:38:44] of sense of

[2:38:46] um within our

[2:38:49] industrial zone property kind of the

[2:38:52] size like what space capacity we have

[2:38:56] what um for a potential data center even

[2:39:00] if one were proposed. I realize we don't

[2:39:02] have one before us but we do have

[2:39:05] restrictions. there's, you know, we're

[2:39:07] seeing a lot of development in our

[2:39:08] industrial park, which is great. So,

[2:39:10] that land is um kind of being gobbled up

[2:39:13] for other purposes, but just trying to

[2:39:15] understand kind of what capacity we even

[2:39:18] have and um just with what's available

[2:39:22] land, vacant land wise.

[2:39:24] » Yeah. And I can bring a map and have a

[2:39:25] have more information on this at a

[2:39:27] future meeting, but in general, and I

[2:39:29] you know, this is a hot topic and a

[2:39:31] controversial topic, so I have to be

[2:39:32] really careful. Um generally I mean

[2:39:34] barring some accumulation of land or

[2:39:37] some um assembly of parcels we don't

[2:39:40] have the room certainly right now at

[2:39:42] least if I can tell for like a hypers

[2:39:44] scale center I'm less concerned about

[2:39:47] that because those are millions of

[2:39:49] square feet and there would just based

[2:39:50] on the available land that we have now

[2:39:52] the sites that have already been

[2:39:53] developed were the easy ones the ones

[2:39:55] that are left are inundated with

[2:39:56] wetlands they may be adjacent to a creek

[2:40:00] um they could have other reasons that

[2:40:02] they're not developed yet. Um, so we

[2:40:06] don't have necessarily a lot of sites

[2:40:08] that could house a a data center of

[2:40:11] significant size. As we talked about a

[2:40:13] couple months ago, we already have two

[2:40:15] in the township that are around 100,000

[2:40:17] square ft. So that they're out there

[2:40:19] now. Um

[2:40:22] is that that's yeah that's about I mean

[2:40:25] we have some spaces but barring some

[2:40:27] assembly significant assembly of land I

[2:40:30] don't know that we'll see an application

[2:40:33] easy um because what I have learned

[2:40:35] again and I what I'm one person that's

[2:40:37] kind of trying to doing my best to

[2:40:38] follow a very complicated issue both

[2:40:40] locally and nationally is I mean the

[2:40:43] usually the companies come for the easy

[2:40:45] places to develop the places they might

[2:40:48] not have we saw them locally that might

[2:40:50] not have a zoning ordinance. They might

[2:40:51] not have a planning commission. They

[2:40:53] might not have kind of the ability to

[2:40:56] further regulate these or have a like

[2:40:58] the infrastructure in place both

[2:40:59] physical and political infrastructure to

[2:41:03] um have you know host a project. So from

[2:41:06] that perspective I think we are in very

[2:41:08] good shape. Um and we do have an

[2:41:10] industrial area. We have somewhere for

[2:41:11] for these places to go. Um, back to your

[2:41:14] original initial question, I mean, we

[2:41:15] would have to really custom I don't

[2:41:17] think all of these would apply for um, a

[2:41:19] data center user in Delta Township. I

[2:41:21] think that there we could pick and

[2:41:23] choose the ones that would would work

[2:41:24] best whether we it's applied at a and

[2:41:27] definitely diverging paths of applicable

[2:41:30] to all properties in industrial

[2:41:31] applicable to data centers specifically

[2:41:33] and we can have that conversation and

[2:41:34] even kind of narrow this list down in

[2:41:37] the future.

[2:41:38] » Okay. Thank you.

[2:41:39] » Thanks. I think that is I think what I'm

[2:41:42] hearing here is um perhaps new coming

[2:41:47] back to the board with these are the

[2:41:49] ones that we're thinking maybe for

[2:41:51] consideration. Um these are or maybe

[2:41:53] there's just a chart that if you take

[2:41:56] this list these apply to could apply to

[2:41:58] all of our ordinances. This one could

[2:42:00] apply to the data center and that leads

[2:42:03] to a conversation of where we go. I like

[2:42:06] that there is still more coming out on

[2:42:08] how to make these safer and a little bit

[2:42:12] more I don't know if safer is the right

[2:42:14] word but that there's more language and

[2:42:17] tools that are coming into our tool

[2:42:19] chest as these data centers wrap their

[2:42:22] way around the earth. helping

[2:42:27] » And I would like to renew my suggestion

[2:42:29] that we put a moratorum on them to give

[2:42:32] ourselves more breathing room to develop

[2:42:35] these and also to see what the state and

[2:42:38] federal government are going to do in

[2:42:39] the next year with these regulations.

[2:42:42] Not that I seed control to the state or

[2:42:44] the federal. I think it is a local

[2:42:46] issue, but it would be nice to see

[2:42:48] backup from the state and feds and see

[2:42:51] what they're going to do and see how we

[2:42:53] could fit into that.

[2:42:59] » So there there's certainly um options

[2:43:02] and decisions moving forward. I think

[2:43:04] with regard to what you presented with

[2:43:06] us today, um there is interest in from

[2:43:10] what I can tell here in the board

[2:43:12] looking at that list, seeing what you

[2:43:15] might recommend as applicable as the

[2:43:16] next set of changes for us. Am I on the

[2:43:20] right path?

[2:43:20] » Yeah.

[2:43:21] » Board members.

[2:43:22] » Thank you.

[2:43:23] » Thank you.

[2:43:25] » All right. We are now down to item

[2:43:27] number 15 out of 16. We're working our

[2:43:30] way through the list. This is the 2027

[2:43:33] events and sponsorship presentation.

[2:43:37] » Good grief.

[2:43:38] » Good evening everyone.

[2:43:39] » Good evening. Good evening. Welcome.

[2:43:41] » Thank you. Thank you. Hey, thank you for

[2:43:43] an opportunity just to share and reflect

[2:43:45] a little on the events that we've had

[2:43:47] during 2026.

[2:43:49] Um, we were challenged by the board uh

[2:43:52] to do more with less and and and also,

[2:43:55] you know, looking at this strategic plan

[2:43:57] initiative, we accomplished some of the

[2:44:00] the things that were set for us. Uh,

[2:44:03] added an outdoor winter event. You guys

[2:44:06] are very familiar with our two-year

[2:44:07] event going um fit and frosty. Uh we've

[2:44:12] expanded our diverse culture events uh

[2:44:15] the Junth event as well as uh continue

[2:44:19] to build our events utilize the Lanc

[2:44:21] Mall uh in addition to moving the Junth

[2:44:24] event there. I think it's going to stay

[2:44:25] there, but we will also move the

[2:44:27] trick-or- treat event there and also

[2:44:29] some of our uh daddy daughter dances and

[2:44:32] mother son dances uh are also taking

[2:44:34] place at the venue in the Lancing Mall.

[2:44:36] So we've achieved that that as well. Um,

[2:44:40] I think Mary and I are going to tag team

[2:44:41] some of these moving forward, but just

[2:44:43] wanted to recognize on our next slide,

[2:44:45] uh, kind of our leaders when it comes to

[2:44:47] doing events. Uh, both Kathy and Mary,

[2:44:50] uh, plan events and work events pretty

[2:44:53] much year round, uh, because, you know,

[2:44:56] event planning is is is is very

[2:44:58] challenging as you might imagine though.

[2:45:00] But but some of the things that during

[2:45:03] 2026 and also preparing for 2027 that

[2:45:06] you see uh their leadership uh uh you

[2:45:10] know has certainly led to these great

[2:45:11] events that we've been able to have and

[2:45:13] even taken on the fundraising piece

[2:45:15] which was a tremendous success. I think

[2:45:18] that may be Mayor do you want to add

[2:45:20] anything on that?

[2:45:22] » Oh with uh fundraising

[2:45:25] uh yeah we we had a really great

[2:45:27] fundraising year. We set a goal of about

[2:45:31] um

[2:45:32] » $25,000

[2:45:36] last year and we raised 50. So, we kind

[2:45:39] of blew our uh goal out of the water. Um

[2:45:42] it was a really great start to our new

[2:45:45] uh sponsorship program that really made

[2:45:48] it a one-stop shop for everybody that

[2:45:50] was interested in doing sponsorship. Um,

[2:45:53] we started back in the fall of last year

[2:45:57] to solicit those sponsorships to get

[2:45:59] those kind of squared away and start a

[2:46:01] fresh in January and have that

[2:46:03] sponsorship last all year long, which is

[2:46:05] still going. Uh, uh, um, we've got our

[2:46:09] October events coming up and then uh,

[2:46:11] we'll carry on through the end of the

[2:46:13] year, but we have already started

[2:46:14] planning for 2027 with our sponsorship

[2:46:17] solicit solicitations. Those have gone

[2:46:20] out this week. So we are moving forward

[2:46:25] with that.

[2:46:26] » Yeah. And and I think c certainly a

[2:46:28] tremendous campaign. Anytime you double

[2:46:30] your goal is always always a good thing.

[2:46:32] But what we saw and heard from the the

[2:46:35] sponsors, the added value of attending

[2:46:38] our events um and and getting their

[2:46:41] names out to not not only our residents

[2:46:43] but you know Delta Township and

[2:46:46] surrounding areas. uh we had some

[2:46:48] sponsors coming to us recognizing they

[2:46:51] could get more they could be more

[2:46:54] visible and increasing their

[2:46:55] sponsorships and so on and certainly a

[2:46:58] tribute to Mary Mary's leadership and

[2:47:00] Kathy for for working and selling those

[2:47:02] events and and I apologize I'm all over

[2:47:04] the place with these slides but um h

[2:47:08] having flipped around just just you know

[2:47:10] looking back at at what it what it takes

[2:47:12] to make our events great Mary slide you

[2:47:15] know the money that we've raised you

[2:47:16] know you can get a sense of just really

[2:47:18] what it cost us and and you know in

[2:47:21] terms of hard costs and and and so on.

[2:47:24] Uh the small events obviously 500 to

[2:47:27] about 1,500 uh staff a couple staff

[2:47:30] folks and we don't necessarily have to

[2:47:32] rely on on public safety personnel for

[2:47:34] those certainly keeping our cost down

[2:47:36] and then the medium events where a

[2:47:39] little more expensive uh some public

[2:47:41] safety as well as having to recruit some

[2:47:43] volunteers and staff. Um we have

[2:47:46] redirected some of our our staff to do

[2:47:49] these events uh you know as a way of of

[2:47:51] of of cost cutting and even some of our

[2:47:55] you know full-time staff are working

[2:47:57] working these things into their plans.

[2:48:03] » As you can see we serve uh 30,000 people

[2:48:06] on average a year with just our events

[2:48:09] events alone. that doesn't take into

[2:48:11] consideration all of the people that are

[2:48:12] visiting visiting our parks and getting

[2:48:14] that added value for our sponsors when

[2:48:16] the sponsorship signs are in both Delta

[2:48:20] um Sharp Park and um Mount Hope Park uh

[2:48:23] year round. So, anybody who visits those

[2:48:26] parks, uses the concession stands,

[2:48:28] visits the bathrooms to walks the east

[2:48:30] west pathway, they're seeing those signs

[2:48:32] and that's a really big added value for

[2:48:34] our um sponsors. And then we do a lot

[2:48:39] with very little staff. So on average,

[2:48:41] we sat down and kind of figured out most

[2:48:44] of our events are facilitated with just

[2:48:46] four staff members, which is pretty

[2:48:48] significant considering the number of

[2:48:50] people that we're serving on a regular

[2:48:51] basis. That's awesome.

[2:48:55] » So, as we transition to some of the

[2:48:57] events that we've had um and and look

[2:48:59] ahead to 2027, it sounds like we're

[2:49:02] going to be planning the 75th

[2:49:04] anniversary for the fire department. I

[2:49:06] don't on the list, but uh I'm sure I'll

[2:49:09] be getting that call tomorrow. Um but uh

[2:49:13] you know, just

[2:49:15] taking a look at the planned events and

[2:49:17] and the majority of our events are free.

[2:49:19] You know, it's very important that we

[2:49:20] work to to keep low to no cost,

[2:49:23] including the tremendous Lionus Club

[2:49:27] group that runs the concessions at these

[2:49:28] places. and their prices are just so

[2:49:30] amazing and so affordable for our

[2:49:32] families to come out and and and not

[2:49:35] only enjoy the event, but even enjoy

[2:49:37] some food. Uh but the list of of planned

[2:49:40] events, a lot we've done this year. Um

[2:49:44] you can see where a couple are in the

[2:49:46] mall. Uh we're moving a trick or treat

[2:49:48] trick-or-treating in the mall to free.

[2:49:51] You know, it used to cost a dollar.

[2:49:53] » You did it finally. That was a pet peeve

[2:49:56] of mine.

[2:49:56] » Yeah. Yeah. Thank Yeah. Thanks to your

[2:49:58] donation,

[2:50:00] » Please don't do that. There are families

[2:50:02] that struggle and a dollar is a lot of

[2:50:04] money.

[2:50:04] » Well, and and as we don't state here,

[2:50:07] but we say we don't turn anyone away. I

[2:50:09] mean, you know, we we we've even gone in

[2:50:11] our pockets a time or two and pull a

[2:50:13] dollar out and folks know that. So, so

[2:50:16] it's worked out well on this one.

[2:50:18] » Yeah. But certainly from a PR

[2:50:19] standpoint, um you know, everyone

[2:50:21] certainly knows. Um so, yes. So return

[2:50:24] events um our paid events are you will

[2:50:26] continue to be the mother daughter

[2:50:28] mother son father daughter uh and then

[2:50:32] um certainly look to new events. Uh our

[2:50:36] parks commission is working on trails

[2:50:38] day event. Uh in the very early stages

[2:50:40] of of planning that event, but that's

[2:50:42] something that we're going to look to

[2:50:43] highlight all of our trails and pathways

[2:50:45] here in Delta Township. Once upon a

[2:50:47] time, we thought we might be ready to

[2:50:49] roll around the time that we do the

[2:50:51] ribbon cutting for the for the Delta

[2:50:53] Mills to hog one, but that's not going

[2:50:56] to work out. Then a couple of new

[2:50:58] events. Mayor, you want to touch on

[2:50:59] those other two last two?

[2:51:01] » Yeah. Um just uh adding to Marcus' trail

[2:51:04] days, we're also utilizing it as a bonus

[2:51:07] um ad for all of our sponsors for next

[2:51:10] year to try and get them involved in

[2:51:11] that event. So, we're adding that. And

[2:51:14] then um we've got uh two kind of new

[2:51:20] events. Uh one that's very new and then

[2:51:22] one that's kind of being brought back

[2:51:24] after a 23-year hiatus. So our Harvest

[2:51:27] Handmade Market, which is going to be

[2:51:29] small. Uh we're going to start out small

[2:51:31] this year and see where it kind of goes

[2:51:33] and hold it at our new senior center to

[2:51:37] try and get people into that facility.

[2:51:39] Um, and it's really just kind of a craft

[2:51:43] uh fair, but really kind of getting uh

[2:51:45] into that fall spirit and doing another

[2:51:47] fall event uh before we get into the

[2:51:51] really heavy holiday season. And then

[2:51:54] our next one is something that we came

[2:51:59] up with because we heard from all of you

[2:52:01] that we wanted to do something a little

[2:52:04] closer to uh Independence Day. And we

[2:52:08] thought with the challenge that you've

[2:52:11] given us to kind of stay within uh this

[2:52:14] budget that we would um reconfigurate

[2:52:17] our schedule a little bit and do a

[2:52:20] family festival closer to the 4th of

[2:52:23] July um including focused interactive

[2:52:26] events and um free food. We thought

[2:52:31] maybe bringing in an element of, you

[2:52:33] know, free hot dogs and chips and water

[2:52:35] to get families and stuff out there. Um

[2:52:37] it would be similar to kids day uh as it

[2:52:40] morphed a little bit followed by a

[2:52:42] concert be a little later in the day so

[2:52:44] that we can get lots of people there so

[2:52:46] it's not in the middle of the day when

[2:52:48] families are working and get them all

[2:52:50] out there uh to enjoy all the

[2:52:53] activities. These are some of the

[2:52:55] activities that we could do. We did peel

[2:52:57] back some of the larger activities that

[2:52:59] we do showcase on kids day so that those

[2:53:01] are special for kids day. Um but these

[2:53:04] are, you know, some of the things that

[2:53:06] we thought that we might be able to

[2:53:07] accommodate at that event. And we're

[2:53:10] hoping to do that um like the week

[2:53:14] before July 4th uh to help offset and

[2:53:19] not have staff out there when they're

[2:53:21] going to be paid at time and a half or

[2:53:23] double time.

[2:53:25] Yeah. And I think here as well, you

[2:53:27] know, kind of to look to to maximize our

[2:53:30] resources and truly to uh to to show

[2:53:35] more appreciation for Independence Day

[2:53:37] that we were really really focused on

[2:53:40] for for the coming year, but maximizing

[2:53:42] those resources from a standpoint of

[2:53:44] taking a couple events that we've done

[2:53:46] in the past and kind of combining them

[2:53:48] and making them one big one. So, you

[2:53:50] know, you have your component of music

[2:53:51] in the park, but you also have your

[2:53:53] family festival piece. Um, and and that

[2:53:57] allows us uh in terms of the sponsorship

[2:54:00] dollars and resources to to kick off

[2:54:03] this new event. We're very excited about

[2:54:04] it and and again, very early in the

[2:54:07] planning stages, but wanted to get that

[2:54:09] in front of you as a proposal because,

[2:54:11] you know, this is our answer to what can

[2:54:14] we do around Independence Day to show

[2:54:17] show more appreciation. um as well as

[2:54:20] creating family festival and concert

[2:54:22] events.

[2:54:26] I think that's it. Any questions?

[2:54:29] » All right. Um just a quick question. Um

[2:54:32] if you could share, you mentioned um

[2:54:35] reaching out to potential sponsors.

[2:54:38] Um can you share that list with the

[2:54:42] board so we know and can think about

[2:54:44] other potential sponsors?

[2:54:46] » Absolutely. I will grab that list and

[2:54:48] send it out tomorrow to everybody.

[2:54:51] » That was it. And thank you. This is a

[2:54:53] great update.

[2:54:53] » Display form, too. I think it'll be good

[2:54:55] fun when I see the

[2:54:56] » The

[2:54:58] who we're sending it to plus the people

[2:55:00] that we sent it to on our original list.

[2:55:02] So, it's going to everybody plus+. So,

[2:55:05] I'll send every I'll throw them all in

[2:55:07] the one big list just so you've got it,

[2:55:08] but I'll also send you our sponsorship

[2:55:10] ch sorry sponsorship sign that we did

[2:55:14] this year and really highlight everybody

[2:55:17] that got involved. We did have 21 total

[2:55:19] sponsors. They're not all on that

[2:55:21] sponsorship sign because we did have a

[2:55:23] transitional sponsorship program to help

[2:55:26] get catch those people that weren't able

[2:55:28] to get in last fall since it was a new

[2:55:31] program. This year, we're hitting it

[2:55:32] hard. We're going to get everybody in

[2:55:34] before, you know, December and get them

[2:55:36] all on board. We're not going to do that

[2:55:38] this year. So,

[2:55:39] » And the timeline for sponsors to get on

[2:55:42] board is right now.

[2:55:44] » Yep. I've got a December 5th. I think

[2:55:48] December 4th or 5th is our deadline for

[2:55:50] this year. So, they've got some time.

[2:55:52] We'll be reaching back out to them and

[2:55:54] circling back. But if you have any other

[2:55:55] people that you want information sent

[2:55:57] to, feel free to send their contact

[2:55:59] information or if you want it and to

[2:56:01] reach out to them, we can send that to

[2:56:03] you so you can send it out as well.

[2:56:05] » Okay.

[2:56:05] » Trusty Lyman and then I think manager re

[2:56:08] trusty L. Did you have your hand up?

[2:56:10] » Yeah. Thank you for listening to us on

[2:56:12] the on the Uncle Sam Jam thing. I can't

[2:56:14] tell you how much I appreciate that. But

[2:56:16] I do have a question about who came up

[2:56:17] with the name.

[2:56:19] » Okay. So, I'm gonna

[2:56:20] » I'm gonna cop to this.

[2:56:23] » Courtney Nicholls uh told us about

[2:56:26] another community and that's what they

[2:56:28] named it and we added Family Fest on the

[2:56:30] end. So, it's not particularly ours, but

[2:56:33] it's really cool. We like it.

[2:56:36] » Great job. Thank you.

[2:56:37] » Yeah, you guys rocked on that. Manager

[2:56:39] Reed, did you have something you want to

[2:56:40] add? I just wanted to add on and thanks

[2:56:44] to Mary and Marcus and thanks to the

[2:56:46] board for indulging this conversation

[2:56:49] because it is a little bit

[2:56:51] nerve-wracking when we get into some uh

[2:56:53] budget discussions, but I just credit to

[2:56:56] the folks who put on our events because

[2:56:58] the planning really does start in the

[2:57:00] summer previous so and now layering on

[2:57:04] all the fundraising efforts and trying

[2:57:07] to book bands and and and music and that

[2:57:10] type of thing. So, it is kind of

[2:57:13] important to get it in front of you and

[2:57:15] and start making those decisions for

[2:57:17] next year, which is why um I'm uh

[2:57:22] thankful that they were able to pull

[2:57:23] this together in short notice to to

[2:57:26] bring it back in front of the board and

[2:57:28] kind of react to some of the things we

[2:57:30] were hearing from from all of you.

[2:57:33] » Thank you.

[2:57:34] » Well, and I'm thrilled about it. Um, you

[2:57:36] guys probably had smoke coming out of

[2:57:38] your ears from board members going,

[2:57:40] "We've got to bring a family event back.

[2:57:43] We need it. We need it. We need it." Um,

[2:57:45] this is what the community wants. They

[2:57:47] wanted it. We heard them a lot. We heard

[2:57:50] them often. Um, and um, you could just

[2:57:53] never have enough of the family events.

[2:57:55] if we can make it affordable, if we can

[2:57:56] make it doable, we can get the

[2:57:58] sponsorships. Um, and I like that you

[2:58:01] were thinking about not on a holiday per

[2:58:03] se where it's an extra added cost and

[2:58:06] where we don't need as much security

[2:58:09] because safety is the number one reason

[2:58:11] for us that we want to make sure that we

[2:58:13] have the protection for all of the

[2:58:14] community members. So, um, thank you,

[2:58:17] Mary, for what you did last year because

[2:58:19] you rocked it out. I know that's going

[2:58:20] to happen this year. And I want to say

[2:58:22] thank you to whoever it was that got her

[2:58:25] in a picture

[2:58:29] » A former

[2:58:33] » Caught me on pictures. She does not take

[2:58:36] pictures. So when I saw that who did

[2:58:39] that? Uh but thank you thank you so much

[2:58:42] to to everyone involved for the great

[2:58:44] minds that are putting this together as

[2:58:46] we continue to certainly look at ways to

[2:58:49] to be budget conscious. Um yet the

[2:58:52] services matter and so if we can do two

[2:58:55] things at one time I think that's pretty

[2:58:57] special.

[2:58:59] » Awesome. Thank you.

[2:59:00] » Any other comments?

[2:59:01] » Thank you. Great job.

[2:59:04] Okay, we are now on to the 2027 budget

[2:59:09] discussion continued. So, I'm going to

[2:59:12] turn that over to manager Reed. And this

[2:59:14] is really an opportunity that um if

[2:59:17] there's additional ideas or we're

[2:59:19] working our way towards approving a

[2:59:22] budget. So, this is a pathway to get

[2:59:24] there. So if there are some measurements

[2:59:26] or ideas or things you want the board to

[2:59:30] I hate to use the word direct but advise

[2:59:33] administration to go and explore it.

[2:59:36] This is where that happens. It doesn't

[2:59:37] happen outside of the board table. So if

[2:59:40] there's anything and I'll have manager

[2:59:42] Reed speak first uh but if there's

[2:59:44] anything that you want explored it has

[2:59:46] to come move from the body of the board.

[2:59:50] Okay.

[2:59:51] So last board meeting we gave our uh

[2:59:55] proposed budget presentation. Uh finance

[2:59:58] director Nichols

[3:00:00] um did a very nice job with that. Um and

[3:00:04] uh I know we had a very long agenda for

[3:00:06] tonight, but uh with Supervisor Brewer's

[3:00:10] leadership wanted to at least leave a

[3:00:12] place marker on for if anyone wanted to

[3:00:15] have some further discussion or had

[3:00:17] questions on budget. Um, of course we

[3:00:20] have our uh public hearing for the

[3:00:23] special our public safety assessment on

[3:00:25] October 5th. Tonight we just set the

[3:00:28] budget public hearing uh later in

[3:00:30] October. Um, so this is really was just

[3:00:33] a placeholder. We don't have anything um

[3:00:37] particular to present but wanted to

[3:00:39] offer opportunity for any additional

[3:00:42] questions.

[3:00:44] » Finish your statement. Thank you. I was

[3:00:48] just going to mention and and Courtney's

[3:00:50] here uh also if there there are

[3:00:52] questions.

[3:00:54] » Yeah, in this room. Oh, there she is.

[3:00:58] » Um yes, please.

[3:00:59] » Okay. Um yeah, just wanted to take this

[3:01:05] opportunity to ask you and staff to kind

[3:01:09] of look at um and and I know these two

[3:01:13] things are kind of going in tandem. We

[3:01:16] have the uh the public hearing scheduled

[3:01:19] on the special assessment.

[3:01:21] Um and that ties in with our budget.

[3:01:25] It's a component of our budget, the

[3:01:27] revenue from that special assessment. Um

[3:01:30] but you know we all understood the very

[3:01:33] challenging position the township was in

[3:01:36] um after you know having to negotiate a

[3:01:39] new contract and then with the cost and

[3:01:41] having to pay for a new contract and

[3:01:45] really had limited options with that.

[3:01:48] Um, one of those presented was um, and

[3:01:51] and really what ended up being in my

[3:01:54] opinion kind of the only viable option

[3:01:56] we had for the shortfall in funding was

[3:01:59] a special assessment. And we had the

[3:02:02] opportunity, you know, I think part of

[3:02:04] the appeal was the opportunity every

[3:02:07] year to evaluate in the context of our

[3:02:10] budget whether or not what amount was

[3:02:13] needed and um you know whether or not

[3:02:17] that should be adjusted in any way. Um

[3:02:21] and so I would just ask that we look at

[3:02:24] that. Um, you know, I I've mentioned

[3:02:28] before and we'll mention again, we have

[3:02:31] a significant number in our community

[3:02:33] that are really struggling. Um, and

[3:02:36] realize a lot of these costs aren't

[3:02:39] anything that we can control as a

[3:02:42] township, whether it's gas prices,

[3:02:43] grocery prices, energy costs, lots of

[3:02:47] factors. Um, but there are a number of

[3:02:51] households that are really challenged,

[3:02:52] folks that are, you know, dealing with

[3:02:54] the bank drain assessment. They're just

[3:02:56] struggling and and many on fixed

[3:02:58] incomes, but not exclusively by any

[3:03:01] means. And um

[3:03:05] again knowing I I realize there's

[3:03:09] probably not the ability there I know

[3:03:11] there's not the ability to eliminate our

[3:03:13] assess that special assessment but I

[3:03:16] think we need to do a really honest

[3:03:19] evaluation and see if we

[3:03:22] um have the capacity to reduce that and

[3:03:25] take some of that burden off our

[3:03:26] residents. And I I I think it's an

[3:03:30] obligation we have as a board each year

[3:03:32] to genuinely look at that and see how,

[3:03:37] you know, um

[3:03:40] just just make that true assessment of

[3:03:42] what's needed. we did that the first

[3:03:44] year last year and and I I would like to

[3:03:48] see

[3:03:50] um that assessment and hopefully you

[3:03:53] know there's an opportunity where we can

[3:03:55] ease that burden some with a reduction.

[3:03:58] So um I just put that out there. I do

[3:04:01] feel it's a critical component of you

[3:04:03] know we've got these two pieces moving

[3:04:06] in tandem and so I just put that out

[3:04:09] there as a request. Well, how would you

[3:04:12] like that to look? So, the budget's

[3:04:15] balanced right now. So, if we do that,

[3:04:17] we would come back with like a cut. So,

[3:04:20] we had listed all the things we didn't

[3:04:23] include in the budget. So, I guess I'm

[3:04:25] not sure

[3:04:27] how want that to look. Just like

[3:04:30] suggestions, maybe a list of like

[3:04:32] suggestions for cuts and and to what

[3:04:35] level would you want to see them like?

[3:04:37] Cuz I think we're at 2.8 8 million that

[3:04:39] the assessment brings in at the 1.5

[3:04:42] level. So I think every 0.25 we lower

[3:04:46] it's about $500,000.

[3:04:49] Yeah. If helpful, I'm happy to offer

[3:04:53] components in the budget that I

[3:04:55] personally um don't, you know, view as

[3:04:59] under consideration to offset um what a

[3:05:03] cost

[3:05:04] pardon

[3:05:05] » That you don't feel

[3:05:06] » That I would offer as for consideration

[3:05:10] to offset the cost. Yeah. And I'm saying

[3:05:12] that's my personal opinion. Others may

[3:05:14] have different opinions, but just I'm

[3:05:16] offered to happy to offer suggestions on

[3:05:19] where we could offset that in the budget

[3:05:21] if you would like that. So,

[3:05:23] » And if you please do it here if you're

[3:05:25] going to do

[3:05:27] » You know do it publicly if you have

[3:05:29] ideas. This is the conversation you want

[3:05:32] to do it

[3:05:33] » Right now to do it. I mean, is that

[3:05:36] something that you'd want to do like on

[3:05:37] the 5th or

[3:05:39] » Yeah. And

[3:05:41] um sure.

[3:05:44] » Yeah, that's all I would ask is let's do

[3:05:46] this in the open.

[3:05:48] » Could that be something perhaps that's

[3:05:50] like prepared for the packet?

[3:05:52] » You know, like maybe you could do like a

[3:05:54] memo that we could just include in the

[3:05:56] packet for part of the budget

[3:05:57] discussion. I mean, we haven't done that

[3:05:59] before, but I mean, that might be

[3:06:00] helpful because then we could all see it

[3:06:01] ahead of time.

[3:06:02] » Yeah, everybody needs to see everything.

[3:06:04] I think we we've always operated that

[3:06:06] way and I want

[3:06:07] » Continue to me just then I could look at

[3:06:09] it

[3:06:10] » Person that can direct administration to

[3:06:12] make an amendment or change. So if

[3:06:14] there's information that you would like

[3:06:16] considered all I ask is that we bring it

[3:06:18] to the board table

[3:06:19] » And if I can get it, you know, then I

[3:06:20] can look at it and see if there's

[3:06:23] » Yeah. And Courtney, I would just offer

[3:06:25] to maybe there's some time you and I can

[3:06:27] just sit down, find some time just I can

[3:06:30] identify some things, get your feedback,

[3:06:32] and then we can put in a memo for the

[3:06:34] board to have a broader discussion.

[3:06:37] » Yeah, I don't know.

[3:06:40] » Um, just to talk through. I mean, there

[3:06:42] may be nuances that I'm not aware of.

[3:06:44] So, I don't know.

[3:06:45] » That's why I was thinking

[3:06:48] I um I mean, I think that would be

[3:06:51] helpful. Well, I think we just have to

[3:06:53] be cognizant of the

[3:06:56] the position it to put staff in. If we

[3:06:58] have seven people offering that up, I

[3:07:04] mean, I don't mind hearing feedback and

[3:07:06] then as staff bringing some

[3:07:08] recommendations.

[3:07:11] » Um, always happy to sit down and answer

[3:07:13] questions. I I just I'm I'm just a

[3:07:16] little bit worried if everybody's going

[3:07:18] to be taking a axe to the budget and

[3:07:21] then having us left to try to

[3:07:24] » Piece together our services.

[3:07:26] » I see that happen. And that's why I said

[3:07:28] if there's any suggestions or

[3:07:30] recommendations for consideration, even

[3:07:32] if they're not flushed out,

[3:07:34] » Bring them here. Let's have an open

[3:07:37] discussion, a conversation, because it

[3:07:39] does put them on the spot a little bit.

[3:07:41] So, I don't want that to happen. I'd

[3:07:43] rather us talk about it and if the board

[3:07:46] is feeling like, yeah, that's that's

[3:07:48] really cool. I want to see I want to do

[3:07:50] that. But there's nothing to stop. Any

[3:07:51] board member can certainly have a

[3:07:53] conversation like I don't know about

[3:07:55] this. And so sometimes you need more

[3:07:57] information before you want to present

[3:08:00] an idea. I'm good with that, too. I just

[3:08:02] don't want to put these two on the line

[3:08:06] to um

[3:08:07] » I can do most of this off the top of my

[3:08:09] head. So I'm not inside out. So you can

[3:08:15] bring it on. I'm good. Don't don't be

[3:08:18] worried about that.

[3:08:20] » Worry about if you

[3:08:22] » I cannot do it off the top of my head.

[3:08:25] » That wasn't trying to complicate things.

[3:08:27] I just thought rather than show up on

[3:08:30] October 5th with a list of things I

[3:08:33] think work and then find out, well, this

[3:08:35] one might, this one might not, having a

[3:08:37] more conversation

[3:08:40] » If they have that time. But that's the

[3:08:42] that's the purpose of having this appear

[3:08:44] on our agenda multiple times. So it

[3:08:46] gives you a chance to think out loud and

[3:08:48] say, you know, I know how could we do

[3:08:50] this? Um and she's going to tell you

[3:08:52] where that what happens with that

[3:08:53] balloon.

[3:08:55] » Well, I can just bring it up on October

[3:08:57] 5th if that's preferred.

[3:08:58] » Sure.

[3:08:59] » Okay.

[3:09:01] » I

[3:09:03] Yeah, I'm

[3:09:06] I guess I'm stuck. I I hate to be

[3:09:08] reacting on the spot on October 5th to a

[3:09:11] bunch of things, but at the same time,

[3:09:14] uh, you know, multiple board members

[3:09:18] come to us saying, I I don't like this

[3:09:20] in the budget.

[3:09:23] Uh, I, you know, I don't know how to I I

[3:09:26] mean, like I said, I guess in some ways

[3:09:28] we could help try to flush all that out

[3:09:31] and bring some recommendations and have

[3:09:33] them all listed for discussion. I I

[3:09:36] don't know what you kind of prefer,

[3:09:38] Courtney.

[3:09:39] » I mean, I guess I if I can have them

[3:09:41] ahead of time, I'd rather have them

[3:09:42] ahead of time, like either for the

[3:09:44] packet or for discussion. Like I said,

[3:09:46] it's not really up to like I can do it

[3:09:47] anyway that you guys want, but

[3:09:50] » Obviously I know it's important to have

[3:09:52] it in the public.

[3:09:54] » Yes.

[3:09:54] » But I mean, if it's something that's

[3:09:56] impossible, you know, like it's not like

[3:09:57] you're going to be like, "Oh, don't make

[3:09:58] your bond payment." I mean, obviously,

[3:10:00] you know,

[3:10:01] » So I'm not too worried that it wouldn't

[3:10:03] be something,

[3:10:04] » But it's also like, oh, don't cut

[3:10:05] funding here because we've got a match

[3:10:08] for a grant that we've got to make. You

[3:10:10] know what I mean? It's like it could be

[3:10:12] a variety of things that I don't know

[3:10:14] all the nuances. So, I don't

[3:10:17] » Conversation and then if it's something

[3:10:19] because I mean, obviously, I'm not going

[3:10:20] to take action to actually cut it based

[3:10:21] on that. So, it could be, you know,

[3:10:25] » Questions and then that could lead to

[3:10:26] what you actually bring back. But if it

[3:10:29] could go in the packet just so that we

[3:10:30] had it ahead of time, that would be

[3:10:32] optimal. Okay. As far as anything you

[3:10:33] want, that might actually be a cut you

[3:10:36] want everyone to make because that's

[3:10:38] where it's going to have to be everyone,

[3:10:39] right?

[3:10:40] » Sure.

[3:10:42] » Anything treasure?

[3:10:43] » A question. Um but you

[3:10:46] um you said the two are tied together

[3:10:49] and they are but um

[3:10:53] I mean we you cut the budget

[3:10:56] uh but we can still levy you know the

[3:10:58] millillage that's been recommended by

[3:11:00] staff

[3:11:02] um and it offsets to some degree. So I

[3:11:05] guess I'm a little confused on how you

[3:11:08] are thinking how we tie that together

[3:11:12] and then cut the budget cuz you know we

[3:11:15] can do two independently actually we can

[3:11:17] reduce the millage which cuts the budget

[3:11:20] or we can just cut the bullet budget and

[3:11:23] it has the same effect.

[3:11:26] Yeah, if I may respond, um, Treasurer

[3:11:29] Fidawa, I was envisioning a reduction in

[3:11:32] the special assessment, which would lead

[3:11:35] to a reduction in revenues for the

[3:11:38] township, which means there needs to be

[3:11:40] compensating adjustments to the budget.

[3:11:46] » Any other budget comments?

[3:11:50] Trusty Bowling.

[3:11:51] » I believe that Courtney is our finance

[3:11:53] director and our directors who work

[3:11:55] every single day with their staff and

[3:11:57] the programs that they know what they

[3:12:00] can do and what they need to do it. And

[3:12:02] I trust that they have gone through this

[3:12:04] budget. I have looked through this

[3:12:06] budget and I am comfortable with it the

[3:12:08] way it is. I'm also comfortable with the

[3:12:09] assessment the way it is because we are

[3:12:12] not the ones who set the price for our

[3:12:14] deputies. The county sets that price and

[3:12:16] we have to pay it so that we can have

[3:12:19] our deputies.

[3:12:25] » Any other comments?

[3:12:28] » Josh, go Josh first and then treasure.

[3:12:31] » Yeah.

[3:12:31] » Well, I just want to thank Brian and and

[3:12:33] Courtney. I sent them a small laundry

[3:12:35] list that fortunately they alleviated my

[3:12:38] concerns on kind of majority of it. The

[3:12:40] only thing I really wanted to to bring

[3:12:42] up publicly before it does actually get

[3:12:43] brought up is the uh discussion around

[3:12:46] board compensation. I know that we have

[3:12:47] to do a resolution

[3:12:49] um that staff prepares every year to

[3:12:51] give the board raises and I just want to

[3:12:53] say now that I don't support that at all

[3:12:55] and I'm just hoping that we don't bring

[3:12:56] that up.

[3:12:59] » Say that again. You don't support

[3:13:01] » I don't support us bringing it up.

[3:13:03] » Oh, you don't support us bringing it up?

[3:13:04] Okay. Okay. Got that. Treasurer Fidawa.

[3:13:10] » Okay. Clarification. Trustee Wyman. You

[3:13:13] don't support bringing up the issue of

[3:13:16] board compensation in the budget. Is

[3:13:19] that what you're stating as a matter of

[3:13:22] » Understanding? I don't want the

[3:13:23] resolution brought up like we did last

[3:13:25] year. We didn't bring out the cost of

[3:13:27] living resolution.

[3:13:30] » Okay. Okay. I understand. Okay. Uh so

[3:13:32] that ties in with my question. You know,

[3:13:34] is is a cost of living

[3:13:37] increase for board members build into

[3:13:39] the budget?

[3:13:39] » It is.

[3:13:40] » Oh, yeah. Because it's the policy that

[3:13:42] it included.

[3:13:43] » You would have to take action, a

[3:13:44] separate action on the salary, but just

[3:13:47] not include like you did last year.

[3:13:48] » Right. Right.

[3:13:50] » Um the other question I have is, and you

[3:13:52] alluded to it, manager Reed, is uh the

[3:13:55] CIA adopted their budget, but could you

[3:13:58] elaborate on what they did? I don't I

[3:14:00] don't see it here. Is it

[3:14:02] » I think it's a page kind of short buried

[3:14:06] in there. It should be towards the end.

[3:14:08] » What I'm curious as to what

[3:14:10] » We didn't change it drastically from

[3:14:12] last year. So they basically have it's

[3:14:14] four categories. Their administration

[3:14:16] fee which is set by their policy. They

[3:14:18] have some corridor maintenance. I don't

[3:14:21] think they've determined how they're

[3:14:22] going to use it. Legal fees and

[3:14:23] professional services. They did enter

[3:14:26] into a contract with Verness to do some

[3:14:28] work on the entryway signage. you know,

[3:14:30] they just paid the board to do the study

[3:14:32] on the

[3:14:33] » Power line burying. So, but their budget

[3:14:36] stayed the same between the two years.

[3:14:38] » Okay.

[3:14:38] » We will likely see a reduction in

[3:14:40] revenue with them because of the county

[3:14:42] millages coming off

[3:14:43] » That we'll have some if the road

[3:14:45] millage, for example, fails. That would

[3:14:47] be a notable hit, you know, because it's

[3:14:50] it's less capture.

[3:14:52] » But their budget was basically the same

[3:14:54] as last year proposed and they haven't

[3:14:56] really spent much this year. No, I just

[3:14:58] wondering if they're going to do any new

[3:15:00] expenditures as far as um any

[3:15:02] consultants or anything like that.

[3:15:03] » Yeah,

[3:15:05] » We did a a traffic consultant uh because

[3:15:08] we have some upcoming uh or development

[3:15:10] proposals there and uh as Courtney

[3:15:12] mentioned a a small contract with

[3:15:15] Verness to look at signage, entryway

[3:15:18] signage at the interchange. Um that was

[3:15:22] roughly eight or nine,000.

[3:15:24] » Okay. Okay. It's projected at the end of

[3:15:27] um

[3:15:29] 2027 that they'll have about a million

[3:15:31] dollars in fund balance,

[3:15:33] » Right?

[3:15:34] » Uh which we are we did receive 30%

[3:15:40] design plans for the Boulevard project.

[3:15:44] So there are going to be some potential

[3:15:46] matching funds on that project um for

[3:15:50] either non-motorized

[3:15:53] lighting those type uh uh pedestrian

[3:15:56] » Will we charge any administration fees

[3:15:58] while I'm

[3:16:01] » Potentially

[3:16:03] right

[3:16:04] » All right well thank you I was curious

[3:16:06] on that

[3:16:06] » Any other comments for the budget

[3:16:08] discussion for so we will discuss it at

[3:16:12] the October 5th meeting.

[3:16:14] » Thank you, Courtney. Thank you. At this

[3:16:17] time, are there any public comments?

[3:16:19] Anyone would like to come and address

[3:16:20] the board?

[3:16:22] » Public comment. No public comment. Not

[3:16:26] seeing any.

Untitled meeting

Transcript