[0:00] Going to start with the pledge of >> allegiance

[0:05] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it

[0:10] stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[0:18] » May I please ask for a roll call? >> Supervisor Riley

[0:21] » present. >> Clerk Enzaldi

[0:22] » present. Treasure Epicanin >> present.

[0:24] » Trusty Erada Thompson >> present.

[0:25] » Trusty Jeffford >> present.

[0:26] » Trusty Brabe. Trusty Kurami >> present. Madam supervisor, you have six

[0:30] members present. >> Thank you. We do have quorum. I ask for

[0:33] a motion for an approval of our agenda. >> Madam Chair, I move to approve the

[0:37] agenda for September 9th, 2026. >> Second.

[0:41] » Okay. Any discussion? >> Okay. All in favor?

[0:44] » I opposed. All right. The agenda is approved for this evening. I'm going to

[0:49] go ahead and open it up for public comment. Any person may come forward at

[0:52] this time to address the board. Anyone who wishes to speak is requested but not

[0:55] required to state his or her name for the an address for the record. um you'll

[0:59] have five minutes to speak and then the board um may choose to respond

[1:03] afterwards. If you do, we're asking that if you do have something for the public

[1:07] hearing in regards to the data center that you wait for the um the public

[1:10] hearing that will be next after this.

[1:16] » Good evening. >> How do I do this? Just stand here and

[1:19] talk. Okay. >> Good evening.

[1:22] » And um my name is Norma Smith Cost. I'm I'm a dinosaur, but I'm not dead. Okay.

[1:28] And one of the things I want to please ask you to remember is that there's a

[1:32] lot of senior citizens that live in the Harwood subdivision that do not have

[1:35] computers and do not have smartphones. Now, that ain't me. I got a computer,

[1:41] but they did not know about this meeting because they're uninformed. So, I would

[1:46] like to please ask you when you put out this wonderful thing,

[1:52] include something that's real important like this meeting.

[1:56] please, because we can read, but we and I can't tell you how sad it is that some

[2:02] of the people in my subdivision don't know what's going on because they don't

[2:06] live in the digital world. And and I kind of don't either, but could you

[2:11] please consider the people that, you know, are like me that still read

[2:16] newspapers? And unfortunately, the Ann Arbor News has just said, "Oh, we are

[2:20] not putting any printed versions out anymore starting in December." So I

[2:24] said, "Okay, fine. I'm not buying your No more because I'm not going to sit in

[2:28] front of a laptop and read the thing. So, the Ann Arbor News has pushed senior

[2:34] citizens to the curb. Please don't please don't push the seniors to the

[2:39] curb. We We like newspapers and we'd like to get this wonderful Pittsfield

[2:45] notification of what's going on in this wonderful township.

[2:49] Please help us inform the seniors who are, you know, like a little more dense

[2:54] than me. Okay? and um let us all participate because we all pay taxes and

[3:01] we care about each other. Ann Arbor News doesn't care about us, but you must

[3:07] because I do. And I was 43 years full-time employed at the university,

[3:12] not the University of Michigan, but as I did work there 15 years. Midnights. Oh

[3:16] my god. But anyway, I'm a medical technologist. I care about everybody. I

[3:22] want everybody to have the best health possible, but they got to be informed.

[3:28] You can't be informed if you're not in the digital world all the time. So,

[3:32] please, please consider helping the seniors

[3:35] who don't have access to digital because it's their choice.

[3:39] Please help the senior citizens being involved in this community. Thank you

[3:44] for your kindness and thank you for everything you do. And I always vote.

[3:48] Have never missed an election in my whole life. Thank you for your kindness.

[3:52] » Thank you.

[3:59] » Good evening. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Althia

[4:02] Battles and I am running for Washington County Probate Judge and I just wanted

[4:07] to um approach the council um to introduce myself and to introduce

[4:14] myself to the citizens of Pittsville Township if that's okay. So my name is

[4:18] Althia Battles. I am currently associate general counsel and a clinical social

[4:22] worker at the University of Michigan and I have been uh in this role for I've

[4:27] worked at the University of Michigan for over 35 years mostly as a clinical

[4:31] social worker then as an attorney and I am now uh seeking the office of probate

[4:35] judge. I've been doing probate work and and assisting with probate matters on

[4:40] behalf of Michigan Medicine for some of our most vulnerable citizens now for

[4:43] over 10 years and I would love to continue to do that work. The probate

[4:48] court is going to handle guardianships, conservatorships, deceived estates, uh

[4:52] living wills and trusts, and some mental health cases. Usually, these cases

[4:56] involve the most vulnerable in our community, those who um suffer from some

[5:00] kind of either neurokcognitive disorder or some kind of a um like maybe a head

[5:05] injury or who have developmental disabilities that require the assistance

[5:09] of a guardian. There are what I'd like for people to know is that there are a

[5:13] couple of new laws that have just been passed that were passed in July that are

[5:16] going to really impact this seat and the people of uh of county should know about

[5:21] those. They will involve uh whether or not a guardian can sell a person's

[5:26] property and whether or not a guardian can remove a person from their residence

[5:30] and relocate them. Those are things that are now going to have to go before the

[5:34] probate judge. So that's going to create more work and it requires more knowledge

[5:38] and experience to be able to do that and that is what I have. I have uh 10 years

[5:43] of probate law experience and I have been recognized as a national expert by

[5:51] um institutions and agencies like the department of justice, the um most a lot

[5:56] of uh national academic centers like Duke and um the New England Journal of

[6:02] Medicine when they need to have a manuscript review that has to do with

[6:06] probate law. They call me and asked me to do that. And so I think that that's

[6:10] the kind of person that we would want representing our our our citizens and

[6:14] residents in county. And so I would love to have the support of the people of

[6:19] Pittsville Township as well as county. And thank you for your time.

[6:25] » Thank you. >> Thank you for your service.

[6:38] Christina Luronus 151 East Textile Road and um I'm glad to see our probate court

[6:43] candidate here. There's there's more than one, but um it's it's such a

[6:48] crucial role. My daughter is intellectually disabled and um you know

[6:53] the elderly often come in contact with the probate court. So it's it is a

[6:57] crucial position. Um, I want I just wanted to say that I'm glad that we're

[7:02] doing a data center ordinance. I think this is what first reading tonight. Um,

[7:06] and I know that there's a public hearing later, but good good that we're doing

[7:11] that. And I think that it went through a lot of uh vetting through the different

[7:16] attorneys that worked on this. And I'm glad we uh engaged outside counsel on

[7:20] top of our typical council for this. So, that was important. Um, I want to say

[7:24] that I'm 100% opposed to the TIFF, the tax increment finance, the corridor,

[7:30] it's also known as the corridor improvement authority. I think it's a

[7:33] huge mistake. I think it should not be done. It's taking scraping money off of

[7:39] our general fund, our parks, our public safety millages, and putting it into a

[7:43] sequestered account to be used at a much later date so that we don't have access

[7:48] to those funds should we need them. I think it's just an enormous error to do

[7:53] this. It was done, it was attempted in the previous administration and then as

[7:59] it collected very little money, it was uh just refunded to the various taxing

[8:04] authorities that participated except for Pittsfield which picked up the tab for

[8:08] all the legal, the publications, all of the costs that went into it, the

[8:12] different plans, the consultants were all paid on this. So, it's just a a bad

[8:18] way to go to take our own money and to peel it off of special voted millages

[8:24] that otherwise could never be touched for anything other than what the voters

[8:30] expected them to be used for. Those are those are special millages that cannot

[8:35] be used for any other purpose. And with a tiff or a corridor improvement

[8:38] authority, we're able to touch those and draw them down for a different purpose.

[8:45] It's there's no question that state road needs work. I don't think anybody doubts

[8:49] that. So do plat Washington a you know I don't think there's a road in this

[8:54] township that doesn't need additional work. But I think that there's a

[8:57] different way to approach financing. When the Walmart was built, we

[9:01] negotiated 500, no, I'm sorry, $5 million worth of improvements that they

[9:07] paid for out of pocket. When developers want to come here, they need to pay.

[9:12] This is an extremely desirable community for developers to locate in. We should

[9:17] not be footing the bill for improvements that they are requiring. And in fact,

[9:21] many of the developers on State Road have paid to both put in center turn

[9:26] lane, additional lanes each time a development goes in. They have been

[9:30] improving state road. Um it's true that there's uh backups at the freeway

[9:36] entrances at 94, but that's Ann Arbor. There's I think some confusion about

[9:41] where Ann Arbor's jurisdiction ends and Pittsfield's begins. Pittsfield should

[9:45] not be doing this. This is a mistake. I'm sorry that it's being proposed and

[9:50] I'm sorry that it's probably going to happen tonight. I think it's a mistake

[9:53] and I'll continue to let the public know about it. Um, I think the tax rate that

[9:59] you're proposing is far too high. The total millage rate is 8.53.

[10:04] When I served in office from 2000 to 2008, it was always below six mills. We

[10:10] had lowered it to 5.95 mills early on and cons continued that all the way

[10:15] through our administration 5.95 mills. And this is the total tax rate including

[10:20] the two special voted millages. And it we lowered it again to 5.45. four

[10:26] or five mills. I could see that there might have been a need for some

[10:30] incremental increase, but this over the years almost each and every year we're

[10:34] hitting we're getting hit with higher and higher and higher millage rates in

[10:37] this township to the point where it's up to 8.53

[10:41] this time around. 8.53 miller

[10:47] taxable value are really going to get hurt by this. There is a point where

[10:51] you're hurting people by the amount that you're taxing them. you are hurting

[10:55] them. You need to cut back. You need to figure out a way to cut back and live

[10:59] within a more reasonable budget. Um, I understand that a lot of it's got to do

[11:05] with the special voted public safety mill. We needed a new building. Then we

[11:09] better be looking at an end date for when that's going to drop back down

[11:12] again once that building's paid off. Um, and then for the the lady that spoke

[11:17] earlier, perhaps we could publish in the Sun Times, that's the one paper paper

[11:22] that's still around here that A lot of the municipalities publish their legal

[11:26] notices in the Sun Times and I know that they distribute in Seline. Perhaps they

[11:30] could be encouraged to distribute in Fitzville Township as well. Thank you.

[11:35] » Thank you. >> Is there anyone else who'd like to speak

[11:39] during the public comment?

[11:43] Um is there any response they would like to make?

[11:48] But definitely um noted about u making sure that we reach our seniors and

[11:52] mailing things out. Um so seeing none then we will

[11:58] » well I I would just like to make you know

[12:02] as as the lady was speaking about how some people are not technologically

[12:08] advanced and some people do not have um access to uh what's going on. I don't

[12:16] know that um If anybody's ever suggested like maybe we maintain a list if you are

[12:22] if you are don't have technology and you want a physical paper copy. I don't

[12:28] know. It's just something to think about for future like if you want to be on

[12:32] this list where you get paper but it I would have to say on be half of the

[12:37] board it is kind of hard to know what to publish or what to let the public know

[12:41] and what interest they're going to have. We do a lot of things at this township.

[12:47] I feel like of course every single thing that we do is very very important and if

[12:51] I could I would send everybody a daily reminder of all the good work that we're

[12:56] doing. Um the data center is you know there has been a lot of issues

[13:01] concerning the data center and so I know it is important to a lot of people um

[13:08] you know and sometimes people do have to depend on their good neighbors of course

[13:12] to keep them well informed. So just just a few thoughts.

[13:17] » Yeah. And we do have a senior center that actually does do a lot of mailings

[13:20] and things. So that's an option too is to become part of the senior center and

[13:25] they going there they help you sign up for things and help you do things. So

[13:28] that's also an option. I just want to be clear too that there's no data center.

[13:31] It's an ordinance. Um and I know that you didn't mean that but I just want to

[13:35] make sure that doesn't not approach by a data center. There's no data center um

[13:39] that came to us. This is all preventative. Um, so I want to make sure

[13:43] I'm I'm clear on that part. Okay. Um, and then we will go over the

[13:48] budget um, in detail as we go to the working session later. So that will

[13:51] address a lot of the issues that um, was spoken about as well.

[13:55] » All right. Um, I would like to actually make a friendly amendment uh to the

[14:02] » We actually have to have a motion. >> I have a motion to approve the agenda to

[14:06] to approve the minutes. Madam Chair, I move to approve the minutes of the

[14:09] regular meeting held on August 12th, 2026.

[14:13] » Second. >> Okay. And now we make a a friendly

[14:15] amendment. Um if we could strike out in section 9.4 of the minutes where it says

[14:21] uh remove reimburse some of the purchases and replace it with see if we

[14:26] can reimburse ourselves or use money elsewhere.

[14:31] » I accept the friendly amendment. And uh does he mean second the friendly

[14:35] amendment? Okay. Any other changes or additions,

[14:39] questions? All in favor? >> I opposed. All right. The minutes are

[14:44] approved as amended.

[14:49] » Oh. Oh, yeah. Here it is. >> Sorry.

[14:52] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[14:53] » All right. Um, moving on, we will go ahead and on to the, um, public hearing.

[15:00] We'll start with the public hearing for ZOA number 26 uh 236

[15:06] data center ordinance. Um I'm going to go ahead and call it to order at 6:45.

[15:12] And first I'm going to ask our uh towers planner Ben Carile to come up and just

[15:17] give a little information uh overview um about the ordinance and why we're doing

[15:22] it for both the first public hearing and second public hearing. And want to make

[15:25] sure everybody knows this is a first public hearing. There will also be a

[15:29] second public hearing. So your your concerns and your um uh suggestions of

[15:34] the evening are are not too late. We have time to incorporate and then bring

[15:38] them back as well. So um I will pass it pass it over to our planner, Ben

[15:42] Carlilele. >> Thank you. Uh good evening to the

[15:44] township board. Good evening to the residents. Um,

[15:48] I normally don't do this when I come and present to you a little more off the

[15:51] cuff, but I'm going to actually kind of read from a prepared statement that that

[15:54] we had put together as part of the planning commission discussion. Um, so I

[15:59] apologize uh, Commissioner Jaff. This is probably the third or fourth time you've

[16:02] heard this, but I think it's important just to give a background to where we've

[16:06] been and to where we are tonight. Um, but I'm here to address uh the ordinance

[16:12] regulations regarding um high resource demand facilities, which also includes

[16:16] the issues of data centers and data processing centers. Um, I just want to

[16:20] remind the the township board uh as well as the public that's listening that we

[16:24] have not received an application for a data center. Um, nor have we received a

[16:29] phone call or an inquiry for a data center. Um, as my role as a township

[16:33] planner, I'm usually the first in line for when requests like that come in. And

[16:37] I can relate to you that we not received one inquiry with regards to having data

[16:41] center. Um, but what we're doing is trying to get ahead of the issue.

[16:44] Obviously, this is this is a hot button issue. We've seen it affected many of

[16:47] our other uh adjacent communities. Um, but we're trying to get ahead of the

[16:50] issue in case one does get applied here in Pittsfield that we are well

[16:53] protected. Um, as um, Miss Loronis did note, this was a very much of a group

[17:00] effort. There were a number of staff with various expertise that were

[17:04] participated in the drafting of this ordinance. was not uh a oneperson show.

[17:08] Um in addition, this did get reviewed by three different municipal attorneys uh

[17:13] with their input as well and they think this is as legally defensible an

[17:17] ordinance that we can put together uh to protect to best protect the township. Um

[17:21] obviously data centers are an emerging land use. They have very significant

[17:25] impacts to communities. They involve large buildings, continuous operation,

[17:30] major electrical demands, including water and cooling needs, backup

[17:34] generator, noise, security infrastructure, and long-term questions

[17:37] about site restoration. Um, one of the requests that we received not only in

[17:42] Pittsville, but a lot of the other companies we work in is why can't we

[17:44] just simply ban them uh outright, just simply not allow them? Um while that's

[17:49] an understandable reaction to the current climate of what uh the data

[17:53] centers are being received um zoning authority has legal limits. We simply

[17:57] just cannot ban a use that is a permitted legal use. Um

[18:04] and we can't reg we can't write regulations that are so strict to

[18:07] basically ban them outright. So we have to craft an ordinance that is legally

[18:11] defensible but yet best protects the township from any sort of issue that may

[18:16] come come about. Um, we did that. We think we did that.

[18:21] We think we wrote an ordinance that is as legally defensible but also as strict

[18:26] as possible to regulate the various issues that may arise. I do also want to

[18:31] note that um this is a emerging topic. Uh it's one that's changing literally

[18:36] daily right now with how it's going. The other thing I want to note, and the

[18:40] township attorney would would I think back me up um if we if we if she was

[18:44] here, is that there's no case loss yet set for this use either. So, it may

[18:49] change how we regulate once case laws established. So, this is a great first

[18:54] draft that's coming out, a great first uh ordinance that the town should adopt.

[18:58] That doesn't mean that we can't continue to look at this issue and revise it and

[19:02] amend it as other issues and topics emerge because it will emerge just based

[19:07] on how things are going right now. Um

[19:13] we have approached the ordinance that um simply that data centers are not allowed

[19:17] but we're going to regulate the appropriate location the type of data

[19:22] center that we would allow um the review process under which it would go under uh

[19:27] and standards that would protect the public health safety and welfare for the

[19:30] community. Um I understand there are some additional provisions that the

[19:34] board may want to consider the public may want to consider. Uh we are

[19:37] certainly open to that. Um, but we do feel right now as written, it really is

[19:40] as tight as it can be right now from a legal dispensability standpoint. But

[19:44] again, we're open to additional comments that may come through. Um, the draft

[19:49] ordinance does have a a purpose statement. It's to establish a

[19:52] regulatory framework for the sighting, design, operation, decommissioning of

[19:57] data centers while also potentially balancing economic benefits with the

[20:01] protection of public health, safety, and welfare. Um the ordinance does

[20:05] specifically identify concerns and try to mitigate those concerns of

[20:08] infrastructure capac um capacity, new impacts, electricity and water use,

[20:13] architecture and screening, compatibility with the master plan, and

[20:17] who is responsible for decommissioning should a data center come offline in the

[20:21] future. Um the ordinance begins by defining the use including what a high

[20:25] resource demand facility is, what a data center is, what a data processing

[20:28] center. It also includes um battery battery energy storage systems which are

[20:34] often a component of a data center and so it protects us from those types of

[20:37] uses either. Uh it ensures that the most intense facilities are only located in

[20:42] the industrial districts um as a special use that would allow the planning

[20:47] commission to have a up to have a review of that. Um in addition because these

[20:52] are unique uses there is a provision that actually requires it to get

[20:55] approval also by the township board. So that is a little bit unique provision

[20:59] for this use that we don't have for any other uses in the ordinance. So it

[21:02] ultimately this board would be the ultimate decision maker if one was

[21:06] proposed in the township. Um it does include a heightened review process I

[21:10] noted. Um, it also requires a uh community engagement plan which does

[21:14] require uh neighborhood meetings um as well as uh documentation of what the

[21:19] public input received as part of that and that would be that would be

[21:22] submitted as part of the application and that would be reviewed by the

[21:24] appropriate bodies yourself and the planning commission. Um, the draft does

[21:28] include strong dimensional and sighting standards including minimum lot size,

[21:32] height controls, lot coverage limits, increased setbacks, green belts, and

[21:37] separation from residential and other sensitive uses. Um, includes strong

[21:41] design standards, so they're not just massive buildings. There is some design

[21:45] requirements. And it talks about the screening of equipment uh the reduction

[21:49] of lighting impact increased landscaping uh green and creative storm water

[21:53] techniques as well as construction traffic and how the operation would

[21:57] actually be built. Um the operational impacts of a data center are extremely

[22:02] important to regulate as much as we can we can do possibly. There is federal and

[22:06] state law which we can't necessarily supersede but we can bring up our limit

[22:09] as close to that as possible the local level. So, we have performance standards

[22:12] in there for noise, vibration, generator testing, air quality, cooling towers,

[22:18] thermal emissions, energy efficiency, renewable energy, water use, and

[22:21] wastewater as well. Again, I'm not an expert in any of those particular

[22:25] fields, but we had expertise in those fields that brought those

[22:28] recommendations to the ordinance that brought that all together. So, it was

[22:31] really a team effort. Um, in addition, we addressed the issue of public safety,

[22:36] um, working with the public the township public safety department. So we have

[22:39] issues with regards to security, emergency access, fire protection. Fire

[22:43] protection is obviously a big issue with these moving forward. Um has material

[22:47] planning, emergency response coordination. Um as well as specifically

[22:52] if batteries included because that just raises the level of the requirement for

[22:55] fire protection. In addition, the ordinance does also

[22:58] allow the township um if one is submitted to use outside consultants to

[23:02] review the project. Um there are expertise uh that will be required to

[23:07] review the compatibility of the project all the environmental issues we talked

[23:10] about operational issues. Uh so the ordinance has a provision that that that

[23:14] that allows the township to hire outside experts and that outside experts would

[23:18] be paid for by the applicant themselves. So it would not it would be costneutral

[23:22] to the township uh with regards to consultants use

[23:26] but overall the ordinance is really intended to provide a clear and

[23:29] defensible framework. Um it does not exclude data centers because it's

[23:33] legally we legally cannot do that. But it does ensure that if they are proposed

[23:37] um they're reviewed carefully and held to the highest standard that the

[23:40] township can to review those and protect again the infrastructure uh nearby

[23:45] properties, residential re natural resources and again the public health,

[23:49] safety and welfare. So in summary um the the ordinance does three things. First

[23:53] it does recognize that the township simply cannot outright ban a data center

[23:57] use. Um however it does direct the facilities if proposed to what we find

[24:02] the most appropriate zoning districts and subjects them to a heightened review

[24:05] standard. And third it creates a very high level of detailed standards with

[24:09] regard to the sighting design infrastructure environmental public

[24:13] engagement safety and decommissioning and risk management uh risk mitigation

[24:18] I'm sorry. So again um the goal is that if an application is submitted the

[24:22] township has a clear defensible and enforceable standards to enforce and

[24:26] evaluate the proposed project. Um, with that being said, I'm I'm happy to answer

[24:29] any questions um either now or after you hear from the public hearing and I'll be

[24:34] here for the rest of the meeting to answer anything that may come up.

[24:36] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[24:40] » Is everybody come and speak on public hearing

[24:46] up?

[24:49] Is there any comment um from our Oh yes, you come up.

[24:59] Yep. Oh, sorry. You have five minutes. You're welcome to to speak on the um

[25:04] subject of the data center ordinance. Yes.

[25:07] » Um this is the first I've heard about the data center ordinance that you just

[25:11] described. It was pretty difficult to keep up with everything sharing. Plus,

[25:15] you're backwards to us, so it was hard to hear. Um being one of the seniors,

[25:22] uh is there a written um like if this like how long have we been

[25:29] working on getting this proposal together for example and and then is

[25:34] there something in writing that people >> there's the yeah the draft ordinance is

[25:38] in is in the packet um so we can certainly get you the packet and then of

[25:42] course >> when we first walked in

[25:44] » um it's in the actual entire packet Bryce can help you out he's coming up

[25:47] here um and then we also been working on this for gosh we had put the moratorum

[25:52] in place back in November of 25 so We've been working on it for quite a quite a

[25:57] time and it has gone through the planning commission first and then

[26:01] vetted out there with public comment and now has come here.

[26:06] » Okay. So um and now you're presenting it. So you hear about it then you guys

[26:11] discuss it and then you decide what if you want to propose alterations

[26:16] to the proposal if somebody came up to us and said we want to build a data

[26:22] center here. Is that what >> Yeah, I'm sorry. So how we and I know

[26:25] you know this when we do um public comments you say everything I say and

[26:28] then we do it afterwards. So it's not a >> conver those are my initial questions

[26:32] and nice to see you all again. Thank you very much.

[26:34] » Thank you. >> Is this for me?

[26:37] » Thank you.

[26:43] » Yes. Anybody else want to come up and speak on the public hearing? Please come

[26:47] up.

[26:51] » My name is Raymond Vasser. Um I'm at 862 Kelpie Drive. And a couple of comments.

[26:58] I think some of my questions were already answered in terms of uh no one

[27:02] has kind of approached the township or a data center. Um and I

[27:08] would like to thank the planning commission. The it sounds like they do

[27:14] all the eyes and crossed all the tees. I I thank them for that. It's such it's so

[27:19] detailed. Um, and it's very prospective and people are they were working very

[27:24] very hard to imagine what the problems could be. And I I do see it I agree it

[27:31] appears to be more of a restrictive document which I was happy to see. um in

[27:37] a recent article in the scientific American they commented on New York's

[27:43] moratorum for one year and what they were saying in that article was the

[27:49] reason for that was that there wasn't any data actual data so that and and the

[27:54] data centers are not producing data no pun intended

[28:00] they're not producing any um information about how they're using it how much

[28:06] energy they're using, what's happening to the water, what how much water

[28:10] they're using, and they seem to be really closed down about sharing any of

[28:14] that information. And based on that, the state of New York said, "No, we we have

[28:20] to wait and find out." So, I guess my proposal would be, and again, with

[28:25] thanks to the planning commission, of course, I've read every single word in

[28:30] the document, um, I like that it has a very restrictive sound, but We don't

[28:36] know it's up against what and what happens and what really goes on. And so

[28:42] what I would suggest is that the mor moratorium be extended until we do start

[28:47] getting some information about how the the data centers are impacting the

[28:52] community impact impacting the environment the ecology. Um we don't

[28:58] know. I I couldn't find anything. I'm not an expert. I'm casual,

[29:04] you know, web browser guy. Um, but I couldn't find any information. And and

[29:09] they it's astounding how they are kind of locking down the information. You

[29:14] can't get any information. So, nobody's going to come to you and say, "Well,

[29:17] here on these 10 data centers, this is how they used water. This is what they

[29:23] did. This is how it turned out. These are the true impacts on the community."

[29:27] And all I know from my personal experience is that um Michigan Avenue is

[29:32] not usable now for me. You know, when I would take trips out to Hidden Lake

[29:37] Gardens and I I don't want to drive down there to get caught behind one of these

[29:42] gravel haulers or you know going 60 miles an hour in downtown Seline and

[29:47] it's uh that impact is just incredible. So again in conclusion I would say I

[29:53] would recommend extending the moratorum until we are able to get more

[29:58] information that's very clear and again my great thanks to the planning

[30:03] commission and it sounds like they thought of every contingency but they

[30:07] don't know any reality. >> Thank you.

[30:11] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[30:13] » Is there anybody else who'd like to speak on the public hearing?

[30:19] I would like to um if I can um respond to the information about the the

[30:23] moratorum. Um so you take it you said um we at a suggestion of one of our

[30:30] residents actually put the moratorium in place for a six-month period. Um and I

[30:34] think that was brilliant. That's the beauty of having our residents being so

[30:37] engaged because I didn't think of that. It was brought to us and we went ahead

[30:41] and put it in there. We extended it for another six months so it would be a full

[30:44] year. The problem is is that um some states can do it longer because the

[30:49] actual state has a law um that kind of follows that up. unfortunately would not

[30:54] be legally defensible because they do um there's actually a term um demonstrated

[31:00] need is what the state of Michigan has said and because the state has said

[31:05] there's a demonstrated need and we had basically what talking to all three of

[31:09] the attorneys that we have talked to and and outside attorneys more than that if

[31:13] we did it for more than a year it would not be legally defensible. So, um, but

[31:17] to your point, yeah, that would have been the easy way to do it, but, um,

[31:21] yeah, and I think, u, Mr. Carile has, um, more comments and more knowledge

[31:25] than I do on that. >> No, no, I just your point's 100%

[31:29] correct. Um, we we did talk about that whether we should we can extend it or

[31:32] not, and we we realize that we really couldn't do it. The state of New York,

[31:35] it's a state it's a state action. So, it supersedes local authority. The state of

[31:39] Michigan is, as far as we know, is not in the position right now where they're

[31:42] going to adopt a moratorum. So, really, it's on the local level. And about a

[31:45] year is as long as you could moratorum. Um that being said though um

[31:51] Yaka is community utility authority um has adopted a moratorum that runs at

[31:58] least through April of 2027 >> for the water supply. Yeah.

[32:01] » For the water supply and so um if there is a data center proposed in Pittsfield

[32:05] that's in the Yucka district uh it would be upheld to that moratorum until at

[32:10] least April of 2027. So that's just an additional consideration that's also

[32:15] going on at the same time that I want the board to be aware of as well.

[32:18] » Thanks. >> And I and I do appreciate the other

[32:20] jurisdictions around us that had to deal with this um on the fly. Uh you know I I

[32:25] I feel for them. We had the heads up of what's going on around us were able to

[32:29] put in the moratorum to give us time to pause and really really think about it.

[32:33] So um I feel fortunate about that. And again I'm saying it here in public. We

[32:38] were we were not approached nor have we um reached out interest. So

[32:43] if anybody like to make any other comments during the public hearing

[32:54] » information or data regarding uh data centers and I you know technology it

[33:01] moves really fast and um who knows what it's going to be like in 10 years there

[33:06] may be no data centers and data centers could be out in space for all we know.

[33:10] So I appreciate that. You know, it would be nice to have some data to back up

[33:16] like, yeah, it's not it's not going to take that much water. Yeah, it doesn't

[33:21] need that much electricity, but we don't know. And I and I don't think there is a

[33:26] way right now because it's in its infancy stage um to know how this how

[33:32] this is all going to play out. But uh luckily the supervisor and the planning

[33:36] commission and the the planner, they've all been working really I think um to

[33:42] make it so that you know it is rest it is a little more restrictive um which I

[33:49] like and until up until we have some data that we could say oh yeah you know

[33:57] what we thought it was going to be a big deal to have a high capacity data center

[34:01] and really it turned out to be nothing but we have these restrictions in place

[34:05] and I do think we needed to do something about it now because if we don't there's

[34:10] a chance somebody could come in and say, "Yeah, you know what? I'm going to put a

[34:15] data center here and I'm going to take it to court. I'm going to sue the

[34:18] township. It's going to cost everybody a lot of money." So, I appreciate um the

[34:22] steps that uh this supervisor has laid out and um and I agree with this

[34:29] ordinance actually. And to your point, a living and breathing document for sure.

[34:33] As we learn more, we'll be watching it >> and as things evolve and state

[34:38] leadership changes and see what happens. >> Okay.

[34:43] » A couple comments here as well. >> You know,

[34:47] looking at widening the aperture and looking back on this a bit, there's a

[34:50] reason that we had to consider this ordinance. It's because our state

[34:53] legislature passed a tax abatement, a sizable tax abatement that got rid of

[34:59] all the sales and use tax. So the Selen data center that we're talking about is

[35:02] over $40 billion of investment made. And how big is that tax investment? We'll do

[35:07] 6% on that $40 billion worth of hardware in there. It's a $2.4 billion abatement

[35:13] initially. And then those types of data centers have to renew their hardware

[35:17] typically every three to four years. So you look at $2.4

[35:21] billion dollar every three to four years for the total duration of the benefit or

[35:26] the abatement which is 30 years currently. So these are sizable sizable

[35:30] abatements. This is why Michigan has been targeted for so many data centers

[35:34] in congressional district 6 which we are which is congressional uh congresswoman

[35:38] Dingo's district. There are four active shovel like shovels are in the ground in

[35:43] data centers in this community alone. There's 16 active in the state of

[35:47] Michigan. So I will also want to echo the gratefulness I have to uh our

[35:52] planning commission you know Carlile and group all we can do is be as restrictive

[35:57] as we can. We have done the mortorium for this time but when we ask what else

[36:01] can we do as a body what else can you all do we can talk to our people at the

[36:05] state if there are other controls we want to have there are things are being

[36:09] proposed right now there's a senate bill that was just proposed gosh two months

[36:13] ago now that's a community benefits uh bill and what that means is anytime

[36:18] there's a data center that come through like a planning commission or things of

[36:20] that nature for a local municipality we would have to they would have to agree

[36:25] with the municipality for community benefits

[36:28] before they can be approved. So that means we would actually have a seat at

[36:32] the table for negotiation for things before they're entering in our

[36:35] community. So I just want to add that that I I'm supportive of the uh

[36:40] ordinance as it's written. I think there's a ton of work. We've been

[36:42] working on this for a year, but there's still more work to be done, not just in

[36:46] this ordinance that controls what this looks like now, but there are greater

[36:50] controls that we can advocate at the state layer. So, I'm happy to talk with

[36:54] anybody here about how like who your representation is, how we can do that,

[36:58] and then we can also talk as a board about how we can lend our voice to that

[37:01] conversation. So, I just want to greater contextualize this is why this is this

[37:06] ordinance is needed. There's a lot of big money that's coming into our

[37:09] community because they don't have to pay taxes on the equipment at for now and

[37:13] for 30 years. And that that's not a small change when you're talking about

[37:18] projects of this scale. So that's why we, you know, are being targeted and

[37:21] that's why we're doing everything we reasonably can to put in the controls in

[37:25] place. >> Thank you, Supervisor.

[37:30] » Okay, I'm going to go ahead and give it a last call. And if not, then I'll go

[37:35] ahead and close this public hearing um at what time it is?

[37:42] 7:07 and go ahead and open up the next public

[37:47] hearing 5.2. ZOA26237

[37:51] moratorum language and again we'll do the same thing um at opening it at 707

[37:57] and then inviting uh our planner Ben Carlile to come up and talk a little

[38:01] about what this um particular public hearing is encompassing.

[38:05] » Yeah, thank you. I'll be I'll be much more brief on this topic hopefully than

[38:08] the previous one. U when we were looking at the data center ordinance uh when we

[38:13] brought in outside counsel uh they reviewed it and they started asking us

[38:17] about the moratorum that the township adopted. Um we had to look at some of

[38:22] our moratorum provisions and there's nothing in the zoning ordinance that

[38:28] talks about the procedures and the standards under which you would which

[38:31] the township would adopt a land use essentially a land use moratorum. Um the

[38:37] township has been adopting moratoriums for years. Uh we've never been

[38:41] challenged on it. Uh but that doesn't mean we couldn't be challenged. And

[38:44] there have been some communities lately that have been challenged on the

[38:47] issuance of moratorum because it wasn't outlined in an ordinance that allowed

[38:51] them to actually take that action. So this is what this language does. that

[38:55] simply just grants the authority we already have but

[38:58] grants it in the or in the zoning ordinance for to establish land use

[39:01] moratoriums and gives the procedures for how to do it and gives kind of standards

[39:05] under which you review moratorum. So it just cleans up what we what the township

[39:10] has done in the past but makes a little more legal and defensible by actually

[39:13] putting it in the zoning ordinance itself. Um it's not a huge it's not it's

[39:16] not a procedural change anything we've done in the past. It just codifies what

[39:19] what we've been doing. So thank you. >> Thank you. you're kind of button it up a

[39:23] little bit is what it comes down to. But I will go ahead and ask if anybody else

[39:26] would like to uh comment on that particular part of it.

[39:32] Okay. If not, then I will go ahead and close that public hearing um at 7:09.

[39:39] Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Um there are no communications. So I will

[39:44] then go ahead and ask for a motion for our consent agenda. Madam Chair, I move

[39:48] to consent agenda 7.1 to 7.13.

[39:53] » Second. >> Okay. Any discussion?

[39:56] All in favor? >> I opposed.

[39:59] » All right. Consent agenda is approved. Uh moving on to department reports and

[40:04] updates. May I please have a motion to receive and file point 7 8.1. Man, I

[40:08] move to receive and file the M's annual actuarial oil valuation report as of

[40:14] December 31st, 2025. >> Second.

[40:18] » Are there any questions on this one? It's pretty. Okay. Um, all in favor?

[40:24] » I opposed. >> All right. Received and filed. May I

[40:27] please have a motion for 9.1? >> Madam Chair, I move to receive the draft

[40:32] of fiscal year 2027 Pittsfield Township budget. Second.

[40:38] » Okay. Any discussion on this one? We will be discussing this in much further

[40:42] detail. I don't know if um we'll invite our um director of finance up or we

[40:46] wanted to talk about this in general during the working session, get more

[40:49] deep into it. Yeah. And that makes more sense to me, but

[40:55] » All right. All in favor? I opposed. >> All right. Received.

[40:59] » May I please have a motion for 9.2? >> M. Madam Treasur, I move to adopt a

[41:04] resolution to amend the fiscal year 2026 general fund, public safety fund,

[41:08] building fund, and federal fores budget budgets resolution number 26 to 24

[41:15] » support. >> Okay. And discussion on this one. Again,

[41:18] we do have our director of finance if there's um questions regarding this. I

[41:21] know it was a pretty detailed memo, but um if you like explanation, we do have

[41:26] someone here to do that. Okay. Um may have a roll call for this

[41:31] one. Supervisor Riley. >> Yes.

[41:33] » Clerk Enzaldi, >> yes.

[41:35] » Treasure Epicanin, >> yes.

[41:36] » Trusty Erda Thompson, >> yes.

[41:38] » Trusty Jaffford, >> yes.

[41:39] » Trusty Braybeck, >> yes.

[41:41] » Trusty Kami, >> yes.

[41:42] » Madam Supervisor, you have seven years. >> All right. Thank you. Adopted. Uh, may I

[41:46] please have a motion for 9.3. >> Madam treasurer, I move to authorize the

[41:51] supervisor to respond to foyer appeal within 10 days of its official receipt

[41:56] in accordance with the recommendation of the township attorney.

[41:59] » Support. Okay. Any discussion? This is something that when we have an appeal to

[42:03] a foya um it is the law says we have to come to the board the approval and then

[42:08] yeah we'll look at the attorney on that. All right. All in favor?

[42:11] » I opposed. >> All right. Authorization is granted. May

[42:15] I please have a motion for 9.4. >> Madam chair move to receive and file the

[42:21] quarterly cash balance report second quarter 2026.

[42:27] » This over to you our treasurer. Well, I'll be brief. Um, uh, rather than

[42:32] walk through the whole report, I'll just highlight a few accomplishments for the

[42:36] second quarter. Uh, during April, we completed the settlement and

[42:39] distribution of the 2025 winter tax revenues to all tax units, closing out

[42:45] the winner tax cycle. We supported the township's equalization

[42:50] process and monitored certification of the 2026 state equalization ensuring all

[42:55] our taxable values were properly established for the year. Uh also we

[43:00] administered the June 1st res exemption deadline and prepared the summer tax

[43:05] which we in process of collecting now >> and busy.

[43:09] » Yeah, it's been it's a busy month. Uh so uh which which is ready for building

[43:14] cycle. Um all in all the township has maintained a strong financial position

[43:19] with about 55.2 million in cash and investments and our portfolio recorded

[43:23] approximately 210,000 investment earnings during that quarter.

[43:28] Uh so while we are continuing to prioritize our safety liquidity and

[43:32] compliance as we move into the third quarter our

[43:36] focus shifts to the summer tax bill cycle and collection cycle

[43:42] investment management.

[43:46] Any questions or discussion?

[43:51] » All in favor? >> I opposed. All right. Received and

[43:55] filed. May I please ask for a motion for 9.5?

[44:01] » Supervisor. I move through the the Relian fire apparatus proposal number

[44:07] 1402 for the purchase of one pier saver custom chassis bumper frontline fire

[44:14] engine for the fire department in the amount to exceed 1 million31,67

[44:21] subject to township attorney >> second. Okay, this one actually I'm

[44:24] gonna ask our um our fire chief and our director of public safety, whoever wants

[44:28] to come up and and and speak to it um and give a little background on this

[44:31] because this is something that's kind of um I need a little more explanation for

[44:36] it. >> Thank thankfully unique.

[44:38] » Yeah, it's a little more unique, right? Yeah.

[44:40] » So, uh the this is for the purchase of a fire engine and so there are a lot of

[44:45] different fire apparatus, but the backbone of a fire response, the the

[44:48] frontline vehicle that responds for a fire emergency is the engine from all

[44:52] three stations. So, NFPA standards call for a 15-year

[44:57] limit in the amount of time that a truck should be a frontline truck, then that

[45:01] truck can be moved to the back. Um, it be just a backup in case one of the

[45:05] frontline trucks needs service. Uh, this truck's been with us since 2010. It's

[45:10] got over 135,000 miles on it. It's got a lot of hours on it. It's been a good

[45:13] vehicle, but at some point, the repairs and and the cost of maintaining it and

[45:18] keeping it going start to become prohibitive. and it is now at an age

[45:22] where we really shouldn't have it on a frontline capacity anymore. So, there's

[45:26] a process to purchase these vehicles. Um, and we've been exploring that

[45:30] through Pierce and their um and their financial through PNC. Uh, but working

[45:38] with the finance director and the next couple items you'll see we see an

[45:41] advantage in doing an RFP. So, this is for approval to sign the agreement to

[45:46] make the purchase, but there will be some additional steps. Any questions on

[45:51] » I believe that we know I don't know if the board knows we did not move forward

[45:54] with the aerial truck. So this is in in lie of right now at least why and it's

[46:00] more of a long range planning because we know that these vehicles aren't

[46:03] something you just buy on the whim. So we need to really make sure that we are

[46:07] um thinking long range. This is part of that.

[46:09] » We shouldn't wait till the last second and say oh we need to buy that new

[46:13] million dollar truck. We do need to make a plan for this and really work it

[46:16] through. But this vehicle is is at the point where time and we're really we are

[46:21] working to make sure that we have a forecasted plan to to replace vehicles

[46:25] at the appropriate time >> management there. Okay. Any questions or

[46:30] comments? >> All right. Um all in favor? I opposed.

[46:35] All right. That's approved. May I please have a motion for 9.6?

[46:38] » Madam supervisor, I move to adopt a resolution authorizing an installment

[46:42] purchase agreement for frontline fire engine resolution number 262.

[46:48] » Second. basically. Yeah. In tandem with the other. Yeah.

[46:52] » Correct. Correct. This is to work toward the RFP.

[46:56] » Okay. Um, roll call on this one. >> Clerk Enzaldi.

[47:00] » Yes. >> Treasure Epicanin.

[47:02] » Yes. >> Trusty Erda Thompson?

[47:04] » Yes. >> Trusty Jaffer?

[47:05] » Yes. >> Trusty Braybeck?

[47:06] » Yes. >> Trusty Kurami?

[47:08] » Yes. >> Supervisor Riley?

[47:10] » Yes. >> Madam Chair, you have seven years.

[47:12] » All right. Thank you. That is approved. And may I please have a motion for 9.7?

[47:17] Madam supervisor, I move to authorize the supervisor and clerk to sign an

[47:22] engagement letter within code to provide municipal advisor services at a cost not

[47:27] to ex exceed 8,875,000

[47:32] in connection with fire engine installment purchase agreement process

[47:36] subject to town. >> Second.

[47:39] » Okay. Uh any discussion on this one? This is in in conjunction with the

[47:43] actual thing uh the the process that we're doing to make I'll explain it.

[47:48] Sorry. >> Correct. So again again these there are

[47:50] multiple steps to including the resolution but there are multiple steps

[47:53] and there are some fees involved um to make sure that we're crossing all the

[47:56] tees and dotting all the eyes and that the final agreement does it falls within

[48:00] the legal standard but then also is to our advantage. So these steps while they

[48:05] do cost something will be financially you know responsible for the township to

[48:09] do this as opposed to kind of easy button with

[48:12] » making sure we're getting the best rates and yeah. So yeah, that that should be a

[48:16] getting the best rate and the time frame and everything will more than

[48:19] compensate. >> Definitely willing to take extra steps

[48:21] to make sure that happens. >> Okay. All in favor?

[48:25] » I opposed. >> All right. That's authorized. May I

[48:28] please have a motion for 9.8? >> Madam supervisor, I move to authorize

[48:33] the supervisor and clerk to sign a subcontract Philip signing for signage

[48:39] lighting lighting installation as part of the public safety facility

[48:42] improvement project. A total not to exceed $7,999

[48:48] subject.

[48:52] » Okay. And this is just a >> little more basic. Yep. Just signage for

[48:55] the front of the building. >> Yeah. And this is just part of the

[48:57] project next door. And in the packet, I'm sure you saw the picture. It looks

[49:00] pretty nice. So, >> all right. All in favor?

[49:04] » I opposed. >> All right. It's authorized. May I please

[49:07] have a motion for 9.9? >> Madame supervisor, I move to authorize

[49:12] the supervisor and clerk to signed an agreement with digital protection

[49:16] systems for the purchase and installation of a birectional antenna

[49:20] and cell booster antenna for the public safety facility improvement project at a

[49:24] cost not to exceed $79,425.50

[49:29] subject to township >> second.

[49:32] » So we did discuss this a little bit in our last meeting that this was another

[49:36] um item that while we could have done this under the blue scope contract, it

[49:41] would have cost more but All things considered and and full disclosure, we

[49:46] we should have done this we should have done this a little bit earlier and we've

[49:49] been operating currently with you know like a

[49:53] I don't want to call it makeshift. It's a legit radio system within the building

[49:57] but cellular service within the building is very poor due to the steel roof. It's

[50:00] really the construction of the building and once it was fully complete and

[50:03] enclosed we discovered that we really did need a booster for both cellular and

[50:08] emergency radio comms. So this is this is the standard do that in a building

[50:13] like this.

[50:17] » Okay. Any discussion or questions for Director Gray?

[50:20] » All right. All in favor? I opposed. >> All right. Moving on to 9.10. May please

[50:27] have a motion. >> Madame supervisor, I move to authorize

[50:30] the supervisor to sign an agreement with Lex for the

[50:35] use of policy daily software for police and fire department. not to exceed

[50:42] $49,33078

[50:46] subject to township. >> Second,

[50:49] any discussion or explanation why you're here?

[50:52] » Right. Sure. Absolutely. So, Lexapole is uh known nationwide and I believe it's

[50:56] more than just nationwide, but Lexapole has been around for a very long time. I

[50:59] think they started out as a policy really just a policy um driven business

[51:04] where they would help agencies put together a proper uh policy for both

[51:08] police and fire proper policy book and make sure that it's up to date. And now

[51:11] they have really excelled in that to a point where they're giving regular

[51:15] updates to your agency if there's a new law passes and things like that. They're

[51:18] making suggestions to keep us uh operating under best practices. And this

[51:22] is both for the police department and the fire department. Fire chief and I

[51:25] have both put in a lot of work recently to try to keep our policies updated. And

[51:28] this is really the next best step to make sure that we are doing things uh

[51:32] constitutionally sound and legal um and and doing them timely, not just finding

[51:37] out months later and then having to make changes. There's also a training portion

[51:41] of this for the police department. The fire department is already using Lexiple

[51:45] for staff training and police uh lensure is they're calling it still a pilot, but

[51:51] we were really moving toward um annual training requirements which have been

[51:56] needed in multiple uh topics and that is really it's gone live for the last two

[52:01] years but it's really going to be um mandated shortly and Lexapole will

[52:06] provide a lot of those CP C training courses through this uh process so it's

[52:12] really it's a benefit for for the police department too fire department's been

[52:15] very happy with it

[52:19] » so the annual cost for this it's I guess it's an application right

[52:25] » it's it's like a subscription or a membership

[52:27] » subscription So um the annual price though I mean

[52:30] this will include some uh implementation fees correct. So

[52:35] » my understanding so 10,000 of it or so is um getting the system set up.

[52:41] » That's correct. >> Your going forward cost annually is

[52:45] going to be what 39,000. >> It will be less. Yes. implementation

[52:49] cost uh for this for police and fire to basically have all of their policies

[52:53] brought up to date and in the system and then the police department to get the

[52:56] training portion of of this package is $10,652.

[53:01] That is a onetime fee. So moving forward, you're correct. This would be

[53:05] roughly $10,000 less. And this isn't I of course it's a um it's something

[53:10] that's used widely, but this isn't like an introductory fee. This isn't you know

[53:14] we got you in there and now we're going to raise the rate. I'm sure that there

[53:17] are increases annually like anything else, but uh they do this on a uh a per

[53:23] officer or per firefighter scale. So until they change that scale for

[53:27] everybody across the board, that would be our fee.

[53:30] » Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions or discussion on

[53:35] this one?

[53:39] » Uh let's see. All in favor? >> I opposed.

[53:44] » All right. I think we're done for now and then we'll see you for the budget.

[53:47] » Correct. >> All right.

[53:48] » Thank you. >> May I please have a motion for 9.11?

[53:54] » Madame supervisor, I move to adopt a resolution to establish the author

[53:57] authority and design designating the boundaries for the state street corridor

[54:01] improvement authority resolution number 26.

[54:05] » Second. >> Uh we do have administrator Lion here to

[54:09] enter any questions. Once again, this is just um moving along uh the boundaries

[54:14] that I don't think have changed from the last time. So, there's no additional

[54:17] costs and in doing that except for the signs and that sort of thing. No lawyer

[54:21] costs and things. But, um also this is um not necessarily saying that we are

[54:28] doing this. We still have to go to the county. There's still many other steps,

[54:30] but this is putting the boundaries in place. One of the steps that has to

[54:33] happen within the process. >> Question.

[54:36] » Yeah, I do have a question about the packet stuff. Um Director

[54:43] » administrator >> administrator line um the the chart that

[54:47] you had in the um in the packet. I just want to make sure that I I understood it

[54:52] because um the labeling on the headers was um PCT capture 25% and then CIA

[55:02] capture 75%. So I wasn't clear like are those labels

[55:07] correct? Is the 25% what we are keeping and not the capture

[55:12] for the CIA. It's just the collection of taxes.

[55:16] » Correct.

[55:25] to be shared between the CIA

[55:33] CIA would keep 75% taxis.

[55:40] » So it it it's going to depend on the the growth amount. So if it's $100, say

[55:49] » the town, if we collect $100 just for the township, for example, this is basic

[55:56] for sure. >> Um the township is going to keep $25 and

[56:00] then and that only represents the growth section. Is that correct?

[56:04] » Correct. >> Okay. And then $75 will go into the

[56:10] » the TIF or the the CIA. >> Correct.

[56:13] » That's from the and and the county if they choose to do it. Yeah.

[56:17] » So, and then this is going to be dependent on whether the county and the

[56:22] county parks um come come into our district or our CIA

[56:29] » if they choose to join the CIA.

[56:36] » Yes. >> Sorry.

[56:38] » And I think that if they do that that makes this worthwhile and if they don't

[56:41] then I think that's another conversation.

[56:43] » Yeah. So, so let me ask you this. So, this uh resolution just establishes the

[56:50] boundary that they're going to look at and then at the next or the next item is

[56:55] going to be establishing the board. >> Correct. This establishes the authority

[57:02] and the boundaries within that authority. Okay.

[57:05] » And that's it. >> Okay. And

[57:09] um Okay. So, I don't have any more questions, but I would like to say that,

[57:16] you know, just as my personal comment is I I'm

[57:21] going to vote no tonight probably because I feel like for me it feels like

[57:27] it has a lot of holes in it. Um, I'm not sure based on the calculations,

[57:35] you know, how much each part of the project is going to cost, where that

[57:38] money is going to come from, and like our projections are based on this

[57:45] 2.5 incremental increase in our property values, but with the economy the way it

[57:52] is and the market, we could have a downturn. So, we don't know what those

[57:59] pieces are going to look like and we don't have any projections on those

[58:02] pieces either which is somewhat you know I find questionable and I feel like I'm

[58:09] approving something that I really don't have enough information on. I also

[58:16] feel like another big problem that I have with

[58:21] this whole thing is you know we're we have this expectation that there's going

[58:25] to be an 80% um grant fund, you know, that's going to

[58:30] support this whole 58 or 60 million dollar project and

[58:38] way and it will pay for a lot of this project, but it's hard to say like

[58:45] that's not guaranteed. We already lost out on a grant because we were it was

[58:51] approved, but we didn't get it for our public safety department. So I find that

[58:56] you know problematic and

[59:00] you know defining this project based on our grant and the grant that we could

[59:08] potentially receive. You know I I feel like there's not

[59:13] there's not enough numbers and I understand we can establish this

[59:17] authority that we can establish the CIA. um this part is only talking about hey

[59:22] we're just establishing we're just setting the boundaries and we're going

[59:26] to come up with this plan but I think before we even do that I think we have

[59:31] to have a better understanding of the actual plan like how much is the

[59:37] cross-section going to cost where do we think that the funds are going to come

[59:41] from what you know have we projected some stress on those figures that we're

[59:48] using to you know support this project because

[59:53] without those things you know if this were a smaller project I don't think

[59:57] that it would be such a problem for me but you know we are talking about a lot

[1:00:02] of money not only a lot of money to put into it but a lot of money that we need

[1:00:08] to get from other people and a lot of resources to maintain and you know

[1:00:12] establish the authority meetings consultants attorneys and all this other

[1:00:18] stuff that going to go along with, you know, establishing this corridor and

[1:00:23] improving it. I'm not saying that State Street doesn't need to be improved, but

[1:00:30] I think what I'm saying is that, you know, we're building this project around

[1:00:37] this grant funding where we could probably

[1:00:41] do it cheaper or smarter or, you know, do we need sidewalks? Do we need

[1:00:49] you know, these certain things that the grant is requiring us to have in order

[1:00:54] to get the funds for all those things I I think are problematic. I do think we

[1:01:00] should explore a little bit more of the SADs.

[1:01:04] Um, and for all those reasons, I'm probably

[1:01:08] going to vote I will vote no for this. And also, I think um one other thing

[1:01:13] that I was thinking about today, you know,

[1:01:18] State Street needs improvements, but there are a lot of other places in the

[1:01:23] township that are going to need improvements. And here we're carving out

[1:01:28] these funds that will only be able to go down this corridor

[1:01:35] and we're earmarking it for 20 years. I mean, at this point, I don't even know

[1:01:39] when the project will start. You know, is it going to start in the

[1:01:44] 20th year? Is it going to start in the 15th year? Is it going to start 10th

[1:01:47] year or the third year? How are we gonna how are we going to fund it up front? I

[1:01:53] for me there's a lot of questions. So I don't genuinely

[1:01:59] agree with this because I feel like we we should had more options. So thank

[1:02:06] you. >> I have to address some of those things.

[1:02:08] » Okay. So um this is a this is a big project and that's that's part of the

[1:02:12] thing and I think when you do any sort of budget or planning you are even our

[1:02:16] own budget leader will be assuming some some the 2.5 will be assuming things

[1:02:20] there's things that have to be assumed along the way. Um when it comes to a

[1:02:25] giant quarter like that and again this is something that if we didn't get a

[1:02:29] grant we could decide then what we want to do with it. Um but if we do get a

[1:02:34] giant giant 40ome million dollar grant to redo

[1:02:40] the road, we will miss out on it without having the um the funds to go with it.

[1:02:45] Um and that's something that we can decide clearly. Um it's also when you

[1:02:49] think about a special assessment district and that is pulling funds from

[1:02:53] that actual corridor. So it's those businesses within that corridor in that

[1:02:57] increment. So it's not like we're pulling from all over the place. Um in

[1:03:01] in that respect, we also have the this is a a regional corridor. So when you do

[1:03:07] a Tiff, you are pulling from the county and other areas that actually have some

[1:03:13] some say in this. Um, a special assessment district. I don't know how

[1:03:17] much those businesses along that corridor are benefiting from the extra

[1:03:21] traffic there. You know, maybe if you think a a carpenter road corridor or

[1:03:25] something that they are actually benefiting from that road being

[1:03:28] improvement and having more foot traffic in their location. um the businesses for

[1:03:32] the most part down state road um you know their employees use that road to

[1:03:37] cope to and fro they're not going to get more benefit from that. So I would

[1:03:40] disagree on the special assessment district part of it. Um and and I've

[1:03:45] said before if the county did not want to be part of this and we're not getting

[1:03:48] that extra money which is a a pretty large amount I would say that no I don't

[1:03:51] think we should do this either. Then we just you know look at it and and pull as

[1:03:55] we would. Um, obviously this is just us saving money um for this this project in

[1:04:03] this important corridor. Um, yes, you could say that Plat Road and and other

[1:04:08] roads need it. Um, but we don't have the kind of industrial the amount of money

[1:04:12] that we bring in and that corridor and businesses to offset taxes for the rest

[1:04:17] of our residents is huge. And if we cannot if we lose people on that

[1:04:22] corridor um and we don't keep up on it, we don't have the um it takes a lot to

[1:04:27] attract it. You know, I'm you work with Spark and they and they talk about how

[1:04:30] important it is to have a whole package when you're attracting it. We you know,

[1:04:34] we lose a lot of businesses to other areas and the amount of um offsetting

[1:04:40] that that does. And when we do work with businesses that come in the area, we are

[1:04:44] and I know our director um of community development can say we're constantly

[1:04:49] trying to figure out, okay, if you're coming in here, are you going to improve

[1:04:51] this brewery? We are we're not going to not do that. That will continue. And

[1:04:56] yes, there's obviously going to be some costs involved in having these meetings

[1:05:00] and making sure that we're doing everything legally. Um this was started

[1:05:04] a while ago, so we do have the base work already there. And as we change and

[1:05:09] modify it, yes, there will be some costs along the way. However, the cost that we

[1:05:14] will incur will make up for that. And this is an important corridor. Um, and

[1:05:18] the assumptions that have to be made along the way. You can we could give you

[1:05:22] numbers of what the actual um road could cost today. But this is going to be

[1:05:28] timing and when things are done and then obviously with materials and things,

[1:05:32] it's not going to be the same. all we can do is go based on what we have to

[1:05:35] know um the percentage to give an idea of what's going to be needed. So those

[1:05:39] are my um thoughts on it. I don't know if anybody else wants to kind of chime

[1:05:43] in or their thoughts. >> Yeah, I would like to

[1:05:45] » Yes, please. Thanks. >> So I think the point that can't be

[1:05:50] overlooked here is this is a cut through. It's not just uh improving the

[1:05:55] life of the businesses and the people that use that in our community. this a

[1:05:59] major cut through uh and there are things that are external to our control

[1:06:03] that make this situation worse. And now while it may be a regional benefit to

[1:06:08] have uh and actually I shouldn't say benefit, it's outside of our control and

[1:06:12] regardless how we feel about it, there are major projects that were made just

[1:06:16] north on State Street. The Arbor South project is going to come now. It is

[1:06:21] going to have over a thousand new housing units that are going to be

[1:06:24] there. Those residents are in our taxable jurisdiction. They are going to

[1:06:29] be using this as a cut through to get to US23 to Michigan Avenue, things of that

[1:06:34] nature. Our vehicle to have access to county and statewide funds. Is this and

[1:06:40] and what just to be clear and I want to ask this as a question. What we're

[1:06:43] voting on tonight is not the approval of the project. It's not the definition of

[1:06:48] the funds within it. It's actually looking at this is establishing the

[1:06:52] boundary. So if we do do a CIA or a tiff capture, this is the taxable

[1:06:57] jurisdiction. So then we can do projections based on this definition,

[1:07:01] the boundaries. And then the second thing that we're considering tonight is

[1:07:05] just the board of that we still have a lot of work to do. And candidly before I

[1:07:10] would be an affirmative vote in this. I need to see the data too. I need to see

[1:07:14] the finances at a deeper detail. that this is a necessary step to say okay

[1:07:19] with this taxable jurisdiction or these boundaries this is the projection

[1:07:22] revenue that base offset etc and this is a in my opinion this feels like a

[1:07:27] necessary step to even get to that next step of the data and if we do not do

[1:07:32] something like this I wish there was a a different mechanism for this but then we

[1:07:37] don't have access to county dollars we don't have access to the state dollars

[1:07:40] so this is an X this in my opinion is a way for us to put in 10 cents on the

[1:07:46] to get this pro thing that's already a problem today and those thousand uh new

[1:07:52] housing units plus the extra growth that we have in this region will just

[1:07:56] exacerbate this issue over the next three to five years. So if we don't take

[1:07:59] necessary steps to start improving this now we are going to start introducing I

[1:08:03] believe public health and public safety concerns along that corridor as well.

[1:08:07] you know, if there's a a public safety call that's around any type of uh time

[1:08:12] between call at 7:30 and 9 a.m. and NASCO through State Street corridor,

[1:08:18] there's going to be delayed response. The same is going to be true around uh

[1:08:22] the rush hour at the end of the day. And these are things that aren't just the

[1:08:26] responsibility of those businesses and those condos and things that are right

[1:08:30] along the State Street Corridor project. This is a major regional corridor cut

[1:08:33] through that's material different than plat and other areas because of the

[1:08:39] regional connect of tissue that stays between those areas. So again I just

[1:08:44] want to close by saying the way I understand this in the order of

[1:08:47] operations is we're not voting on the whole CIA the tip. This is really if we

[1:08:51] do this this is the boundary. This is what we're about to consider here. And

[1:08:55] the second step is okay another legal step is for us to even explore the next

[1:08:59] step of this conversation. We need the board.

[1:09:02] » Correct. And at that point, we will hit the next toll gates as we get more data.

[1:09:05] Then we can make the affirmative or not decision to move forward with this

[1:09:10] project. These are necessary steps to even explore this as an option. Correct.

[1:09:14] Okay. Thank you. >> That's a very good point and we're

[1:09:17] basically planning kind of putting together a plan for if we do and if the

[1:09:21] numbers aren't ended the date and it comes back and it's not um doable then

[1:09:26] it's not. But we at least we've taken the steps to be able to have the option.

[1:09:30] I just want to add one small you guys have covered most of everything. uh from

[1:09:35] from what I found I don't think there's any other product any other format to

[1:09:40] finance a future um large project such as this sad as far as

[1:09:47] I know are very specific and only cover doesn't

[1:09:55] in as much as you know the issue is a difficult one to

[1:10:02] to swallow sometimes is the reality that the only ways like this are funded

[1:10:07] through this process and the only way you qualify for those major grants are

[1:10:12] through this process. So before we can even answer all the questions we have to

[1:10:17] we have to walk through the steps

[1:10:24] » more discussion or questions.

[1:10:29] Okay. U may ask for a roll call.

[1:10:34] » Treasurer Epicanin, >> yes.

[1:10:36] » Trusty Erada Thompson, >> yes.

[1:10:38] » Trusty Jaffer, >> yes.

[1:10:40] » Trusty Brbeck, >> yes.

[1:10:42] » Trusty Kurami, >> yes.

[1:10:43] » Supervisor Riley, >> yes.

[1:10:45] » Clerk Galdi, >> no.

[1:10:47] » Madam Chair, you have six and one name. >> All right. Thank you. Um, resolution is

[1:10:52] adopted. If we could um get a motion for 9.12. Madam Chair, I move to adopt a

[1:10:59] resolution to appoint the corridor Improvement Authority Board.

[1:11:04] » Second. >> Any discussion? I think we kind of

[1:11:06] covered that in the last conversation, but if anybody has any issues with the

[1:11:11] actual board that's presented um roll call

[1:11:16] Thompson, >> yes.

[1:11:17] » Trusty Jaffer, >> yes.

[1:11:19] » Trusty Braybeck, >> yes.

[1:11:20] » Trusty Kurami, >> yes.

[1:11:22] » Supervisor Riley, >> yes.

[1:11:24] » Clerk Analdi, >> yes.

[1:11:25] » Treasure Epicanin, >> yes. Madam supervisor, you have seven.

[1:11:29] » Thank you. Resolution is adopted. May I please have a motion for 9.13?

[1:11:35] » Madam Chair, I move to adopt a resolution of support for Chad Tough

[1:11:38] Foundation Run Tough Chad TU 1K and FK or 5K on Saturday September 27th 2026.

[1:11:49] Resolution 26-23 support.

[1:11:53] » Okay. Any discussion? This is um I think everybody's familiar with this um

[1:11:57] popular run and um support of of Chad TU. Um it's just one of the federalities

[1:12:02] of closing a road. All right, if I could get a roll call.

[1:12:07] » Trusty Jaffer? >> Yes.

[1:12:09] » Trusty Braybeck? >> Yes.

[1:12:10] » Trusty Kurami? >> Yes.

[1:12:12] » Supervisor Riley? >> Yes.

[1:12:13] » Clerk Enzaldi? >> Yes.

[1:12:15] » Treasure Epicanin? >> Yes.

[1:12:16] » Trusty Erda Thompson? >> Yes.

[1:12:18] » Madam Chair, you have 78. >> All right. Resolution adopted. And if

[1:12:21] you can make it out for the runs, please do. Uh may I have a motion for 9.14?

[1:12:26] » Madam Chair, I move to authorize the supervisor and clerk to enter into an

[1:12:29] agreement and associated distribution service uh writer and consolation new

[1:12:35] energy gas division LLC for the township's natural gas account. Subject

[1:12:41] to the township attorney approval support.

[1:12:44] » Okay. Um if I could actually ask um Director West to come up and explain a

[1:12:48] little about this. actually is a good cost savings and a good find on um on

[1:12:53] our department's part. >> Good evening. Hello.

[1:12:57] » Um I tried to make the memo as detailed as I could because I know that this

[1:13:01] doesn't make a lot of sense and sometimes when things feel too good to

[1:13:03] be true um you know they don't work out. But we have vetted this out pretty

[1:13:08] extensively, including contacting other municipalities who've been participating

[1:13:11] in this. Um, effectively because they don't want um utility companies to be

[1:13:18] monopolies, the Michigan Public Service Commission stepped in and required to

[1:13:22] have an alternative gas provider. Um, they uh named Constellation Energy as

[1:13:28] one of those gas providers. And what they do is effectively cut

[1:13:31] administrative overhead costs out of it. So our um natural gas provider, uh,

[1:13:38] maintenance, um, all of those things are still provided through DTE Energy, but

[1:13:42] our billing is done through Constellation Energy. Um, they basically

[1:13:46] submeter out off of that. Um, and it gives a pretty significant savings. Um,

[1:13:51] this is something that other municipalities in our local area,

[1:13:54] including Ann Arbor, Ipsellani Township, um, Canton Township and others, um, are

[1:14:00] seeing real savings of. Uh, this is not just a pie in the sky number. Um, Uh

[1:14:05] many of them have been doing this for years and years and years to the point

[1:14:08] where they didn't even remember that they were part of this program any

[1:14:10] longer. So when we got the referral note, they were like, "I don't know what

[1:14:13] you're talking about." And we had to go back through and and get that

[1:14:15] understanding. But um the the estimate um of our gas savings, so they did take

[1:14:21] a look at all of our accounts. Um we did run this through our finance department

[1:14:25] as well just to make sure that we were all short up. Um but currently we're

[1:14:29] paying about 63,000 and change for our natural gas. Um, and

[1:14:35] we would be paying about 39722 for natural gas. Um, so an annual savings of

[1:14:40] approximately $24,000. Um, the other thing that they did which

[1:14:45] was fantastic, but um, we fixed some billing errors along the way that they

[1:14:50] helped us realize as well. So, um, they've been really open and

[1:14:54] understanding and answered a million questions for us in this process. If you

[1:14:57] have any specific questions, I'm happy to try to answer them. I just want to

[1:15:00] kind of comment that when director West brought this to me and she's like it

[1:15:03] seems too good to be true and we yeah and she vetted it out with other

[1:15:06] jurisdictions and everything else because we we've been tasked to know to

[1:15:11] kind of tighten our belt and this is helping tighten the belt.

[1:15:13] » I should add we get a lot of requests from thirdparty providers to do these

[1:15:17] types of submetering things and we've constantly researched and vetted and

[1:15:21] said no this is not correct. My staff takes this very seriously. Um, this one

[1:15:25] in particular is only applicable to Wayne and Washington County. That's it.

[1:15:30] Municipalities and Wayne and Washington County. Um, and so it's very specific to

[1:15:35] the provisions of the MPSC. Um, and like I said, that's one of the reasons why we

[1:15:40] we vetted it for so long. We've been looking at this for probably over a

[1:15:43] year. Um, and then we've talked to other municipalities as well to make sure that

[1:15:47] it made complete sense. >> Any comments or questions on this one?

[1:15:53] » Comment. Thank you for looking into this and saving taxpayers $24,000 a year.

[1:15:58] » Is it only 24,000? >> That's all we have in our gas metering

[1:16:02] cost. >> So, this is part of our sustainability

[1:16:04] mission. I'll put credit out to our community engagement team as part of our

[1:16:08] community development department. Um, we're constantly looking for reasons to

[1:16:12] help save and cut back. Um, shout out to the conference I was at today with the

[1:16:17] Michigan Sustainability Conference um and the Michigan Green Communities

[1:16:20] Challenge. helps us think about these things and look at these things in

[1:16:23] detail to try to cut back on all of our energy savings, to reduce our climate

[1:16:27] impact, etc. Um, but this is part of that sustainability mission.

[1:16:32] » So, we're going to keep plugging away when things are too good to be true.

[1:16:34] We're we're there. >> Yeah. All right. Um,

[1:16:39] all in favor? >> Opposed? All right. Thank you.

[1:16:43] Authorized. Uh, may I please have a motion for 9:15?

[1:16:48] Madam Chair, I move to authorize the supervisor and clerk to sign the first

[1:16:51] amendment to the land lease agreement with Celco Partnership doing business as

[1:16:57] Verizon Wireless extending the lease term and modifying the associated lease

[1:17:03] provisions subject to the township attorney approval.

[1:17:06] » Second. >> Okay. Yeah. And this is something that

[1:17:08] is a continuation of things that we've done in the past. This in the next one,

[1:17:12] too. There's any questions on this

[1:17:15] discussion? All right. All in favor?

[1:17:18] » I opposed. >> All right, that's authorized. May I

[1:17:20] please have a motion for 9.16? >> Madam Chair, I move to authorize the

[1:17:24] supervisor and clerk to sign the uniform video service local franchise agreement

[1:17:28] with Direct TV LLC continuing its authorization to provide video services

[1:17:34] within Pittsfield Charter Township subject to the township attorney

[1:17:38] approval. >> Second.

[1:17:39] » Okay. Any discussion? >> All in favor?

[1:17:43] » I opposed. All right. as authorized. May I please have a motion for 9.17?

[1:17:50] » Madam Chair, I move to approve first reading ZOA26-236

[1:17:55] to add section 40-11.51 to the zoning ordinance.

[1:18:01] » Second. >> Okay. And obviously this is just a

[1:18:03] followup to the public hearing we had earlier. Um please note that again

[1:18:06] there'll be a second reading um and staff will be recommending changes to

[1:18:09] the noise limits um to implement clarification on the me measurements. Um

[1:18:14] that will more restrictive. Um so won't be we could be decreasing and making

[1:18:17] sure that we're more nothing will be increased as a um a result of it but

[1:18:22] there'll be some uh change at least that change to the next reading.

[1:18:27] Okay. Um any discussion or comments based on public feedback

[1:18:32] on uh all in favor? >> I let's let's do a roll call.

[1:18:36] » Roll call. Okay. Sorry. I don't approve. Yes. Okay. Sorry. Roll call. Thank you.

[1:18:40] » Trusty Braybeck. >> Yes.

[1:18:43] » Trusty Kurami. Yes. >> Supervisor Riley.

[1:18:46] » Yes. >> Clerk Henzaldi.

[1:18:47] » Yes. >> Treasure Epicanin.

[1:18:48] » Yes. >> Trusty Erda Thompson?

[1:18:50] » Yes. >> Trusty Jaffer?

[1:18:51] » Yes. >> Madam Chair, you have seven.

[1:18:53] » Okay. Thank you. Approved um for the first reading and may have a motion for

[1:18:57] 9.18. >> Madam Chair, I move to approve first

[1:19:00] reading ZOA number 26-237 to add section 40-31

[1:19:09] to the zoning ordinance. >> Second. And just button it up.

[1:19:14] All right, roll call, please. Trusty Kurami,

[1:19:17] » yes. >> Supervisor Riley,

[1:19:19] » yes. >> Clerk Analdi,

[1:19:20] » yes. >> Treasure Epicanin,

[1:19:21] » yes. >> Trusty Erda Thompson,

[1:19:23] » yes. >> Trusty Chaffer,

[1:19:24] » yes. >> Trusty Braybeck,

[1:19:26] » yes. >> Madam Chair, you have seven. Thank you.

[1:19:28] Almost made a full turnaround on the roll calls. I don't think we've done

[1:19:31] that in a long while since I've been up here. I don't think we have done it. All

[1:19:34] right. Um, unfinished business. We don't have any um any leaison reports or

[1:19:39] trustee reports. >> Yep.

[1:19:44] I'd like to share the summary of action from September 4, 2026 plan commission

[1:19:49] meeting. The plan commission voted to approve wetland permit and final site

[1:19:55] plan for CSPA 22-23 field park.

[1:20:02] Then the planning commissioned to state the 2025 final site plans extension for

[1:20:08] CSPA 19-20

[1:20:13] located 471 Carpenter Road until such time the planning commission makes a

[1:20:18] decision regarding the 2026 final site plan extension.

[1:20:24] The next meeting, planning commission meeting will be on September 17.

[1:20:32] » Thank you. >> I think that the second one there um

[1:20:35] they're looking to u it's a property across from Amazon. When Amazon came in

[1:20:40] um some of the the um roadways made a change, so they have to do another site

[1:20:46] plan and they need another extension on that. Um and they've already done two.

[1:20:50] So it's it's out of the ordinary. >> Asking for extension.

[1:20:53] It might be an exception because of it being across from Amazon, but that's not

[1:20:58] necessarily how we would do things. There usually isn't a third exception.

[1:21:02] Correct. >> Okay.

[1:21:04] Information to have. All right. Any other reports or Yes.

[1:21:09] historical district commission. Um we have two positions that are

[1:21:14] available. One we get a resation from our architect which means have an

[1:21:18] architect on the board and also unfortunately we lost Janice passed away

[1:21:24] earlier in August. We just found that out. So, her positions up. So, that's a

[1:21:32] » and like to say that in um October, we're going to work with the the

[1:21:36] district commission and the society and um perhaps do a proclamation for um Al

[1:21:40] Pa and then maybe a moment of silence, you know, for Janice Harwood um and

[1:21:44] recognize that um none of us really Yeah. were aware, but and we are working

[1:21:49] on those um architect is a hard one. So, if anyone does know our architect,

[1:21:53] please let us know who lives in Pittsfield clearly. Thank you. Thank

[1:21:57] you. All right. Uh, we'll open it up for public comment, too. Any person may come

[1:22:02] forward at this time to address the board. Anyone who wishes to speak is

[1:22:05] requested, but not required to state his or her their name um and address for the

[1:22:09] record.

[1:22:13] All right. Seeing none, um I'm going to head and goinghead adjourn at

[1:22:23] 7:52, but then we're going to take a five minute break and then go right into

[1:22:26] working session. So, five minutes and we're meeting right back here.

[1:22:30] » Madam Chair, I move to >> Oh,

[1:22:33] sorry. >> All in favor?

[1:22:34] » I All right. Thank you. >> Sorry.

[1:22:41] I don't know if I want to touch yet. >> I know. I know.

Pittsfield Charter Township Board of Trustees Meeting - September 9th, 2026

Transcript