[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.