Jul 13, 2021 Township Board

MANAGER WALSH. AND BEFORE I GO TO BOARD MEMBERS, FOR QUESTIONS FOR THE MANAGER.

I WILL JUST SAY FOR SUPERVISOR STYKA AND TRUSTEE WISINSKI WHO ARE ON VIA ZOOM.

I DO HAVE A COMPUTER IN FRONT OF ME SO I CAN SEE IF YOUR HANDS ARE RAISED VIRTUALLY OR PHYSICALLY, I HAVE A MONITOR.

SO PLEASE JUST RAISE YOUR HANDS VIRTUALLY OR PHYSICALLY ON THE MONITOR AND I WILL CALL YOU. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE MANAGER? NOT SEEING ANY. I WOULD JUST ALSO WISH DAVE LEE WELL WITH HIS CONTINUED ENDEAVORS IN THE CITY OF LANSING AND I WILL JUST SAY FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, WHEN I HAD A QUESTION ON STATE POLICY THAT GOT INTO PROPERTY TAXATION, PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES, DAVE LEE CAN ANSWER JUST ABOUT ANY QUESTION, NO MATTER THE TECHNICALITY AND JUST THE TECHNICAL NATURE OF THE QUESTION AT A MOMENT'S NOTICE.

SO, HIS KNOWLEDGE WILL BE MISSED AND WE'LL MISS THAT PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY.

ALL RIGHT, SO MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, VERY SORRY, SEVEN, WE'RE ONTO BOARD

[7. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS]

MEMBER REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO THE FIRST? TREASURER DESCHAINE? THANK YOU.

SOME TAX BILLS ARE OUT, THEY WERE MAILED ON JULY 1ST.

[00:15:03]

WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE TAX BILL YET.

PLEASE CALL OUR OFFICE AND WE WILL GET YOU A DUPLICATE COPY OUT RIGHT NOW.

OR IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TAX BILL, IF WE CAN'T ANSWER, WE'LL GET YOU SOMEONE WHO CAN ANSWER IT.

TAXES, SOME TAXES ARE DUE SEPTEMBER 14TH.

IN THE PAST THREE WEEKS, I HAVE BEEN IN A FEW MEETINGS TODAY, ACTUALLY, I MET WITH M EDICAL MANAGEMENT TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES THAT THE MANAGER BROUGHT UP AND OTHER ISSUES THAT WE TRIED TO ANNOUNCE AND THAT IS OUR LONG SERVING DEPUTY TREASURER, MARY ANN GROUP, WHO IS WITH THE TREASURER'S OFFICE 15 YEARS WITH THE TOWNSHIP, 33 YEARS RETIRED AS OF JULY 2ND. WE'LL MISS MARY ANN VERY MUCH.

AND WE WISH YOU WELL IN RETIREMENT.

AND LASTLY, I DID ATTEND THE INCOMING CHAPTER OF THE MICHIGAN TOWNSHIP'S ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS A VERY INTERESTING AND EFFECTIVE MEETING WITH CLERK GUTHRIE AND TRUSTEE JACKSON AND HOPE TO GET MORE ACTIVE IN OUR LOCAL CHAPTERS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AN INFLUENCE.

AND WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH OUR MICHIGAN TOWNSHIP'S ASSOCIATION.

I'M REALLY GLAD TO HEAR FROM MR. SCHOEN ON THIS ACDNET FIBER.

I HOPE WE CAN MAYBE GET HIM BACK.

WE TALKED ABOUT [INAUDIBLE].

ONE OF THE ISSUES HAS BEEN COMPETITIVENESS.

AND IT APPEARS, AT LEAST IN THE HASLETT REGION, WE'VE GOT SOME COMPETITION WITH COMCAST AND NOTHING LIKE COMPETITION TO DRIVE DOWN RATES AND INCREASE SERVICES.

I DON'T KNOW IF OUR, IF WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT IT, WHAT ACDNET IS OFFERING HERE IN THE TOWNSHIP, I ENCOURAGE STAFF TO FIND OUT AND MAKE SURE WE MAKE OUR CITIZENS AWARE.

35 YEARS AGO WHEN CABLE TV FRANCHISES WERE PASSED OUT AND AWARDED THEY WERE OFTEN DONE IN NO BID CONTRACT OR NO COMPETITION CONTRACTS BECAUSE OF THE COST OF LAYING CABLE STOCK COULD BE SO HIGH. SO THESE CABLE TV COMPANIES LIKE COMCAST GOT EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLIES TO COMMUNITIES. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A SITUATION WE HAVE NOW WHERE WE'VE GOT ONE CABLE COMPANY AND NO COMPETITION.

SO BRAVO TO ACDNET FOR PROVIDING SOME COMPETITION FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

OFFERING THEM A SERVICE LOOKS TO BE ABOUT FIVE TIMES THE SPEED FOR THE SAME PRICE THAT I'M PAYING COMCAST FOR HIGH SPEED INTERNET TODAY.

SO I HOPE TO HEAR MORE FROM ACDNET.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, TREASURER DESCHAINE.

OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WITH ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES.

TRUSTEE JACKSON? YES, I DON'T HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS, I DON'T BELIEVE, BUT IN ADDITION TO THE INGHAM COUNTY MTA MEETING THAT I INTENDED WITH TREASURER DESCHAINE, I ALSO ATTENDED MONDAY MORNING 7:30 A.M.

DEA MEETING.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE JACKSON.

OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WITH REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS? TRUSTEE WISINSKI? YOU ARE STILL MUTED, IF YOU CAN UNMUTE, THINK YOU.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR PRO-TEM, CAN YOU HEAR ME OK RIGHT NOW? YEP, WE CAN HEAR YOU PERFECTLY.

EXCELLENT. WELL, UPDATE ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, WE ARE WORKING AND STILL WORKING TOWARDS THAT WETLANDS ORDINANCE.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE REVIEWING THAT ORDINANCE, WHICH IS VERY STRONG COMPARED TO OTHER ORDINANCES. WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY UPDATE.

WE'RE WORKING WITH DIRECTOR SCHMIDT TO DO THAT IN THE FUTURE.

AND THEN ALSO HAVE DECIDED THE COMMISSION TO TAKE A PROACTIVE APPROACH AND HOPEFULLY IMPLEMENT AN EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN WORKING WITH DIRECTOR YEATS TO GET SOME IDEAS FROM HER AND HER STAFF TO DO THAT, TO MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTS ARE AWARE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF W ETLANDS. AND ALSO WHAT THE ORDINANCE STATES IS IN COMPLIANCE FROM THERE.

OTHER UPDATE WOULD BE OUR DIVERSITY INCLUSION PROGRAM AND HER WORK GROUP.

WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT.

THANK YOU TO DIRECTOR [INAUDIBLE] FOR THAT.

LOOKING TO SCHEDULE TO COMING IN AND TRAINING FOR THE M TEAM, THE MANAGERS AND DIRECTORS, AS WELL AS THE BOARD MEMBERS.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WITH ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS? SEEING NONE, I WILL JUST BRIEFLY MENTION THAT THE TOWNSHIP SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE BOARD AND STAFF, WE CREATED THESE VARIOUS SUBCOMMITTEES FOR EACH OF THE GOALS ON OUR AGENDA.

[00:20:02]

ONE OF THE TOP GOALS OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS HAS BEEN REDEVELOPMENT IN DOWNTOWN OKEMOS AND DOWNTOWN HASLETT. OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE HAD A SECOND AMENDMENT FROM THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS DEVELOPER AND THERE ARE ONGOING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER.

AND I WOULD JUST SAY FOR THE COMMUNITY AND FOR RESIDENTS WHO CAME AND SPOKE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE NATURE OF THAT AMENDMENT, THAT THE TOWNSHIP IS WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH THE APPLICANT.

AND THE APPLICANT IS HEARING THOSE CONCERNS.

AND WE ARE WORKING TO RESTORE THE COMMERCIAL BECAUSE HAVING A VIBRANT DOWNTOWN IS ESSENTIAL FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THAT IS ALL I HAVE THIS EVENING.

AND SO SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD, WE WILL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

[8. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA? SO MOVED.

SUPPRT. MOVED AND SUPPORTED.

CLERK GUTHRIE, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL ROLL? SUPERVISOR STYKA? I'M NOT SURE IF HE'S... TRUSTEE WISINSKI? YES.

TRUSTEE SUNDLAND? YES.

TRUSTEE JACKSON? YES, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER? YES, TREASURER DESCHAINE? YES, CLERK GUTHRIE VOTES YES.

THAT IS 6-0. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I THINK THEY'RE ALSO YES, THANK YOU.

THAT IS 7-0.

THANK YOU, CLERK GUTHRIE. AND WE ARE MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER NINE, CONSENT AGENDA ON

[9. CONSENT AGENDA]

WHICH WE HAVE A, COMMUNICATIONS.

B, THE MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 15TH AND JUNE 30TH OF MEETINGS OF THE BOARD AND THE BILLS.

WE DO NEED A RECORD ROLL CALL VOTE FOR ALL ITEMS, THIS EVENING.

CLERK GUTHRIE, COULD YOU PLEASE, ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? MOVED BY TREASURER DESCHAINE, SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE SUNDLAND.

CLERK GUTHRIE, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL ROLL? TRUSTEE OPSOMMER? YES. TRUSTEE JACKSON? YES. TREASURER DESCHAINE? YES. CLERK GUTHRIE VOTES YES.

SUPERVISOR STYKA? WELL, YES.

TRUSTEE SUNDLAND? YES.

AND TRUSTEE WISINSKI? YES.

MOTION CARRIES 7-0.

WE ARE ONTO AGENDA 10, QUESTIONS FOR THE ATTORNEY.

OUR ATTORNEYS ARE NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING.

MOVING ON TO NUMBER 11, PUBLIC HEARINGS.

WE DO HAVE THE AGENDA ITEM 11, A PATHWAY MASTER PLAN UPDATE.

[11A. Pathway Master Plan Update]

AND I WILL CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER AT 6:22 P.M.

AND WE HAVE DEPUTY MANAGER PERRY TO GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF THE WORK THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS UNDERTAKEN AND ONE OF OUR GOALS FOR THE 2021 CALENDAR YEAR.

THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

I FEEL LIKE I'M RUSTY AT DOING THIS.

[LAUGHTER] BUT IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN.

JUST FOR BACKGROUND, SINCE 1974, MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAS HAD A PATHWAY SYSTEM.

THE VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY HAVE APPROVED A DEDICATED MILLAGE TO FUND THIS PATHWAY SYSTEM.

IN FACT, IT WAS MOST RECENTLY APPROVED IN 2016 THAT MILLAGE GENERATES ABOUT 600,000 DOLLARS THAT WE USE TO MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM, ALSO EXPAND THE SYSTEM AND MOST RECENTLY WITH THE COUNTY PARK INTERRAIL MILLAGE, WE'VE BEEN USING IT TO LEVERAGE THOSE COUNTY DOLLARS THAT OUR RESIDENTS PAY INTO IT AND MAKE SURE WE GET OUR FAIR SHARE BACK.

SO WE'VE BEEN PRETTY SUCCESSFUL WITH THAT.

JUST AS FAR AS THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE PATHWAY SYSTEM, OVER 70 MILES OF DEDICATED PATHWAY, OVER 30 SOME MILES OF PAVED SHOULDER.

SO IT'S VERY COMPREHENSIVE.

THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE ELECTRONICALLY, I ACTUALLY HAVE A HARD COPY UP HERE SHOWS HOW EXTENSIVE IT IS THROUGHOUT THE TOWNSHIP.

IT'S VERY DIVERSE AND IN EVERY CORNER OF THE TOWNSHIP.

THE REASON I'M HERE TONIGHT IS EVERY FIVE YEARS WE TRY TO UPDATE THIS, PROVIDE THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEE MAYBE WHAT'S ON THE PLAN, THAT MAYBE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE ANYMORE OR JUST PROVIDE US GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE PATHWAY SYSTEM. SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THAT UPDATE THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TONIGHT.

THE UPDATE ACTUALLY HAS TWO PARTS.

WE KIND OF HAVE A SHORT TERM PLAN, AND THAT KIND OF PROVIDES US INFORMATION ON WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING OVER THE NEXT THREE OR FOUR YEARS.

ALTHOUGH THE CAVEAT WITH THAT IS THE MSU, THE LAKE LANSING PATHWAY, WHICH PRETTY MUCH RUNS DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE TOWNSHIP IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN FOCUSED ON FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND PROBABLY FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

THAT IS A HIGH PRIORITY NOT ONLY FOR OUR COMMUNITY, BUT ACTUALLY THE REGION, TOO.

AND THEN THERE ARE A COUPLE OF GAPS IN THE SYSTEM, HISTORICAL GAPS THAT WE'RE

[00:25:04]

RECOMMENDING THAT WE TRY TO CLOSE AS WE CLOSE OUT THE NEXT THREE OR FOUR YEARS.

AND THEN THE LONG TERM PLAN IS WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU, WHICH IS THE BIG MAP.

AND WE HAVE 10 ADDITIONS THAT ARE BEING RECOMMENDED TO THAT.

AS PART OF THE UPDATE, NOT ONLY DO WE PRESENT THIS TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, BUT WE ACTUALLY UTILIZE OUR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.

WE ACTUALLY HAD TWO MEETINGS WITH THEM TO PROVIDE NOT ONLY INPUT FROM THE BOARD, BUT THE PUBLIC THAT ATTENDED THERE.

WE ATTENDED TWO PARKS COMMISSION MEETINGS TO SOLICIT THAT INPUT.

WE ALSO ATTENDED THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND PRESENTED THE PLAN AND THEN ALSO THE LAND PRESERVATION BOARD.

SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR NOT ONLY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS, BUT ALSO THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN ON THIS PLAN.

AND AGAIN, TONIGHT IS ALSO THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM. ONCE WE'VE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE ITEM WILL BE UP FOR DISCUSSION LATER TONIGHT ON THE AGENDA. BUT THEN I'LL BE BACK FOR THE BOARD, TAKE ACTION ON IT THE NEXT MEETING.

SO IF THERE'S SOMEONE WATCHING AT HOME THAT WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INPUT AND WAS NOT UNABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT, THERE'S STILL AN OPPORTUNITY TO EMAIL US AND GET THAT INFORMATION SO WE CAN PRESENT IT TO THE BOARD.

AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP IN YOUR PACKET, THE SHORT TERM PLAN, WE IDENTIFIED A COUPLE OF THOSE HISTORICAL GAPS AND THEY'RE REALLY THEY'RE THE YEAR AND THEN THE DASH AND THEN THE PRIORITY. SO OVER HERE ON HASLETT ROAD, THERE'S TWENTY FOUR DASH THREE.

WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS IS 2024.

THAT'S KIND OF OUR THIRD PRIORITY TO ACCOMPLISH IN THAT YEAR.

AND SO THERE SEVERAL OF THOSE ON HERE, ALTHOUGH I WILL SAY WITH THE CAVEAT THAT SOMETIMES THOSE MOVE UP IN PRIORITY WHEN A DEVELOPMENT OCCURS AND WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA.

SO ONCE THE DEVELOPER COMPLETES THEIR PORTION OF THE PATHWAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO LEAVE A GAP THERE FOR TWO YEARS.

IF IT MAKES SENSE, WE'LL PROCEED WITH THAT AND CLOSE THAT GAP.

SO, AGAIN, IT'S A PLAN.

IT'S A DOCUMENT THAT DOES CHANGE, BUT IT DOES PROVIDE US OVERALL DIRECTION.

AND THEN PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANTLY, ARE THE POTENTIAL ADDITIONS THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO THE PLAN. AND THERE'S TEN OF THOSE.

AND THOSE ARE IDENTIFIED ON YOUR MAP IN YELLOW.

AND THEN THEY HAVE KIND OF A I GUESS WE'LL CALL THAT COLOR PURPLE, THE NUMBER THAT IT IS IN A CIRCLE AND THOSE CORRELATE WITH THOSE IN THE MEMO, AS FAR AS LIKE THE GREEN ROAD EXTENSION IS NUMBER ONE, THAT'S LOCATED UP THERE ON GREEN ROAD IN YELLOW WITH THE PURPLE CIRCLE. SO THERE'S 10 OF THOSE I'VE IDENTIFIED ON THE MAP.

AND WE CAN GO THROUGH THOSE AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IF YOU HAD DISCUSSIONS DURING DISCUSSIONS. BUT THAT ESSENTIALLY IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I THINK THAT'S AN OVERVIEW.

AND UNLESS THERE'S OTHER QUESTIONS, I THINK WE'LL LET THE PUBLIC WEIGH IN.

THANK YOU. DEPUTY MANAGER PERRY, DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK DURING THE HEARING? SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:27 P.M.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA NUMBER 12A, THE CITIZENS SURVEY DRAFT.

[12A. Citizen’s Survey Draft (Part 1 of 2)]

WE WILL HAVE DIRECTOR CLARK INTRODUCE THE LATEST VERSION OF THE DRAFT TO THE BOARD.

THE LAST BOARD MEETING THAT WE TOOK UP DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COMMUNITY SURVEY, THERE WERE ONLY A FEW THINGS THAT THIS BODY HAD ASKED FOR REVISIONS.

GOOD EVENING.

ONE WAS REVISIONS TO THE QUESTIONS ABOUT BROADBAND TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE LAYMAN'S TERMS AND ADJUSTABLE FOR CITIZENS TO BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR WHAT KIND OF SERVICES THEY HAVE. SO THE QUESTIONS ARE REALLY RELATED TO WHAT SERVICES DO YOU HAVE CURRENTLY IN YOUR HOME? HOW DO YOU USE IT? YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU USE YOUR BROADBAND ACCESS? CONSIDER THE TOWNSHIP DOING AFFORDABLE BROADBAND THEN THE MONTHLY FEE THAT THEY BELIEVE IS APPROPRIATE, AND THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT AS FAR AS THE MILLAGE.

I FELT LIKE ASKING A MILLAGE QUESTION MIGHT BE CONFUSING.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN MILLS IN RELATION TO TAXES FOR THE RESIDENTS.

THE OTHER QUESTION WE ASKED, WE ASKED FOR ADDITIONS, FOR SPECIFICS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF EVENTS WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE COMMUNITY, AND THEN A SPECIFICATION RELATED TO CLERK GUTHRIE'S QUESTION FOR A QUESTION NUMBER THIRTY FOUR, TO SPECIFICALLY SAY WHAT THE TOWNSHIP OPTED OUT OF AS FAR AS RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA AND IF RESIDENTS FEEL WE SHOULD OPT IN. AND THOSE WERE THE ISSUES.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR CLARK.

INPUT AND DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD? TREASURER DESCHAINE? TO GET THE DISCUSSION GOING, I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO ADOPT THE DRAFT AND SURVEY AND INSTRUCT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP STAFF TO PURSUE WITH COBALT COMMUNITY RESEARCH.

SECOND. [INAUDIBLE].

[00:30:03]

SECONDED BY CLERK GUTHRIE.

TO THE DISCUSSION, I WANT TO THANK DIRECTOR CLARK THIS REALLY WASN'T WHAT WE HIRED YOU TO DO, BUT YOU'VE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB WITH IT YOU'VE BEEN ON IT FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS.

AND I'M TRYING TO BRING TOGETHER THE CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD AS TO WHAT THE SURVEY SHOULD BE.

SURVEYS. HAVEN'T BEEN, IF YOU WILL, POLITICAL IN THE PAST AND THIS ONE YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF BRINGING TOGETHER[INAUDIBLE] REACHING A CONSENSUS ON THE SURVEY.

I'M EXCITED ABOUT GETTING THIS OUT.

I THINK IT'S A BETTER SURVEY THAN WE DID LAST TIME.

I THINK WE'LL GET BETTER INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AND HOPEFULLY THE RESULTS WILL COME IN HIGHER NUMBERS THAN WE HAVE IN THE PAST.

AND WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR CERTAIN, BUT THE QUESTIONS ARE GOOD.

ONCE WE HAVE THE ANSWERS BACK, THEY'LL BE VERY HELPFUL TO US.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR GOOD WORK.

THANK YOU. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? TRUSTEE JACKSON? YES, I'D LIKE TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO ADOPT THE SURVEY AS DRAFTED.

NOW, MY NEXT QUESTI`ON WOULD BE, I PERSONALLY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE QUESTION IS WRITTEN . REAL QUICK BEFORE A DISCUSSION.

LET'S HAVE A IS THERE A SECOND TO TRUSTEE JACKSON MOTION? SECOND. SECONDED BY TRUSTEE SUNDLAND.

NOW, TRUSTEE JACKSON WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS YOUR MOTION? YES, I THINK THAT QUESTION 34 CONTINUES TO BE CONTENTIOUS AND DISRUPTIVE TO THIS PROCESS. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE QUESTION AS WRITTEN PROVIDES SUFFICIENT INFORMATION AND CLARITY IN TERMS OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED ALREADY, WHAT ACTIONS THE BOARD HAS TAKEN ALREADY.

AND SO TO ELIMINATE THAT DISPARITY, I WOULD PREFER TO SEE QUESTION 34 COMPLETELY ELIMINATED.

TRUSTEE SUNDLAND WANTS TO SECOND THAT MOTION.

DO YOU WISH TO DISCUSS IT? YEAH, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS SURVEY.

WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE COMMUNITY, OUR SERVICES, OUR PROGRAMS AND IN THE SURVEY. I JUST THINK THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE AN ITEM, YOU KNOW.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE SUNDLAND.

OTHER BOARD MEMBERS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION FOR THE AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY? TRUSTEE WISINSKI? ACTUALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT AND EXPRESS SOME CONCERNS IN THE PAST I THINK, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

AND I DO THINK THE SURVEYS [INAUDIBLE] ACCURATE ENOUGH TO AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY.

[INAUDIBLE].

WE DO HAVE A PLAN TO PUT THIS ON OUR NOVEMBER BALLOT, AND FOR ME I FEEL THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO GO TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE INCLUSIVE OF EVERYBODY AND LET'S GET AN ACCURATE RESPONSE FROM EVERYBODY. AND I JUST, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH NOT HAVING AS, TRUSTEE JACKSON MENTIONED, ENOUGH INFORMATION TO GIVE THE PUBLIC WITHIN A SURVEY QUESTION ON THIS SPECIFICS OF HOW. WHAT OUR ORDINANCE [INAUDIBLE] AND HOW WE WOULD PLAN TO LOOK AT THAT AS WELL? SO I WOULD ALSO SUPPORT REMOVAL OF QUESTION 34.

ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS ON THE MOTION TO AMEND? I'M GOING TO CALL ON SUPERVISOR STYKA AND THEN TREASURER DESCHAINE.

I DISAGREE.

IT SEEMS TO ME FIRST, WE DON'T KNOW YET [INAUDIBLE].

ALSO, THAT PRESUMES A LOT OF SIGNATURES NEED TO BE NARROWLY OBTAINED, THE VERY SCRUTINY OF THE LANGUAGE, ETC.

THERE WOULD BE [INAUDIBLE].

SECONDLY, THIS OPEN IDEA OF A SURVEY DOES NOT GET THE PERFECT RESULT OF A SERIOUS TAKE TEMPERATURE? AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHY ARE YOU BOTHERING WITH THE SURVEY? WE'RE SO WORRIED ABOUT HAVING THE RESULT IMPERFECT.

THE SAMPLE WILL BE LARGE TO BE LARGE ENOUGH TO BE PERFECT , DON'T DO THE SURVEY AT ALL.

THE FACT IS THE SURVEY IS GOING TO GUVE USE THE PULSE OF THE COMMUNITY.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED.

[00:35:01]

WE NEED TO [INAUDIBLE] ME IN PARTICULAR ACTUALLY MAKE A FINAL DECISION WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE. WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE TOWNSHIP CHAIR WHAT HE'S THINKING.

AND I THINK [INAUDIBLE] A SMALL SAMPLE SURVEY,[INAUDIBLE] THIS ONE.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR STYKA.

TREASURER DESCHAINE? FIRST OF ALL, LET ME READ QUESTION 34.

IN 2019 THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP BOARD APPROVED THE CURRENT ORDINANCE FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA LICENSING ONLY TO DO SOME BACKGROUND IMPROVE MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

THE TOWNSHIP OPTED OUT OF RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA LICENSING IN 2019, STATES WHERE IT WASN'T RECREATIONAL.

SHOULD THE TOWNSHIP BOARD ELECTED TO OPT INTO RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA LICENSING IN 2021? RATHER THAN ELIMINATE THIS QUESTION, WE NEED TO GET THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

SUGGEST A ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE QUESTION.

BUT TO LEAVE IT OFF REALLY DEFEATS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY.

THIS IS THE MOST PRESSING QUESTION BEFORE US.

SHOULD WE ALLOW RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP? THIS BOARD HAS ACTED TOGETHER FOR FIVE YEARS.

IT'S SPLIT RIGHT NOW.

THE WAY TO RESOLVE THAT IS TO FIND OUT HOW OUR CITIZENS FEEL ABOUT THIS, NOT TO PUT A BAG OVER OUR HEADS AND PLUG OUR EARS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE ANSWER.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. ARE YOU, WITH THIS QUESTION SAYING WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY? SIMPLY WE DON'T CARE.

WE'RE GOING TO VOTE HOW WE FEEL IN OUR GUT ABOUT MARIJUANA.

WE'RE GOING TO VOTE OUR OPINION.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE BASED ON WHAT THE CITIZENS WANT.

WE'RE NOT EVEN ASKING THE CITIZENS.

THIS WOULD BE THE MOST UNDEMOCRATIC THING IMAGINABLE FOR THIS BOARD TO DO, TO TAKE THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION BEFORE US OFF THE SURVEY.

REVISE THE QUESTION IF YOU WANT MORE INFORMATION, BUT TO TAKE IT OFF IS THE WRONG THING TO DO. IT'S NO ACCIDENT THAT THE FOUR TRUSTEES OR THREE OF THE FOUR TRUSTEES SUPPORTING RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA ARE ALSO ASKING FOR THIS QUESTION TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SURVEY.

[INAUDIBLE] THE MEETINGS SAID THE TOWNSHIP SUPPORTS RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.

LOOK, THEY VOTED 61 PERCENT TO DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA IN 2018.

WE HAVE BROAD SUPPORT FOR THIS.

BUT IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT, YOU WOULD WELCOME THIS QUESTION.

I KNOW THE ANSWER IS THEY'RE GOING TO BACK UP YOUR 61 PERCENT ASSERTION.

TAKE IT OFF, YOU'RE REALLY SAYING THE OPPOSITE.

YOU'RE SAYING WE DON'T REALLY THINK WE GOT THAT MUCH SUPPORT.

MAYBE IT'S TWENTY FIVE PERCENT TO SUPPORT RECREATIONAL, MAYBE IT'S 30, BUT PROBABLY 61.

SO THIS IS A REAL TELL OF YOUR POSITIONS TO TAKE IT OFF THE SURVEY.

THAT'S TO ME AND MANY OTHER CITIZENS THAT WILL BE TO SAY WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT MUCH SUPPORT FOR THIS AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT VERIFIED BY A SURVEY BECAUSE THIS IS A FAIR QUESTION. OUR DIRECTOR WORKED ON IT FOR MONTHS.

IT'S NOT A BIASED QUESTION.

SHE STATED THAT WE PASSED MEDICAL, WE CAN OPT OUT OF RECREATIONAL.

WHAT DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD DO NOW WITH RECREATIONAL? SHE STATES BOTH FACTS REAL CLEARLY IN THAT QUESTION.

AND YOU REMOVE THE QUESTION.

THAT'S A REAL TELL TO HOW MUCH SUPPORT WE THINK IS OUT THERE IN THE COMMUNITY.

IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THE QUESTION OFF THE SURVEY, THAT TELLS ME YOU DON'T THINK THERE'S THAT MUCH SUPPORT. YOU WANT TO TAKE ACTION WITHOUT KNOWING HOW YOUR COMMUNITY FEELS ABOUT THIS VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.

AS FOR TRUSTEE WISINSKI'S QUESTION ABOUT THE NOVEMBER BALLOT, IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ON NOVEMBER BALLOT, ASKING THIS.

I'M ASSUMING DOESN'T CHANGE IT ONE BIT, IT'S NOT LIKE A SURVEY THAT'S ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE THE PUBLIC.

IT JUST PASSED THE PUBLIC QUESTION.

PEOPLE WANT TO PUT ON THE BALLOT, HAVE A HIGH HILL TO CLIMB.

THEY'VE GOT TO GET THE PETITION SIGNATURES.

THEY'VE GOT TO END UP IN COURT FIGHTING AGAINST THE POT [INAUDIBLE], WHICH WILL PROBABLY CHALLENGE THE PETITIONS.

THEN THEY'VE GOT TO GO OUT AND GET THE VOTERS TO SUPPORT IT.

AND CLINTON TOWNSHIP, THE PRO POT PEOPLE, PRO MARIJUANA PEOPLE SPENT THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS TO GET THERE TO OPT IN.

AND THE ANTI MARIJUANA PEOPLE SPENT ABOUT FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.

THEY STILL CHOSE TO OPT OUT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IF THIS GETS IN THE BALLOT, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF MONEY, SUPPORTED THIS TOWNSHIP TO TRY AND GET MERIDIAN VOTERS TO SUPPORT, RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.

THAT WILL CHANGE HOW PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT, THAT'S THE POINT OF THESE THINGS.

WE HAVE A CHANCE TO FIND OUT TODAY HOW PEOPLE FEEL BEFORE ALL OUR MAILBOX GET FULL OF MAIL, [INAUDIBLE] PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST IT.

I'M REALLY APPALLED BY THIS IDEA OF TAKING THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION BEFORE US OFF THE SURVEY. THIS IS UNDEMOCRATIC AND IT'S JUST PLAIN WRONG.

[00:40:05]

I AGREE WITH SUPERVISOR STYKA, IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT THIS QUESTION ON THERE LET'S CANCEL THE WHOLE SURVEY, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW NOW.

HOW OUR RESIDENTS FEEL ABOUT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.

AND I AM VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO REMOVING THIS QUESTION.

IT DEFEATS THE WHOLE SURVEY.

TREASURER DESCHAINE. CLERK GUTHRIE? I AGREE. I LOOK AT THIS BOARD AS AN INCLUSIVE BOARD WHO INCLUDES RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS WHO ASKS THEM THEIR OPINION FREQUENTLY WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS.

THIS BOARD HAS CONTINUALLY SUPPORTED THE HOMTV OPERATIONS TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE. THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO SUPPORT OTHER OPERATIONS, LIKE HAVING A HYBRID MEETING CURRENTLY SO THAT WE CAN BE INCLUSIVE OF ALL TOWNSHIP BOARD MEMBERS IN THEIR TIME OF NEED. I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC AT THIS MOMENT FROM HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THIS QUESTION OR ANY OTHER QUESTION ON THE SURVEY.

THIS BOARD AGREED EARLIER THIS YEAR AND I'M SORRY, AMBER, THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS BOARD LISTENING TO A BICKER ABOUT ONE QUESTION.

AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME ON THIS SURVEY.

WE SAID EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE A DIFFERENT COMPANY DO THE SURVEY SO THAT WE COULD HAVE A LARGER SAMPLE THAN WE USED TO HAVE BEFORE, AND SO THAT WE AND SOMEBODY PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

SO WE GET A LARGER SAMPLE THAN WE USED TO HAVE BEFORE AND SO THAT WE COULD ASK MORE QUESTIONS. NOW, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THIS IS A SMALL SAMPLE.

NO, IT'S LARGER THAN WHAT WE USED TO HAVE.

AND THIS BOARD WOULD TAKE THOSE RESULTS FROM THE SURVEYS IN THE PAST AND USE THOSE TO MAKE DECISIONS ON.

AND NOW WE WANT TO SUPPRESS PEOPLE'S OPINIONS AND THEIR VOICE ON THE SURVEY BY NOT ASKING THIS QUESTION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME AS SOMEBODY WHO LIKES TO ASK QUESTIONS AND SOMEBODY WHO LIKES TO FIND OUT INFORMATION, I'M NOT SURE WHY THIS BOARD WOULD NOT WANT TO FIND OUT INFORMATION AND ASK THIS QUESTION OF OF ITS RESIDENTS.

IT MAKES ZERO SENSE TO ME.

I DON'T THINK IT'S CONTROVERSIAL.

YOU COULD TAKE ANYTHING FROM THE SURVEY AND CLAIM THAT IT'S CONTROVERSIAL.

IT IS ONE QUESTION.

YOU COULD TAKE THE ROAD MILLAGE THAT WE ASKED YOU FOR AND PREVIOUS SURVEYS.

AND IF YOUR OPINION IS THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE A ROAD MILLAGE, YOU COULD SAY THAT'S CONTROVERSIAL. YOU COULD PICK APART ANYTHING IN THE SURVEY CLAIM THAT IT'S CONTROVERSIAL AT. I AGREE WITH THAT COMPLETELY TO SAY THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION AND THEN IN THE SAME BREATH TO SAY, I THINK IT SHOULD BE ASKED ON A BALLOT. OK, SO THERE'S ENOUGH INFORMATION ON A BALLOT TO ASK THE QUESTION OF EVERYBODY, BUT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO ASK THIS QUESTION ON THE SURVEY.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

YOU CAN'T SAY THERE'S ENOUGH, THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ON THE SURVEY. MAYBE YOU DON'T LIKE HOW IT'S WRITTEN, BUT I AM AN INCLUSIVE PERSON WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN SUPPRESSING PEOPLE'S VOICES OR THEIR OPINIONS.

AND I, AS ELECTED TOWNSHIP CLERK, WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT OUR RESIDENTS HAVE TO SAY IN REGARDS TO NOT ONLY THIS QUESTION, BUT OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE ON THE SURVEY.

OK, ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SPOKEN THUS FAR ON THE MOTION TO AMEND.

SO I WANT TO SPEAK FOR A MOMENT ON THE MOTION BEFORE US.

SO I WANT TO FIRST SAY THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT STATUTORY THRESHOLDS AND CONSTITUTIONAL THRESHOLDS FOR WHAT CAN GO ON THE BALLOT AND COMPARE THAT TO THE SAMPLE SIZE THAT WE WOULD GET IN THIS SURVEY OR THAT YOU WOULD GET IN ANY SURVEY YOUR POLLING JUST TO PUT THE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LITTLE OVER 11 HUNDRED VALID SIGNATURES, WHICH IS ACTUALLY NOT A VERY HIGH THRESHOLD.

IT'S FIVE PERCENT OF ALL VOTES CAST FOR ALL GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES IN THE MOST RECENT GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION.

SO THE MOST RECENT ONE WAS 2018, THERE WAS A LITTLE UNDER 24000 VOTES CAST.

AND YOU HAVE A YEAR TO COLLECT THOSE SIGNATURES.

THAT'S A LOT LOWER THRESHOLD THAN A STATEWIDE INITIATIVE WHERE YOU HAVE TO COLLECT EIGHT PERCENT OF ALL VOTES CAST AND YOU HAVE TO COLLECT THEM ACROSS VARIOUS CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS. YOU HAVE TO MEET THRESHOLDS WITHIN EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

SO JUST TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT AT THE LOWEST THRESHOLD HERE IN THE TOWNSHIP, YOU NEED TO HAVE 100 SIGNATURES.

AND WHAT THIS QUESTION SEEKS TO DO IS IT SEEKS TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION THAT WAS HELD IN 2018 WITH A SAMPLE SIZE OF 300 TO 400 RESPONDENTS.

[00:45:01]

AND WE ALL KNOW THAT ANY POLL AND ANY SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO A MARGIN OF ERROR OF SIGNIFICANT MAGNITUDE.

AND THIS IS THE ONLY QUESTION ON THE SURVEY THAT ACTUALLY SEEKS TO, I GUESS, FIND CLARIFICATION ON AN ELECTION THAT WE ALREADY HAD.

AND THAT ELECTION HAD THE HIGHEST TURNOUT OF AN ELECTION OF ITS NATURE IN TOWNSHIP HISTORY. WE'VE NEVER HAD THAT MANY VOTES CAST IN A GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION.

SO IF THE THRESHOLD TO JUST GET SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT IS 11 HUNDRED, HAVING A SURVEY QUESTION WITH THE INTENT OF DECIDING AN ISSUE WITH THREE HUNDRED TO 400 RESPONDENTS DOESN'T EVEN MEAN THAT IT'S A THIRD OF WHAT YOU WOULD NEED JUST TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT. SO THAT'S HOW I'M VIEWING THIS.

AND I DO THINK THERE IS AN ATTEMPT TO BASICALLY PULL AN ELECTION THAT WE DO FULLY ANTICIPATE HAVING, BECAUSE, AGAIN, UNLIKE A STATEWIDE BALLOT INITIATIVE WHERE YOU FORCE THE CITIZENRY, YOU KNOW, OR YOU CAN'T HAVE A GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT, THE ONLY ONE THAT SUCCEEDED WAS VOTERS, NOT POLITICIANS, IN GETTING SOMETHING ON THE STATEWIDE BALLOT BECAUSE OF YOU HAD TO COLLECT EIGHT PERCENT OF SIGNATURES STATEWIDE AND YOU HAD TO COLLECT THEM GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE STATE HERE, THE 1100 IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP AND YOU HAVE A WHOLE YEAR VERSUS SIX MONTHS TO DO IT IS A VERY LOW BAR AND I FULLY ANTICIPATE WE WILL HAVE AN ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.

AND IF NOT, THEN NEXT SPRING.

THE BAR IS CERTAINLY SO LOW THAT AT ONE POINT VERY SOON WE WILL HAVE AN ELECTION.

BUT THE SAMPLE SIZE IS A THIRD.

YOU KNOW, THE SAMPLE SIZE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A THIRD OF JUST THAT BAR TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT. AND THAT'S WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THE QUESTION.

NOW, WHAT I ALSO WANT TO SAY IS I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT COBALT AND WHAT THEY DID IN THE CITY OF ROYAL OAK, AGAIN, THAT SURVEY WAS VERY DETAILED.

IT ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT ZONING REGULATION.

AND THESE WERE ALL IDEAS THAT I'VE OFFERED ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT MEETINGS.

AND I'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR I'M NOT AND I DON'T THINK ANY BOARD MEMBER SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE DRAFTING OF THE QUESTIONS.

BUT I'VE OFFERED IDEAS AND CONCEPTS.

ONE WOULD BE TO PUT THE OVERLAY DISTRICT MAP IN.

ONE WOULD BE TO CLARIFY THAT THERE'S AN ACTUAL CAP ON THE NUMBER OF PROVISIONAL CENTERS.

ONE WOULD BE TO OUTLINE THAT THE ZONING REGULATION ON THIS LAND USE IS STRICTER THAN ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL USE IN THE TOWNSHIP.

WE HAVE ALMOST 100 LIQUOR LICENSES AS IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT THIS QUESTION READS LIKE THERE'S INFINITE OR THERE COULD BE AN UNCAPPED NUMBER OF PROVISIONING CENTERS.

AND AGAIN, WHAT WE'VE ACTUALLY DONE IS CREATED AN OVERLAY DISTRICT SYSTEM THAT REGULATES IT BY ZONING AND A STRICTER MANNER THAN ANY OTHER LAND USE.

AND THAT IS IN NO WAY OUTLINED IN THE QUESTION.

IN ADDITION TO THE CAP, IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER CONTROL METHODS, THE FINES, THE REVENUE TO THE TOWNSHIP THAT WOULD BE GENERATED.

I MEAN THE TWO ORDINANCES THAT WE ADOPTED ON THE MEDICAL SIDE AND THE OVERLAY DISTRICT MAPS TOOK 12 OR 14 MONTHS, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LOOK AT THAT FIRST WORK SESSION THAT WE HAD VERSUS WHEN WE STARTED THE ACTUAL DRAFTING TWO OR THREE MONTHS LATER.

SO THERE IS A DEARTH OF WORK THAT WENT IN THERE THAT ISN'T OUTLINED.

AND TO ME, THE AVERAGE CITIZEN IS GOING TO READ THIS QUESTION AND ASSUME THAT BASICALLY ANY COMMERCIAL OR PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY COULD BE CONVERTED BECAUSE THERE'S NO CAP OUTLINE, THERE'S NO ZONING REGULATION OUTLINED.

IT READS AS IF THERE IS NO CONTROLS PUT IN PLACE WHATSOEVER.

I HAVE OFFERED ALTERNATIVES.

I'M NOT GOING TO TYPE UP AN ELABORATE DOCUMENT AND MAKE A MOTION OFF OF IT, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO PERSONALLY BE INVOLVED IN THE DRAFTING OF THAT.

BUT I HAVE OFFERED THOSE CONCEPTS AND WE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WHEN WE HAD EVEN BEFORE THE RFP, JUST WHEN DIRECTOR CLARK WENT OUT AND FOUND A COUPLE OF FIRMS, ONE OF WHICH WAS MSU, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THE COBALT EXAMPLE OF THEIR SURVEY AND IT HAD YOU KNOW, THEY WERE COMING AT IT FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE.

THEY HAD NOT OPTED IN ON EITHER YET.

BUT WE'RE PLANNING TO AND WERE SEEKING INPUT.

AND I WILL SAY THAT THEIR SURVEY DID A LINE WITHIN TWO PERCENT OF THE VOTE.

BUT THEIR SURVEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT ZONING REGULATION CAPS AND OTHER ENFORCEMENTS TO CONTROL AND REGULATE THE FACILITY TYPE WITHIN THE CITY.

OURS IS JUST AN OPEN ENDED QUESTION.

AND SO I THINK IT DOES A DISSERVICE TO THE WORK THAT THE BOARD DID.

AND I THINK THE INTENT IS TO PULL AN ELECTION THAT'S COMING UP.

AND I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S AN INTENT TO CREATE A TALKING POINT THAT THE RESIDENTS DON'T SUPPORT IT, BECAUSE I THINK THE RESIDENTS WILL MOSTLY READ THAT QUESTION AS A FREE FOR ALL HERE IN THE TOWNSHIP.

I THINK THE ONE THING THAT RESIDENTS DO UNDERSTAND BASED ON THE CITY OF LANSING IS HOW

[00:50:05]

QUICKLY THESE CAN PROLIFERATE WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A CAP.

OUR CAP IS SIX.

AND TECHNICALLY, LOGISTICALLY, IT'S FIVE, BECAUSE ONE OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICTS WE FOUND OUT THROUGH ONE OF THE APPLICANTS APPLYING THERE HAS SO LITTLE UPLAND THAT THEY CAN'T EVEN BUILD ON IT. SO WE'RE EFFECTIVELY, WE HAVE A CAP OF FIVE.

WHAT THAT IS TO SAY THAT NONE OF THAT IS OUTLINED AND OBVIOUSLY OUTLINING THAT AND INCLUDING THE OVERLAY MAPS IS ROBUST AT THIS POINT.

SO I'M PREPARED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION SO THAT WE CAN GET THE COMMUNITY SURVEY UNDERWAY.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY INITIAL COMMENTS.

DO WE HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? TREASURER DESCHAINE? YOU SAID, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER, THIS SEEKS TO OVERTHROW THE ELECTION IN 2018.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

THE ELECTION IN 2018 DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA AND ALLOWED FOR LOCAL CONTROL TO OPT IN OR OPT OUT. SO THAT'S JUST A FALSE STATEMENT.

AND I THINK YOU SHOULD WITHDRAW.

THIS CAP OF FIVE IS ANOTHER MAYBE HOPE YOU HAVE.

WELL, WE WERE TOLD BY OUR LEGAL COUNSEL THAT IF WE DO ANYTHING LESS THAN THE UNLIMITED MARIJUANA STORES IN MERIDIAN, WITH YOUR PROVISION CENTER, WE WOULD BE SUED AND SUED AND SUED AS COMMUNITIES HAVE. SO YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU MIGHT GET CAPPED AT FIVE.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE POT IN HIS CAP, THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE US WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO EVERYONE ELSE WHO'S OPTED IN. THEY'VE SUED UNTIL THEY'VE GOTTEN THEIR WAY, WHICH HAS MEANT UNLIMITED NUMBER OF MARIJUANA STORES.

AND THIS ASSERTION THAT SOMEONE MIGHT READ THIS IN OUR TOWNSHIP AND SAY, OH, THEY CAN PUT A POT STORE ANYWHERE, ANY COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE THAT REALLY INSULTS OUR RESIDENTS, OUR RESIDENTS ARE SMARTER THAN THAT.

THEY KNOW WE HAVE THE ZONING.

THEY KNOW WE'VE BEEN AT THIS PROCESS FOR A WHILE.

THEY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE SOME FALSE ASSUMPTION THEY CAN GO ANYWHERE, ANY TIME IS REALLY INSULTING TO THE EDUCATION AND THE SOPHISTICATION OF OUR 43,000 RESIDENTS.

ANOTHER COMMENT. I WISH YOU WOULD WITHDRAW BECAUSE IT'S INSULTING TO OUR RESIDENTS.

I WISH YOU WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTION IS WHY YOU'D WANT TO DO SOMETHING SO UNDEMOCRATIC AS TO TAKE THIS QUESTION OFF THE SURVEY.

YOU, AMONG OTHERS HAVE SAID, OH, THERE'S GREAT SUPPORT FOR THE 61 PERCENT ORDER FOR THE 2018 REFERENDUM. I'M SURE WE CAN JUST GO THROUGH AND CHANGE THE WORD MEDICAL TO RECREATIONAL IN OUR EXISTING ORDINANCE PASSED THAT WE HAVE GREAT SUPPORT FOR IT.

IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT, YOU WOULD WANT TO HAVE THIS SURVEY QUESTION OUT THERE TO BACK UP YOUR BELIEF THAT 61 PERCENT OF OUR VOTERS SUPPORT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA, WE DON'T KNOW. COULD BE 61 PERCENT, COULD BE 41 PERCENT, COULD BE 75, COULD BE 25.

THEY JUST DON'T KNOW.

IT'S NEVER BEEN SURVEYED BEFORE.

THE QUESTION ON 2018 WAS, DO WE WANT DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA? DO WE WANT TO ALLOW LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO GET, WE VOTED FOR THAT.

NOW, HERE IS A CHANCE FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THIS ISSUE AND FIND OUT HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA STORES IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

BUT AGAIN, THE CAP OF FIVE IS JUST MAYBE YOUR BEST INTENTIONS, BUT LEGAL PRECEDENTS AND THE EXPERIENCE OF OUR LAW FIRM AND SAID IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FIVE, THEY'RE GOING TO SUE US AND THEY'LL GET AS MANY IF THEY WANT.

THIS IS NOT OVERTHROWING 2018, IT IS EXERCISING LOCAL CONTROL OF THIS.

AND OUR RESIDENTS ARE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT IF THEY APPROVE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA, THERE'LL BE PLENTY OF ZONING CONTROL OVER THAT.

NO ONE'S GOING TO READ THIS AND THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A POT STORE ON EVERY CORNER.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ASK OUR RESIDENTS ABOUT AND TO PULL OFF THE SURVEY IS TO SAY, IN MY OPINION, IS TO SAY I DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT THE RESIDENTS THINK ABOUT THIS.

OUR LISTENERS DON'T KNOW ABOUT STATUTORY THRESHOLDS OR BATTLE THRESHOLDS OR SAMPLE SIZE.

THEY CAN UNDERSTAND A QUESTION LIKE THIS.

DO YOU SUPPORT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA STORES IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP? YES OR NO? IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION.

IT'S A WELL CRAFTED QUESTION.

NOTHING TO DO WITH BATTLE THRESHOLDS AND STATUTORY THRESHOLDS.

YOU CAN USE ALL THE NATURAL LANGUAGE YOU WANT, BUT THAT DOESN'T GET BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE, THAT YOU'RE SUPPORTING THROWING OFF THE SURVEY AND YOU REALLY HAVE NOT GIVEN US A GOOD REASON FOR TAKING IT OFF THE SURVEY.

WE NEED TO KNOW THIS ANSWER BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING WITH OR WITHOUT THE CITIZENS INITIATIVE.

AND TO TAKE IT OFF THE SURVEY IS THE WRONG THING TO DO.

AND IT'S GOING TO BE A REALLY, REALLY DARK DAY FOR THIS BOARD TO DO THIS TONIGHT.

AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE BOARD MEMBERS NOT TO TAKE THIS ACTION.

IT'S GOING TO MAKE THIS BOARD.

WE DON'T CARE WHAT OUR CITIZENS THINK.

WELL, IN FACT, WE DO CARE.

WE ALL RAN FOR OFFICE.

WE'VE KNOCKED ON THOUSANDS OF DOORS.

YOU PROMISED TO A PROFESSIONAL BOARD, A BOARD THAT LISTENS TO ITS CITIZENS, A BOARD THAT REPRESENTS THE GREAT CUSTOMER SERVICE, MANAGER WALSH HAS SHOWN TO ALL EMPLOYEES, WE'RE A

[00:55:01]

BIT MORE THAN DONE WITH THINGS.

IT'S NOT BLOWING UP TONIGHT OVER THIS QUESTION, BUT YOU TAKE IT OFF THE SURVEY, YOU'RE GOING TO BLOW IT UP TONIGHT BECAUSE IT'S SUCH AN UNDEMOCRATIC AND WRONG THING TO DO.

I ENCOURAGE YOU TO RECONSIDER YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS.

TREASURER DESCHAINE. OTHER BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE SECOND ROUNDS OF COMMENTS? TRUSTEE JACKSON AND THEN SUPERVISOR STYKA, I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THIS QUESTION HAS JUST DESTROYED OUR ORIGINAL INTENT IN AND DESIGNING AND ASKING FOR A COMMUNITY SURVEY, MUCH LIKE THE KINDS WE'VE DONE FOR MANY YEARS. THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION FORCES AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT OBJECTIVE AND ENVIRONMENT TO POLLING OUR TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS TO RE EVALUATE AND RESPOND TO HOW TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT REALLY TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT WORKS.

I DO NOT I I'M VERY TROUBLED BY THE USE OF THIS SMALL SAMPLE SURVEY DESIGNED TO POLL THE RESPONSES OF OUR RESIDENTS TO ITS GOVERNMENT BEING TURNED INTO A REFERENDUM ON AN ISSUE LIKE MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN THE TOWNSHIP.

THE SALE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS CLEARLY IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAS BEEN A LONG TIME AND THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I STILL SUPPORT IT, I CONTINUE TO SUPPORT MOVING THAT, QUESTION NUMBER 34 FROM IT.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE JACKSON.

SUPERVISOR STYKA? AND YOU'RE MUTED.

NO WORRIES. WE'LL GET HIM ON.

ALL RIGHT, NOW. [INAUDIBLE] . AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASSUMING ISN'T ALWAYS SAID.

CETERA, ET CETERA.

THIS IS A BIGGER ISSUE.

DO WE WANT TO HAVE MEDICAL MARIJUANA, RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA, SO WE CAN REATTACH IT [INAUDIBLE]. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. ALL THE ARGUMENTS ARE HERE AGAINST IT CONTINUING WITH DETAILS. WELL, IN THE REAL ESTATE PROCESSES WE'RE THE ONES THAT'S IN THE DETAILS, I CAN'T GET PAST THE THRESHOLD QUESTION.

AND ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THIS [INAUDIBLE] HELPS US DECIDE THE THRESHOLD QUESTION.

IS THAT A COMMUNITY WE WANT TO BE INVOLVED WITH? ISN'T IT CRUDE HAVING THESE KINDS OF SHOPS.

YES OR NO? IF THE ANSWER IS YES.

WE'VE GOT ALL THESE DETAILS ABOUT ZONING DISTRICTS AND HOW MANY THERE CAN BE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. BUT THE GENERAL QUESTION IS YES OR NO.

[INAUDIBLE] YES OR NO.

AND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE SAY, YES, [INAUDIBLE], AND THAT'S A VERY FAMILY ORIENTED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY.

THEY SAY, NO, WE THINK THAT WE HAVE TO THINK IT THROUGH TO THINK ABOUT TERMS OF WHERE ARE WE GOING. MAYBE WE SHOULD BE MORE LIKE EAST LANSING, LESS LIKE THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT, THE AREA THAT WE'VE BEEN, MAYBE FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

YOU KNOW THAT AGAIN, I'M NOT LOOKING FOR DETAILS.

[01:00:01]

I'M LOOKING FOR A [INAUDIBLE].

THAT HELPS ME TO KNOW GENERALLY AND I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS PREJUDICIAL IN ANY WAY.

WHAT'S REALLY CRUCIAL [INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR STYKA.

OTHER BOARD MEMBERS FOR A SECOND ROUND OF COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? TRUSTEE WISINSKI? WITHOUT GETTING BACK INTO SAMPLE SIZE AND OR THE IMPORTANCE OF DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND THE LACK OF INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION LIKE THIS, I WILL GO BACK TO TRUSTEE JACKSON AS AS WELL AS SUPERVISOR, YOU KNOW, TOUCHED ON THIS.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION ON THE SURVEY.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS A CITIZEN'S SURVEY THAT COLLECTS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION AND TO ME, PUBLIC SAFETY OR PARKS AND PATHWAYS,[INAUDIBLE] THING TO ME.

IS THIS A QUESTION THAT WE WANT TO KNOW? YES.

HAS IT MADE THIS SURVEY, THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A COMMUNITY SURVEY, POLITICAL? YES. DO WE WANT TO TAKE THAT POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY AND PUT IT THROUGH THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS? YES.

THAT'S WHY I AM SUPPORTING REMOVING NUMBER 34 FROM THE SURVEY.

BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT SPOKEN A SECOND TIME.

TRUSTEE SUNDLAND.

YEAH, I JUST THINK IT'S KIND OF UNFORTUNATE THAT WE'VE COME TO ONE QUESTION AND I MEAN, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A COMMUNITY SURVEY OF ALL OF OUR SERVICES.

WE'RE JUST NARROWING IT DOWN TO ONE QUESTION AND DEBATING OVER RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA AND WHETHER IT SHOULD BE IN OR OUT.

AND I JUST THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE'RE TAKING AWAY FROM A COMMUNITY SURVEY OF ALL OF OUR SERVICES IN THE COMMUNITY AND JUST FOCUSING IN ON ONE QUESTION.

I THINK THE QUESTION SHOULD BE REMOVED SO THAT WE GET A SURVEY OF OUR COMMUNITY SERVICES AND NOT JUST A POLITICAL FOCUS ON RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE SUNDLAND.

MY FINAL COMMENT WILL JUST BE THAT, AGAIN, I BELIEVE THIS QUESTION ON THE SURVEY IS THE ONLY ONE THAT SEEKS TO BRING SOME KIND OF CLARITY TO AN ELECTION THAT WAS ALREADY HELD.

WE DO EXPECT THERE TO BE ANOTHER VOTE AT THE BALLOT BOX MORE SPECIFIC TO THIS COMMUNITY, AND THAT IS THE PLACE FOR THAT TO OCCUR.

THE BOARD DOESN'T NEED TO PRE-POLL.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD ZONINGS OVERTURNED IN THIS COMMUNITY.

WE DIDN'T DO SURVEYS TO FIND OUT WHERE THE CONSTITUENTS WERE AT IN TERMS OF OVERTURNING REZONING AND OTHER THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PLACE FOR THE BOARD TO BE POLLING ITEMS THAT ARE SOLVED AT THE BALLOT BOX. EVERYONE'S HAD A SECOND TIME TO SPEAK.

CLERK GUTHRIE COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL ON TRUSTEE JACKSON'S MOTION TO REMOVE QUESTION THIRTY FOUR.

TRUSTEE JACKSON'S MOTION TO TAKE 34 AND HAVE THE SURVEY AS IS WAS PASSED 4-3.

AND NOW WE HAVE THE MAIN MOTION BEFORE US AS MOVED BY TREASURER DESCHAINE.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON THE CITIZEN SURVEY.

TREASURER DESCHAINE. I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE TOWNSHIP MANAGER ON THE SURVEY AND WHAT HIS OPINION OF THE SURVEY IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION IS AND WHAT [INAUDIBLE] ON A CUSTOMER SURVEY BECAUSE THE MANAGER HINTED THAT WITH DEPUTY MANAGER GARY [INAUDIBLE].

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR HIS OPINION OF OUR SURVEY AND WHERE IT'S AT TODAY.

WELL, I'LL JUST STEP BACK IN HISTORY FOR A MOMENT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, TRYING NOT TO

[01:05:06]

GET INTO YOUR DISCUSSION THAT YOU'RE HAVING THIS EVENING WITH A VERY SPLIT BOARD.

THE FACT IS THAT YOU ASK QUESTIONS JUST LIKE YOU TURNED DOWN.

YOU ASK QUESTIONS LIKE THAT PLENTY OF TIMES.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, I TAKE YOU BACK SIX YEARS AGO WHEN HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENTS IN STUDENT HOUSING WAS A BIG ISSUE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

AND WE GOT A LOT OF PUSHBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY.

IF YOU REMEMBER, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU ACTUALLY PROBABLY PUT ON THE BALLOT WAS SHOULD THE COMMUNITY--I DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF ME--BUT BASICALLY IT WAS SHOULD BE CURTAIL THE DEVELOPMENT MORE OF STUDENT HOUSING OR LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEXES.

SO YOU TOOK A BIG KEY ISSUE AT THAT TIME AND DECIDED TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.

THERE'S BEEN OTHERS THAT YOU'VE DONE LIKEWISE TO.

SO REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU SEE THAT ONE ISSUE THAT YOU JUST DISCUSSED AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU'VE DONE EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE IF YOU LEFT THAT QUESTION ON, YOU'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST.

NOW, IT COULD HAVE BEEN, AND I DON'T BELIEVE TO BE COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS THIS BOARD, SOME OF YOU, OR WHETHER IT WAS BEFORE.

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, THE FORMER BOARD THAT DID THAT.

I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE DID IT, BUT WE HAVE TAKEN THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF ASKING THE QUESTIONS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, ONE WOULD SAY THAT [INAUDIBLE] CALL, WE GET A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON PRO AND CON AND SO DO WHAT ARE WE DOING? WE'RE PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT OR PUTTING IT ON THE SURVEY BECAUSE WE WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT THE COMMUNITY ACTUALLY THINKS ABOUT IT.

SO, IN A WAY, SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TONIGHT ABOUT NOT PUTTING THAT ISSUE ON THE ON THE SURVEY BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING VERY IMPORTANT COMMUNITY ISSUES, STUDENT HOUSING, LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEXES [INAUDIBLE] CALL, YOU PUT THOSE ON THE BALLOT, OR ON THE SURVEY BEFORE.

IN FACT, THERE'S ONE RIGHT NOW.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO YOUR ISSUE THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING TODAY.

I HAVE NO PLACE IN THAT DISCUSSION.

BUT IN THE PAST, YOU HAVE MODELED THE SURVEYS ON DIFFICULT COMMUNITY QUESTIONS.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ANY MORE THAN THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE PAST HAS BEEN LIKE.

IN FACT, WE ALWAYS ASK ABOUT HOMTV EVERY SURVEY BECAUSE WE WANT TO DRILL DOWN ABOUT WHAT WE WERE COMMITTING TO HOMTV, HOW MUCH INFORMATION YOU GET FROM HOMTV.

AND THAT'S WHY HOMTV'S BEEN STRONG AND WHY WE'VE SUPPORTED IT BECAUSE OF THE FEEDBACK WE HAVE USED, THE INFORMATION FROM THE SURVEYS, ESPECIALLY THAT QUESTION ABOUT STUDENT HOUSING AND LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEXES.

WE HAVE USED THAT QUESTION TO DEVELOP PUBLIC POLICY GOING FORWARD.

OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD ON THE MAIN MOTION WHO HAVEN'T SPOKEN YET ON THE MAIN MOTION. TREASURER DESCHAINE.

I THINK WE'VE [INAUDIBLE] THE SURVEY AND I THINK THE MARIJUANA INDUSTRY HAS DONE A GREAT JOB IN LINING UP TO FOUR VOTES HERE ON THIS BOARD TO REMOVE THIS QUESTION, IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN THEM BECAUSE I KNOW YOU WELL ENOUGH IN CARING MORE ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY THAN THIS VOTE SHOWS.

THIS IS AN UNDEMOCRATIC QUESTION, AND OUR CITIZENS DESERVE BETTER THAN TO TAKE A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OFF THIS SURVEY LIKE THIS.

THIS IS A REALLY BAD MOVE TO PUT THIS SURVEY OUT WITHOUT THAT QUESTION THERE, AND I'M GOING TO MOVE WE TABLE THE SURVEY UNTIL WE CAN RESOLVE THIS QUESTION.

I DON'T SEE ANY POINTS ON THE SURVEY.

THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO TABLE WHICH CANNOT BE DISCUSSED.

IS THERE A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MOTION TO TABLE? THERE'S NO SECOND.

OK, I WILL CONTINUE MY COMMENTS, THEN.

AGAIN, THIS BOARD IS BETTER THAN TAKING THIS QUESTION OFF THE SURVEY AND I THINK THIS BOARD WILL COME TO REGRET TAKING THIS QUESTION OFF THERE.

IT'S THE WRONG THING TO DO.

WE NEED TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

THIS IS NOT THE ONLY POLITICAL QUESTION ON THIS SURVEY, AS THE MANAGER POINTED OUT, BUT CHERRY PICKING THIS ONE, BECAUSE THE MARIJUANA INDUSTRY HAS GOTTEN TO SOME MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD AND SAID, WE DON'T WANT THIS QUESTION ON THERE.

IF THE SUPPORT WAS AS STRONG AS YOU'VE CLAIMED IT TO BE, THAT THERE'S 61 PERCENT OF OUR CITIZENS SUPPORT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA, YOU WOULD BE ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT THIS QUESTION SOME ON THE BOARD HAVE DONE SURVEYS THEMSELVES.

MY GUESS THERE'S ALREADY BEEN SOME POLLING ON THIS DONE BY PRIVATE COMPANIES.

SO THEY KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE AND THEY DON'T WANT TO COME TO A SURVEY TO REVEAL THAT

[01:10:06]

SAME NUMBER. SO WHAT IS THE NUMBER? WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WHO SUPPORT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA? IS IT 25 PERCENT? IS IT 30 PERCENT? IT'S NOT 50 OR MORE OR I THINK THE FOUR OF YOU WOULD BE WITH YOUR HANDS UP SAYING WE SHOULD SURVEY THIS QUESTION.

IT MUST BE WELL BENEATH THE MAJORITY FOR YOU TO TAKE OFF THE CITIZEN SURVEY.

YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO HOW OUR CITIZENS FEEL ABOUT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.

THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION.

IT'S A GOOD SURVEY.

AND TO TAKE THIS QUESTION OFF IS TO SAY WE AS A BOARD DON'T CARE WHAT OUR CITIZENS THINK ABOUT SOMETHING AS FUNDAMENTAL AS SIX OR MORE POT SHOPS IN OUR COMMUNITY, SIX OR MORE, PROBABLY UNLIMITED, ACCORDING TO OUR LAW FIRM.

OUR CITIZENS DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR OPINION HEARD ON THAT.

WE NEED TO KNOW IT NOW.

THIS IDEA THAT BECAUSE IT MIGHT HAPPEN IN NOVEMBER, WE SHOULDN'T ASK THE QUESTION NOW IS REALLY IRRELEVANT.

WE SHOULD NOTE TODAY IT DOESN'T CHANGE NOVEMBER, IF THERE [INAUDIBLE] IN NOVEMBER.

WE OWE OUR CITIZENS MORE THAN TO TAKE THIS QUESTION OFF THE SURVEY.

AND I'M REALLY, REALLY UPSET THAT THIS BOARD HAS TAKEN THIS ACTION TO REMOVE QUESTION THIRTY FOUR. IT'S JUST WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS.

IT'S WRONG, WRONG, WRONG TO NOT ASK OUR CITIZENS HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA. AND I'M JUST SHOCKED.

I'M REALLY SHOCKED THIS BOARD HAS DONE THIS, TO TAKE THIS POLITICAL QUESTION AND LEAVE OTHER POLITICAL QUESTIONS THERE IS WRONG.

AND I HAVEN'T HEARD A GOOD ANSWER TONIGHT AS TO WHY WE'RE DOING IT.

IT'S UNDEMOCRATIC, AND IT, TO ME, REVEALS THE LACK OF SUPPORT FOR RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, OR YOU'D WANT THIS QUESTION ON THE SURVEY.

I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE TO TALK REAL QUICK.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE HAS TO BE MUTUAL RESPECT FOR EACH BOARD MEMBER'S OPINION.

AND SO WHEN WE SAY WE HAVEN'T HEARD A GOOD REASON, THAT'S AN OPINION THAT WE'RE SUBJECTING TO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AND WHAT THEY'RE EXPRESSING.

I THINK IT'S ALSO DIVISIVE WHEN SOME BOARD MEMBERS MAKE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST OTHER BOARD MEMBERS. I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT THE SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT [INAUDIBLE], ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS AND CLOSEST SUPPORTERS, HAVE CALLED ME AND TOLD ME TO REVERSE THAT PROJECT. AND I DUG IN AND HAVE MY OPINION THAT WE DON'T NEED THE DENSEST DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWNSHIP OVER AT [INAUDIBLE] ROAD AND GRAND RIVER.

SO TO TRY TO CAST ASPERSIONS ONTO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS' VALUE SYSTEMS, THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING DIVISION ON THE BOARD ON THIS ONE ISSUE AND THIS BOARD DOES WORK COLLABORATIVELY AND WELL TOGETHER. I THINK THERE'S ALSO MISINFORMATION BEING PERPETUATED HERE BECAUSE THIS ISSUE IS ONE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN IN THE BALLOT BOX AND CAN GO TO THE BALLOT BOX.

STUDENT HOUSING, THERE'S NO RECOURSE FOR CITIZENS TO PETITION AND PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT. THE ONLY THING THAT THEY CAN PUT ON THE BALLOT IN A CHARTER TOWNSHIP LEGALLY IS A REZONING TO OVERTURN REZONING, LIKE SPARROW, FOR INSTANCE, THE RECENT ONE WHICH CITIZENS LOOKED INTO AND ADULT USE OF MARIJUANA AND I BELIEVE MEDICAL MARIJUANA AS WELL.

THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS LEGALLY.

NOW, IN A CHARTER CITY, THOSE CHARTERS PROVIDE FOR MANY MORE OPTIONS FOR CITIZENS.

THEY CAN PROPOSE ENTIRE ORDINANCES.

BUT THE OTHER EXAMPLES, THE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, APARTMENT BUILDINGS, THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO REFERENDUM GOVERNMENT OR TO ESTABLISH [INAUDIBLE] PETITIONS TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT TO PROPOSE ORDINANCES.

SO THOSE ISSUES ARE HIGHLY UNIQUE TO THIS ONE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN AT THE BALLOT BOX.

AND YOU I PERSONALLY THINK THAT VERDIAN CITIZENS WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH AN UNCAPPED NUMBER? I DO NOT BELIEVE THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH AN UNCAPPED NUMBER.

THE QUESTION INFERS THAT IT'S UNCAPPED.

AND THEN THERE'S BEEN THIS RECITAL OF WHAT OUR ATTORNEYS HAVE AND HAVEN'T TOLD US.

SO I'LL JUST READ FROM THE MARCH 2ND BOARD PACKET IN WHICH OUR ATTORNEY STATED, WE CAN CONTINUE WITH THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES AS AUTHORIZED, BUT ALLOW AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF RECREATIONAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA, RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS WITH THE NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS CONTROLLED AND CAPPED BY A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.

AND DURING THAT DISCUSSION, THEY SAID WE COULD CAP IT AT FIVE OR SIX WHERE WE'RE ALREADY USING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS.

IT'S OUTLINED IN DETAIL IN THAT MARCH 2ND AMENDMENT.

SO, NO, WE DO NOT HAVE TO [INAUDIBLE] THERE AREN'T ANY, I'M NOT AWARE OF A SINGLE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IN MICHIGAN THAT HAS UNLIMITED.

[01:15:01]

LANSING HAS CAPS EAST LANSING HAS CAPS.

WHAT OUR ATTORNEYS WERE RESPONDING TO ON MARCH 2ND IN THAT WAS THREE BOARD MEMBERS WHO SAID, LOOK AT WHAT EAST LANSING DID.

THEY CONTROLLED IT THROUGH ZONING ORDINANCE AND IT WAS QUITE BRILLIANT AND THEY DIDN'T GET SUED. SO THE ASPERSION THAT EVERYONE GETS LITIGATION, WE GET LITIGATION OVER DEVELOPMENT ALL THE TIME. WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO LITIGATE KROGER OR MANAGER OR ANY NUMBER OF THE BIG BOX RETAILERS, JUST APPEALING THE PROPERTY TAXES [INAUDIBLE] ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AND THOSE WE TYPICALLY HAVE TO TAKE MUCH FURTHER ALONG IN THE COURT.

SO, AGAIN, THIS ISSUE IS UNIQUE TO THE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

THERE'S NO ABILITY FOR RESIDENTS TO IMPACT BY INITIATIVE PETITION.

THE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

IT'S NOT CONTROLLED BY A MILLAGE, HOMTV IS NOT CONTROLLED BY A MILLAGE THAT THEY CAN VOTE UP OR DOWN. SO THIS ISSUE IS UNIQUE IN THAT REGARD AND WE HAVE ALREADY VOTED ON IT.

AND SO TO SEEK TO DO A SURVEY OF A LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE WITH A SKEWED QUESTION DOES SEEK TO DRAW A DOUBT AND CAST DOUBT ON AN ELECTION.

I THINK THAT'S THE UNDEMOCRATIC THING AND THAT'S THE LAST I'M GOING TO SAY ON THIS ISSUE.

AND SUPERVISOR STYKA HAS HIS HAND UP AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO TO CLERK GUTHRIE.

[INAUDIBLE] AND WHAT I WANT TO SAY AND [INAUDIBLE] IS LOOK, WE HAVE A [INAUDIBLE] SURVEY, PUT IT OUT THERE [INAUDIBLE] AND MOVE ON.

WE HAVE TO DO THAT.

THAT'S THE NATURE OF BEING A BOARD MEMBER.

YOU LOSE SOME, YOU WIN SOME AND [INAUDIBLE] GOOD OR BAD? YES, YOU HAVE ALL KINDS OF [INAUDIBLE]. LET'S JUST MOVE ON.

I SAY WE SHOULD MOVE ON AND VOTE ON THE SURVEY, CALL THE QUESTION.

THE SUPERVISOR CALLED THE QUESTION, SO DEBATE AND FURTHER DISCUSSION IS NOT ALLOWED.

CLERK GUTHRIE COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL.

WE NEED A VOTE ON THE CALLING OF THE QUESTION.

I'M SORRY, DOES SOMEONE SUPPORT, ACTUALLY, I DON'T BELIEVE UNDER ROBERT'S RULES, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS SUPPORT FOR CALLING A QUESTION.

AS LONG AS ONE BOARD MEMBER CALLS THE QUESTION, ALL DISCUSSION IS CUT OFF.

THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR. CLERK GUTHRIE, COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL ON THE MAIN MOTION? MOTION CARRIES 6-1.

WE NOW MOVE ON TO ACTION ITEM NUMBER 12B, THE DANIELS DRAIN FULL DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE

[12B. Daniels Drain- Full Disclosure Certificate]

DEPUTY MANAGER PERRY, CAN YOU INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? ABSOLUTELY GOOD EVENING AGAIN. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT YOU'VE ACTUALLY SEEN BEFORE, NOT TOO LONG AGO WAS IN REFERENCE ACTUALLY TO THE NEMOKA DRAIN.

TYPICALLY WHEN THERE'S A LARGE TRAIN PROJECT IN THE TOWNSHIP WE'RE ASKED, WERE QUESTIONED BY THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER TO DO A FULL DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE, ESSENTIALLY THAT ALLOWS THEM TO GO AFTER PUBLIC BONDING, WHICH IN TURN ALLOWS THE LOWEST INTEREST RATES, WHICH AT THE END OF THE DAY BENEFITS OUR RESIDENTS.

THIS IS A PROJECT, DANIELS DRAIN, THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE TOWNSHIP BOARD IN 2015.

THERE WERE SOME ISSUES WITH THE DRAIN ITSELF, THE POND, WALDEN POND.

IT'S ACTUALLY LOCATED ON GRAND RIVER BETWEEN CORNELL AND DOBIE ROAD TO THE SOUTH.

THAT'S WHERE IT WAS THE POND ISSUE WAS.

AND THOSE RESIDENTS WERE THE ONES THAT BROUGHT THE ISSUE TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

AND AGAIN, IN 2016, THE TOWNSHIP BOARD WAS CONVINCED THERE WAS A PROBLEM.

TOOK THAT PETITION TO THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER, WHICH THEN ALLOWED THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING.

THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED. THEY ACTUALLY WILL BE BIDDING THIS PROJECT THIS SUMMER WITHIN THE NEXT 30 TO 45 DAYS.

AND AS PART OF THAT PROCESS, AGAIN, THEY'RE ASKING FOR THIS DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT FROM TOWNSHIP BOARD TO HELP PURSUE THOSE LOW INTEREST BONDS.

THANK YOU, DEPUTY MANAGER PERRY.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD?

[01:20:01]

DO WE HAVE A MOTION? [INAUDIBLE] YOU WANT TO READ IT? I'M SORRY, MR. SUPERVISOR, DID YOU MAKE THE MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

OK, THANK YOU. SUPPORT.

MOVE TO SUPPORT AND EXECUTE THE RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND [INAUDIBLE] DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE FOR DANIELS DRAIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOND AS PRESENTED.

SUPPORT.

SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE JACKSON.

FURTHER DISCUSSION, MR. SUPERVISOR? THE SUPERVISOR HAS FURTHER DISCUSSION.

TRUSTEE JACKSON AS THE SECONDER? YES, I WOULD ONLY ADD THAT APPARENTLY WE DO THIS A LOT AND THERE'S REALLY NOTHING NEW IN THE PROCESS.

IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT DRAIN.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE. I CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.

THANK YOU, TRUSTEE JACKSON.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BEFORE THE BOARD? SEEING NONE, WOULD THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE DANIELS DRAIN CERTIFICATE.

MOTION CARRIES 7-0.

WE DID HAVE MANAGER WALSH REVIEW ROBERT'S RULES FOR US.

[12A. Citizen’s Survey Draft (Part 2 of 2)]

SO IN THE EVENT THAT WE DID HAVE A SIX TO ONE VOTE ON ACTION ITEM 12A AND IN THE EVENT THAT THE VOTE IS NOT UNANIMOUS, YOU DO NEED A SECOND TO CALL THE QUESTION.

SEEMS DIFFICULT WHEN IT'S RETROACTIVE AND YOU DON'T KNOW THE ROLL CALL HEADING INTO IT.

BUT WITH THAT, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A RECONSIDERATION VOTE OF 12A.

I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION TO REAPPROVE THE CITIZENS SURVEY DRAFT AS AMENDED.

[INAUDIBLE] AND I'LL SUPPORT IT.

AFTER CLARIFICATION, WE ARE JUST GOING TO MOVE ON WITH THE VOTE AS ROLL CALL ON 12A.

SO, THE CONFUSION IN QUESTION WAS ON THE CALLING OF THE QUESTION, NOT THE ACTUAL MOTION THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD.

ALL RIGHT, WE'RE ONTO ITEM 13A.

[13A. Pathway Master Plan Update]

THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN UPDATE, WHICH WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON EARLIER THIS EVENING.

AND DEPUTY MANAGER PERRY, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD OR SHOULD WE GO INTO BOARD MEMBER DISCUSSION? I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONALLY TO ADD.

SO, AGAIN, I'M JUST HERE TO TAKE IN THE COMMENTS.

WERE ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS ABLE TO ACCESS THE MAP? I KNOW I HAD SOME TROUBLE.

TREASURER DESCHAINE.

QUESTION DEPUTY MANAGER, PERRY, THERE'S A REAL NEED FOR A NORTH SOUTH PATHWAY BETWEEN HASLETT ROAD AND GRAND RIVER AND MANY TIMES WE TALK ABOUT CORNELL ROAD BEING MAPPED, BUT THAT POSES LOTS OF CHALLENGES BECAUSE OF HOW HEAVILY WOODED THAT IS.

COULD YOU TALK ABOUT MORE [INAUDIBLE] THE 10 OPTIONS, WHICH IS YOU USE THE RIGHT OF WAY THERE AS A NORTH-SOUTH PATHWAY FOR THE TOWNSHIP.

ABSOLUTELY, SO IF YOU LOOK AT CIRCLE FIVE AND SIX, WHICH WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO ADD IN THERE, THAT'S WHAT WE CALL THE CONSUMER'S ENERGY HASLETT TO GRAND RIVER CONNECTOR.

AS THE TREASURER ALLUDED TO, CORNELL CREATES SOME DIFFICULTIES TRYING TO CREATE EVEN A PAVED SHOULDER IN THERE JUST BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED RIGHT OF WAY AND THE TREE PRESERVATION THAT THE TOWNSHIP PURSUED SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

SO AS AN ALTERNATIVE, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE UTILIZE THE CONSUMER'S ENERGY RIGHT OF

[01:25:03]

WAY. WE WOULD HAVE TO PURSUE A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THEM IF IT'S ADDED TO THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN. BUT WE THINK THAT WOULD CREATE A NICE NORTH-SOUTH ALTERNATIVE TO CORNELL ROAD. [INAUDIBLE] EXPENSE IN TERMS OF GETTING THAT LICENSING WITH CONSUMERS ARE THESE [INAUDIBLE] ONES THAT THEY WILL MAKE TO A PUBLIC BODY SUCH AS THE TOWNSHIP.

WE'VE HAD GREAT SUCCESS SECURING THOSE LICENSE AGREEMENTS WITH THEM.

THEY TYPICALLY, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE FOR A PUBLIC GOOD AND IT DOES ALLOW US TO SECURE A NICE, CLEAN, LONG LINE VERSUS TRYING TO SECURE INDIVIDUAL EASEMENTS ALONG LET'S SAY, A ROAD CORRIDOR. SO WHEN WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE THESE WITH CONSUMERS ENERGY.

WE LIKE TO DO THOSE JUST BECAUSE THEY REALLY ARE EASIER ON US AS FAR AS TRYING TO CONNECT PATHWAYS, POINTS A'S AND B'S, YOU KNOW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, TREASURER DESCHAINE.

OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD.

CLERK GUTHRIE.

SO DID I HEAR YOU JUST SAY THAT IS THE ALTERNATE PATH TO PAVING CORNELL ROAD? WELL, CORNELL ROAD IS STILL ON THE MASTER PLAN.

IT'S BEEN ON THE MASTER PLAN FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

IT'S JUST ALWAYS CREATED DIFFICULTIES FOR US REALLY TRYING TO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT THAT PATHWAY BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED RIGHT OF WAY AND THE DIFFICULTIES OF DOING THAT.

SOMETIMES IF THERE'S A WIDE RIGHT OF WAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT THOSE PATHWAYS FAIRLY EASILY.

SOMETIMES THE RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE ISSUES SECURING THOSE EASEMENTS IF WE NEED THEM, IF WE GOT TO CONSTRUCT IT OUTSIDE OF THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY.

CORNELL JUST PROVIDES A LOT OF CHALLENGES FOR US.

AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THE TOWNSHIP SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY PRESERVING THAT ROAD CORRIDOR AND MADE SURE THAT TREES WEREN'T ELIMINATED WHEN THE COUNTY PAVED I THINK IN 2014 OR 15.

SO IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE TRADE OFFS, RIGHT? I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE THE TREES TIGHTER TO THE ROAD, IT JUST CREATES DIFFICULTIES CREATING PATHWAYS. SO INSTEAD OF JUST THROWING OUR HANDS UP, WE SAID, IS THERE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE FOR US TO FIND A NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR IN THE EASTERN THIRD OF THE TOWNSHIP? AND THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED LOOKING AT THAT UTILITY CORRIDOR, SAYING THERE'S A LOT OF POTENTIAL WITH US AND WE'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE PLAN.

SO WOULD WE SEE THE POTENTIAL PATHWAY IN CORNELL ROAD COME OFF OF THE MASTER PLAN IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN? I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD MAKE A LOT OF SENSE ONCE WE'VE SECURED THAT, IDENTIFIED THE FUNDING AND ACTUALLY ARE READY TO PROCEED WITH THAT.

A LOT OF TIMES WE DON'T RECOMMEND REMOVALS UNLESS THERE'S A REAL STRONG SENTIMENT, BECAUSE, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IT'S A FUTURE MASTER PLAN.

WHO KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE MAY OCCUR IN TWENTY FIVE YEARS.

YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT CONSTRUCTED BY THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY HAVE AN ENTIRE CHANGE, DECLINE OF THE TREES OR SOMETHING.

SO AGAIN, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING DRIVING REMOVING IT AT THIS POINT.

BUT I WOULD SAY IN THE FUTURE, IF WE CONSTRUCT THE PATHWAY ALONG CONSUMERS ENERGY CORRIDOR, THERE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE A NEED ANYMORE.

AND THEN AGAIN, IT COULD BE REMOVED AT THAT TIME.

WOULD IT BE A PAVED PATHWAY ON THAT CONSUMERS CORRIDOR? THAT WOULD BE OUR RECOMMENDATION WHEN WE ACTUALLY WERE TO CONSTRUCT THE PATHWAY.

TYPICALLY, OUR PATHWAY SYSTEM IS SEVEN FEET WIDE, ALTHOUGH WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS THE 10 FOOT WIDE JUST BECAUSE OF STATE DOLLARS, FEDERAL DOLLARS, THEY ACTUALLY REQUIRE THAT WE DO A MINIMUM OF 10 FOOT WIDE.

SO A LOT OF OUR PATHWAYS AS WE'RE CONSTRUCTING THOSE, IF WE'RE USING GRANT DOLLARS, THAT THEY'RE BECOMING NATURALLY WIDER.

YOU KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF BIKERS ON THAT ROAD.

HAVE YOU HEARD FROM RESIDENTS OR USERS OF CORNELL ROAD ABOUT WHAT THEY LIVE.

I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT, BUT I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE EXPRESSED OPINIONS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO RIDE ALONG CORNELL ROAD BECAUSE IT IS THE NATURAL BEAUTY ROAD AND IT'S REALLY NICE TO DRIVE ON OR TO BIKE OR RUN.

AND I'VE SEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THERE.

HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK FROM PEOPLE? THERE'S A STRONG DESIRE TO HAVE A PATHWAY IN THAT EASTERN PORTION OF THE TOWNSHIP, BUT PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY HAVE TRIED TO WALK IT.

IN FACT, I'M ONE OF THEM.

YOU REALLY ARE.

IT'S JUST NOT DESIRABLE.

IN FACT, IT'S JUST SO NARROW.

THERE ISN'T EVEN A NICE, THE PAVED SHOULDER ISN'T EVEN WIDE ENOUGH.

YOU'RE JUST UNCOMFORTABLE WALKING ALONG CORNELL ROAD.

SO IT REALLY ISN'T VIABLE AT THIS TIME.

I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVES.

SPEAKING OF VIABLE [INAUDIBLE] YOU HAD A MASTER PLAN POTENTIALLY PUTTING IN THAT SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH SIDE WHERE THE [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY IS THAT'S STILL VIABLE.

I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF PEOPLE FROM THE INDIAN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD CALL ME AND ASKED ME, IS THAT EVER GOING TO HAPPEN? I SAID, I DON'T KNOW, PROBABLY NOT.

BUT THEN I SAW ON THE MAP TONIGHT.

IT'S ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE WHAT I CALL THE HISTORICAL GAPS IT'S BEEN ON THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN FOR SEVERAL ROUNDS.

IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE WHERE WE HAVE TO GO LOOKING TO CONSTRUCT THESE PATHWAYS.

WE'VE GOT TO SEE HOW MUCH TIME AND ENERGY IS INVOLVED WITH TRYING TO SECURE SOME OF THESE EASEMENTS. IF WE CAN CONSTRUCT THE PATHWAY WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, IT'S FAIRLY

[01:30:02]

EASY. IT'S WHEN YOU HAVE TO SECURE EASEMENTS IF SOMEONE PUSHES BACK, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY IT'S THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

SO WE HAVE TO COME TO SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT WITH THEM.

FOR THE MOST PART, WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL.

THERE ARE SOME AREAS WHERE THE COMMUNITY SAYS WE REALLY WANT THIS PATHWAY AND WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL SECURING THOSE EASEMENTS.

BUT AGAIN, THAT PORTION OF MT HOPE WOULD REMAIN ON THE PATHWAY UNTIL WE FIND IT, AGAIN, VIABLE FOR US TO PROCEED WITH IT.

THAT'S AN EXPENSIVE ONE, RIGHT.

AS IT DROPS OFF, THERE'S A LOT OF LAND RIGHT THERE.

TOPOGRAPHY CAN MAKE A LOT OF THESE VERY DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE TO DO.

THEY'RE NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

BUT AGAIN, A LOT OF THOSE HISTORICAL GAPS ARE JUST FOR THOSE REASONS.

EITHER WE RAN INTO A WALL SECURING AN EASEMENT OR THE TOPOGRAPHY JUST MADE IT NOT COST EFFECTIVE TO DO IT AT THAT TIME.

AND THE ONES THAT I SEE ALONG THE 425 AGREEMENTS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THESE 425 AGREEMENTS ARE DONE WITH THESE PATHWAYS, SIDEWALKS THAT ARE BUILT FOR LONG AND INSIDE THESE AGREEMENTS? WELL, YOU WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL 425 AGREEMENTS AND SEE HOW THEY'RE SET UP, BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THEY HAVE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ON HOW THE UTILITIES, IF THEY EVER REVERT, SOMETIMES THEY NEVER DO, THE TOWNSHIP, JUST BASICALLY NO LONGER RECEIVES THE MILLAGE PORTION THAT THEY'RE GETTING OUT THOSE 425S.

THEY ACTUALLY STAY WITH THE OTHER JURISDICTION.

BUT IF YOU LOOK ON THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN LIKE AT THE COSTCO AREA, YOU'LL NOTICE THOSE ARE IN GREEN AND THOSE ACTUALLY INDICATE THAT THOSE ARE THE CITY OF LANSING'S PATHWAYS.

SO, AGAIN, WE INCLUDE IT ON OUR MAP TO SHOW THE CONNECTIVITY.

BUT WE ACTUALLY THEY'RE NOT PART OF OUR PATHWAY SYSTEM.

IS THAT THE SAME WITH COLLEGE FIELDS? WE HAVE IDENTIFIED FUTURE PATHWAYS, BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN CONSTRUCTED YET.

AND ACTUALLY, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS.

A NUMBER SEVEN, WE'RE ENCOURAGING THAT GET INCLUDED BECAUSE THAT MAY CREATE A CONNECTION THROUGH THE [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY LAND PRESERVATION PROPERTY AND ALLOW US TO KIND OF CREATE A LOOP AROUND THAT CITY OF LANSING 425 AGREEMENT.

I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION.

THE CROSS-COUNTRY TRAILS THAT I SAW THERE, DO YOU HAVE TO GET EASEMENTS AND WORK WITH THE HOMEOWNERS TO GET THAT? WE DO, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WE LIKE TO HAVE SOME OF THOSE ON THERE THOUGH IS WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES FORWARD, WE MAKE IT A CONDITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT TYPICALLY, IF IT'S IDENTIFIED ON THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN AS A CONDITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THEY HAVE TO CONSTRUCT THAT PATHWAY OR PAY MONEY IN LIEU OF CONSTRUCTION AT THE TIME.

SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO CONSTRUCT IT IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CONNECT ANY GAPS.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON TO HAVE SOME OF THESE IDENTIFIED ON THE MASTER PLAN TOO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CLERK GUTHRIE.

TRUSTEE JACKSON AND THEN TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

YES, MR. UM--JUST CALL ME DEREK--[LAUGHTER] MR. PERRY. SO THIS IS THE SCHEDULE.

THIS REPRESENTS THE SCHEDULED MASTERPLAN UPDATE FOR THE PATHWAY PROGRAM.

YOU HAVE INDICATED AND PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE PLAN FOR UP TO 2024.

IS THAT CORRECT. I SHOULD STIPULATE THAT ONCE THEY'RE ON THE PLAN, THEY TYPICALLY DON'T COME OFF. OK, SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE FIVE YEAR PLAN IS OVER.

WE START FROM SCRATCH.

THERE BASICALLY WILL BE LIVE ON HERE UNTIL THE BOARD SAYS NO, WE DON'T WANT LOOK AT THAT ANYMORE. OK, AND THEN IN A COUPLE OF YEARS, YOU'RE GOING TO UPGRADE IT SO THAT YOU'RE PLANNING OUT TO 2026 AND OK.

SO NOW MY QUESTION IS, WHAT'S NEXT? SO YOU TALK TO ALL OF THESE GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS AND GOTTEN INPUT.

YOU'VE HAD YOUR PUBLIC HEARING AND THIS GOES BACK TO PARKS? ACTUALLY AFTER TONIGHT'S MEETING, WHAT WE'LL DO IS IF WE DON'T RECEIVE ANY MORE INPUT, BASICALLY, YOU'LL SEE THIS AGAIN AT YOUR NEXT BOARD MEETING AND WE'LL REQUEST AT YOUR ADOPT THE MASTER PLAN AS PRESENTED.

AND THEN IT GOES BACK UP ON OUR WALL ON THE SECOND FLOOR.

AND AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, AS WE TALK ABOUT BUILDING PATHWAYS, THIS IS WHAT WE LOOK AT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAPPEN.

OK, KIND OF A SIDE QUESTION, DOES THIS GET ADDED TO THE MASTER PLAN? IS IT ADOPTED AS PART OF THE MASTER PLAN.

I BELIEVE THE LAST COUPLE OF TIMES, YES, THERE IS A SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT THE PATHWAY PROBABLY IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTION OF IT.

WELL, I THINK THE LAST THING FOR US TO DO IS TO SAY I LIKE IT.

I'M IMPRESSED. I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT AGAIN WITH FULL BOARD APPROVAL.

[01:35:02]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, TRUSTEE JACKSON.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI. [INAUDIBLE] COUPLE OF TIMES.

I DO JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I [INAUDIBLE] YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB OF IDENTIFYING WHERE THE GAPS ARE AND HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS AN CONTIGUOUS AND SUFFICIENT PATHWAY? I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT.

ONE QUESTION REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND WE DID HAVE ONE EMAIL INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET THAT HAD SOME SUGGESTIONS.

SO PEOPLE MAKE SUGGESTIONS [INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC COMMENT HOW DO YOU INCORPORATE THOSE INTO YOUR FINAL PLAN.

SO DEPENDING ON HOW OFTEN WE HEAR FROM INDIVIDUALS, WE KIND OF KEEP TRACK OF, OK, WE'VE HAD, LET'S SAY HALF A DOZEN PEOPLE SAY WE'D REALLY LIKE TO DO SOMETHING ON GREEN ROAD.

I THINK THAT ACTUALLY MR. [INAUDIBLE] ACTUALLY WAS A FORMER TOWNSHIP EMPLOYEE.

SO HE ACTUALLY VISITS US SEVERAL TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, YOU KNOW, TALKING ABOUT THE PATHWAY. HE'S VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THAT, THAT AND LAKE LANSING.

SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL KIND OF MAKE NOTATIONS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR TO SAY, OK, THIS IS AN AREA THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ENHANCED, CONNECTED, THAT KIND OF THING.

SO WE BASICALLY WE JUST KEEP A FILE ON THOSE FROM THE CITIZENS COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. A LOT OF TIMES ONE OF THE COMMENTS WE ARE IS IS SIMILAR TO THE COMMENT THE CLERK RECEIVED IS LIKE, OK, THE GAPS ON THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN, YOU KNOW, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO CLOSE THAT OUT? AND THAT REALLY LED US TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT AND HAVE MORE OF THAT SHORT TERM PLAN.

SO THAT ALLOWS US THAT PEOPLE CALL IN OR EMAIL US.

WE CAN PROVIDE THAT TO THEM AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE AWARE OF THAT.

HERE'S THE LONG RANGE PLAN.

BUT HERE'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO OVER THE NEXT THREE OR FOUR YEARS.

AND WHAT I'M REALLY HOPING FOR IS ONCE WE FINISH UP THE MSU TO LAKE LANSING PATHWAY, REALLY BE ABLE TO HIT SOME OF THESE HISTORICAL GAPS AND GET THOSE CLOSED.

AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE HEAR YOUR EXPLANATION AND OR OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT EXPLANATION ON SOME OF THOSE PATHWAYS THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE IDEAL CORNELL ROAD, BUT THE ENGINEERING ON WHY THAT CAN'T BE [INAUDIBLE] IS NOT THE MOST FEASIBLE.

SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING AND WHAT WOULD BE MOST FEASIBLE FOR THE TOWNSHIP.