Jun 06, 2023 Township Board

>> THANK YOU. OUR AGENDA TONIGHT, WE HAVE TWO PRESENTATIONS.

THE FIRST ITEM 4A WILL BE

[4. PRESENTATION]

THE 2022 TOWNSHIP AUDIT TO BE PRESENTED BY ALI BARNES OF YEO & YEO.

>> GOOD EVENING, AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME TONIGHT TO PRESENT YOUR 2022 AUDIT RESULTS.

YOU DO HAVE HARD COPIES IN FRONT OF YOU OF NOT ONLY THE PRESENTATION, BUT ALSO THE AUDITED STATEMENTS AND THE SINGLE AUDIT.

BUT WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE COURT. ALRIGHT. THE PURPOSE OF AN AUDIT, WHY YOU HAVE US COME IN IS TO TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, YOUR INTERNAL CONTROLS, AND COMPLIANCE, AND GIVE YOU AN OPINION.

AN AUDIT IS A HIGHEST LEVEL OF ASSURANCE THAT WE CAN GIVE YOU THAT YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED FAIRLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAAP, WHICH ARE THE RULES THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW.

THE TOWNSHIP RECEIVED WHAT'S CALLED AN UNMODIFIED AUDIT OPINION, WHICH MEANS THAT IT'S A CLEAN AUDIT, SO WE BELIEVE THAT THE INFORMATION PRESENTED HAS BEEN DONE SO FAIRLY WHEN WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION MATERIALITY.

A COUPLE OF THINGS TO POINT OUT FOR YOU THIS YEAR WAS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SOMETHING CALLED GASB 87, WHICH IS A NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARD RELATED TO LEASES.

DEPENDING ON WHAT TYPE OF ACTIVITY YOU HAVE, YOU EITHER ARE IN THE LEASEE OR THE LEASOR POSITION.

MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP IS NOT THE LEASEE SO WE DID NOT ADD ANY SIGNIFICANT LIABILITIES RELATED TO THE STANDARD, BUT YOU ARE THE LEASOR FOR SOME DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS.

WITHIN YOUR WATER FUND THIS YEAR THERE WAS A RECEIVABLE ADDED OF ABOUT 1.5 MILLION, THAT'S WHERE WE TOOK A LOOK AT OR MANAGEMENT DID AND AGGREGATED ALL OF THE LEASE AGREEMENTS WHERE YOU RECEIVE MONEY IN AND FIGURED OUT OVER THE LIFE OF THOSE CONTRACTS HOW MUCH YOU'RE EXPECTED TO BRING IN, WHICH WAS ABOUT 1.5 MILLION.

[00:05:01]

THAT GETS RECORDED IN YOUR WATER FUND AS AN ASSET AND THEN SOMETHING CALLED A DEFERRED INFLOW.

YOU DON'T RECORD ALL THAT REVENUE RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE THAT WOULD DEFINITELY SKEW WHAT YOUR REVENUE SITUATION LOOKS LIKE BUT IT'S LIKE A DEFERRED INFLOW, IT'S LIKE A LIABILITY.

ESSENTIALLY, WE GROSSED UP YOUR BALANCE SHEET AND THEN AS YOU COLLECTED THOSE LEASE PAYMENTS OVER TIME, THAT RECEIVABLE AND DEFERRED INFLOW WILL BE REDUCED.

COMING UP THEN FOR 2023 IS SOMETHING CALLED GASB 96, WHICH IS RELATED TO SOMETHING CALLED SPITAS RELATED TO SUBSCRIPTION IT ARRANGEMENTS.

THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT MANAGEMENT IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT.

GIVEN OUR NATURE OF MOVING MORE AND MORE TOWARDS TECHNOLOGY, THERE ARE A LOT OF IT AGREEMENTS OUT THERE THAT MAY FALL UNDER THIS STANDARD, SO AT THIS TIME IT'S HARD TO SAY WHAT IMPACT IT'S GOING TO HAVE ON YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENT, BUT IT'LL BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO GASB 87, WHERE WE WOULD RECORD A RIGHT TO USE ASSET AND THEN A SPITA LIABILITY.

AGAIN, GROSSING UP THAT BALANCE SHEET AND THEN AMORTIZING IT DOWN AS THOSE PAYMENTS ARE MADE.

BUT JUST WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE THAT IS ON THE HORIZON.

YOU DON T KNOW IF THE DOLLAR IMPACT WILL BE SIGNIFICANT FOR YOU OR NOT.

BUT IT VERY WELL COULD BE.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF THE NUMBERS THAT WERE IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

WE'RE GOING TO START IN GENERAL FUND TAKING A LOOK AT REVENUES.

FOR THE GENERAL FUND, TOTAL REVENUES THIS YEAR WERE ABOUT 31.4 MILLION.

YOU CAN SEE WITHIN THE MAJORITY OF THE CATEGORIES THAT ACTIVITY IS RELATIVELY CONSISTENT, SO FOR PROPERTY TAXES, INTERGOVERNMENTAL, AND CHARGES FOR SERVICES, YOU DID SEE SLIGHT UP SWINGS WHICH WE WOULD EXPECT.

TAXABLE VALUES HAVE BEEN INCREASING THEREFORE WE WOULD EXPECT THE INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES.

THERE HAS BEEN MORE FEDERAL AND STATE DOLLARS AVAILABLE, SO WE WOULD EXPECT THAT TO BE INCREASING AS WELL, SO NOT UNUSUAL THERE.

YOU CAN ALSO TELL FROM THIS THAT PROPERTY TAXES IS YOUR MAIN REVENUE SOURCE IN THE GENERAL FUND BRINGING IN OVER 14 MILLION FOR 2022.

WHAT IS UNUSUAL THIS YEAR IN THIS FUND IS IN THE ALL OTHER CATEGORY.

THERE ARE DRAIN ASSESSMENT OBLIGATIONS THAT HAVE TO BE RECORDED ON THE TOWNSHIPS BOOKS, BUT YOU DON'T ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE CASH AND THEN MANAGE THOSE PROJECTS.

THAT'S DONE ELSEWHERE.

BUT WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IS WHEN THOSE NEW OBLIGATIONS ARISE, THERE SHOULD BE AN OTHER FINANCING SOURCE, SO SOMETHING LIKE BOND ISSUANCE RECORDED, THAT'D BE LIKE A REVENUE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE.

THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE WE SHOULD SEE SOME TYPE OF CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENDITURE AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE THAT ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

I PUT THE LITTLE ASTERISKS ON THERE FOR YOU BECAUSE THIS IS UNUSUAL SO THAT YOU KNOW, REALLY OF THAT LARGE AMOUNT REPORTED THERE, THE MAJORITY OF THAT, ABOUT 5.3 MILLION IS SOLELY RELATED TO THESE DRAIN ASSESSMENT OBLIGATIONS.

IF WE JUST FLIP OVER HERE TO THE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES THEN WHILE WE'RE ON THIS TOPIC, YOU CAN SEE IN THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT CATEGORY FOR 2022, THAT BAR REALLY INCREASED QUITE SIGNIFICANTLY.

YOU HAD ABOUT 12 MILLION THERE.

AGAIN, ABOUT 5.3 MILLION OF THAT REALLY IS RELATED TO GROSSING UP FOR THOSE DRAIN ASSESSMENTS.

YOUR GENERAL GOVERNMENT, IF WE BACKED OUT THE DRAIN AMOUNT, YOU WOULD BE AT ABOUT 6.6 MILLION, WHICH IS PRETTY COMPARABLE TO WHERE YOU WERE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

PUBLIC SAFETY IS GOING TO BE THE CATEGORY THAT SPENT THE MOST DOLLARS.

THAT'S JUST UNDER 14 MILLION.

YOU'LL SEE THAT IS UP FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

THAT'S GOING TO BE PRIMARILY RELATED TO THE ADDITIONAL MURDERS PAYMENT THAT WAS MADE DURING 2022.

THEN OVERALL TOTAL EXPENDITURES, WHEN WE ADD THESE ALTOGETHER, WE'RE ABOUT 29.3 MILLION.

LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH FUND BALANCE FOR THE YEAR.

HERE WE CAN SEE OUR ANNUAL REVENUES AND ANNUAL EXPENDITURES.

[00:10:03]

I SHOULD HAVE PUT AN ASTERISK SIGN HERE FOR YOU AND I DIDN'T.

ON THIS GRAPH, I BACKED OUT THE 5.3 MILLION IN SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE CLEANER VIEW WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FUND BALANCE.

I THINK WHEN WE GROSS IT UP AND WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE A FUND BALANCE CONVERSATION, IT JUST IS A LITTLE MORE CONFUSING AS IF IT'S NOT ALREADY CONFUSING.

[LAUGHTER] HERE WE CAN SEE THAT REALLY FOUR OF THE PAST FIVE YEARS, OUR ANNUAL REVENUES HAVE EXCEEDED OUR ANNUAL EXPENDITURES THAT MEANS WE HAVE BEEN ADDING BACK TO FUND BALANCE IN EACH OF THOSE YEARS.

FOR THIS YEAR, 2022, THE ANNUAL REVENUE WAS ABOUT 26.5 MILLION VERSUS 24 MILLION ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE.

FOR 2022, YOU ADDED BACK ABOUT 2.1 MILLION TO FUND BALANCE.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF LINES HERE, THE DARKEST LINE IS YOUR TOTAL FUND BALANCE, WHICH IS SITTING AT 15.2 MILLION VERSUS WHAT WE CALL YOUR UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE, WHICH IS 13.1 MILLION.

WE'RE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT FUND BALANCE ON THE NEXT SLIDE AS WELL.

ANOTHER ITEM SOMETIMES PEOPLE LIKE TO KNOW WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT FUND BALANCE IS, WELL, I KNOW WHAT MY FUND BALANCE IS, BUT WHAT DO I HAVE AVAILABLE TO ME IN CASH? THE GENERAL FUND AT THE END OF 2022 IN CASH AND INVESTMENTS, BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE SOME ACCOUNTS THAT ACT LIKE CASH BUT WE REALLY HAVE TO TREAT AS INVESTMENTS, WAS SITTING AT ABOUT 20.6 MILLION.

YOUR FUND BALANCE IS SITTING AT A VERY HEALTHY LEVEL AND YOUR CASH BALANCES ARE AT A HEALTHY LEVEL ALSO, GIVEN YOUR FUND BALANCE NUMBER.

WITHIN FUND BALANCE, WE HAVE A FEW DIFFERENT CATEGORIZATIONS.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE UNASSIGNED PORTION BEING THE 13.1 MILLION, THEN WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S CALLED ASSIGNED FUND BALANCE.

YOUR ASSIGNED FUND BALANCE IS ONLY MADE UP OF THE AMOUNT YOU BUDGETED FOR 2023 TO USE OF FUND BALANCE.

THE ORIGINAL BUDGET YOU ADOPTED SAID, HEY, WE THINK THAT OUR EXPENDITURES ARE GOING TO BE MORE THAN OUR REVENUES, WE'RE GOING TO USE UP ABOUT 1.6 MILLION IN FUND BALANCE.

THAT NUMBER IS WHAT IS ASSIGNED ON YOUR 2022 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SO THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE, YOU'RE ANTICIPATING AND USING THAT UP.

NOW, WHETHER YOU DO USE IT OR NOT WILL REMAIN TO TELL.

BUT THAT'S WHERE WE SAID AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

THEN THERE WAS JUST A SMALL PORTION, ABOUT HALF A MILLION THAT SITS IN NON-SPENDABLE, AND THAT'S SOLELY THE RESULT OF TIMING.

IF YOU PREPAY FOR ITEMS, THEN WHATEVER YOU HAVE PREPAID FOR IS CONSIDERED NON-SPENDABLE BECAUSE YOU TECHNICALLY ALREADY SPENT THE CASH.

WE'RE GOING TO SWITCH GEARS A LITTLE BIT AND TALK ABOUT UTILITY-TYPE FUNDS.

FIRST, WE HAVE UP THE WATER FUND.

HERE WE HAVE THE OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS.

IN THIS FUND YOU CAN SEE BACK IN '18 AND '19, OUR OPERATING REVENUES WERE EXCEEDING EXPENSES.

WHEN IT GOT TO 2020, WE WERE ABOUT NECK AND NECK, AND WHEN WE GET TO '21 AND '22, OUR OPERATING EXPENSES ARE NOW EXCEEDING OUR OPERATING REVENUES.

THAT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT A TREND THAT YOU WANT TO SEE CONTINUE FOR TOO LONG OF A PERIOD.

IT MAY INDICATE THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT RATES AND MAKE SURE THAT YOUR RATES HAVE BEEN SET IN A FASHION THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO RECUPERATE YOUR OPERATING EXPENSES.

IF IT HAPPENS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS LIKE THIS AND THEN IT FLIPS AND YOUR OPERATING REVENUES COME BACK AND START EXCEEDING EXPENSES AGAIN, THEN THERE'S NOT AS GREAT OF A WORRY.

IT WOULD BE CONCERNING THOUGH IF WE CONTINUE TO SEE THIS TREND.

WITH THAT, YOU CAN TELL BASED ON THE BLACK LINE THERE THAT THE UNRESTRICTED NET POSITION REALLY IS HOLDING PRETTY STEADY.

IT GOES UP AND DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

BUT BECAUSE YOUR OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES ARE RELATIVELY CLOSE, THAT IS STAYING FAIRLY CONSISTENT.

ANOTHER MEASURE IN THESE FUNDS THAT I LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IS WORKING CAPITAL.

WHAT ARE MY CURRENT ASSETS LESS THE OBLIGATIONS THAT I THINK I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PAY COMING UP?

[00:15:03]

THAT'S ABOUT 5.7 MILLION.

THAT IS A DECENT AMOUNT OF WORKING CAPITAL.

ALTHOUGH WE KNOW THAT ANYTIME THERE'S AN ISSUE IN THE UTILITY FUND, IT'S EXPENSIVE, SO WE NEED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT WORKING CAPITAL ON HAND.

NEXT IS GOING TO BE THE SEWER FUND.

THIS ONE TELLS A LITTLE DIFFERENT STORY.

HERE WE CAN SEE FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS THAT YOUR OPERATING REVENUES HAVE IN FACT EXCEEDED THOSE OPERATING EXPENSES, SO YOU HAD ABOUT 6.7 MILLION IN REVENUES VERSUS 4.9 MILLION IN EXPENSES FOR 2022.

AS A RESULT OF THAT, YOUR UNRESTRICTED NET POSITION IS TRENDING UPWARDS.

UNRESTRICTED NET POSITION IS AT ABOUT EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS AND THIS FUND ALSO HAS WORKING CAPITAL OF ABOUT 5.8 MILLION.

SWITCHING GEARS, WE'RE GOING TO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT SOME OF YOUR LONGER-TERM LIABILITIES.

I KNOW THIS IS AN AREA THAT MOST OF MY GOVERNMENTAL CLIENTS ARE TRYING TO MANAGE AND DETERMINE WHAT'S THE BEST LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION RATES THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.

HOW MUCH OF OUR EXCESS FUND BALANCE SHOULD WE TRY TO PUT INTO THESE PLANS? HERE ARE THE RESULTS OF WHERE YOU SAT AT THE END OF 2022.

FIRST UP IS THE EMPLOYEE'S RETIREMENT PENSION PLAN.

THIS ONE IS VALUED AS OF 12-31-2022.

THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT STORY ON THE NEXT SLIDE WHEN WE GET THERE.

BUT THIS PLAN AT THE END OF 2022 HAD NET POSITION OF ABOUT 4.1 MILLION VERSUS A CALCULATED TOTAL NET PENSION LIABILITY OF 4.7 MILLION.

WHAT THAT MEANS IS AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU STILL OWE ABOUT 600,000 INTO THAT PENSION PLAN.

YOU WILL SEE BACK IN 2021 THAT THAT HAD DIPPED BELOW THE LINE THERE AND WAS AN ASSET.

DUE TO THE MARKET CONDITIONS AT THE END OF 2022, YOU'VE NOW BEEN PUSHED OUT OF HAVING A NET PENSION ASSET AND HAVE A LIABILITY AGAIN.

WHAT WE SEE WITH THE MERS PLAN IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

THIS PLAN IS ALWAYS A YEAR BEHIND IN THE VALUATION.

YOU DON'T MANAGE THOSE FUNDS, THEY ARE MANAGED BY MERS, THEY HAVE EVALUATION AND AN AUDIT DONE ON THEIR SIDE AND THEN NUMBERS ARE REPORTED TO YOU.

THAT ALL CANNOT HAPPEN FAST ENOUGH FOR YOU TO HAVE THE 12-31-2022 INFORMATION, IT'S ALWAYS A YEAR BEHIND.

THAT BEING SAID, WHAT'S REPORTED IN YOUR 2022 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SHOWED NET POSITION OF 61.3 MILLION VERSUS A TOTAL NET PENSION LIABILITY OF ABOUT 81.7 MILLION.

HERE YOU CAN SEE THOSE BLUE LINES CONTINUED TO MOVE UP, SHOWING THAT WE'RE ADDING MORE TO OUR ASSETS.

NEXT YEAR I HIGHLY SUSPECT IF YOU LOOK AT THIS INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THOSE BLUE LINES DROP BECAUSE THAT WILL BE THE EFFECT OF DECEMBER 2022 MARKET CONDITIONS WHEN THE MARKET WAS DOWN.

THIS YEAR, YOUR NET PENSION LIABILITY DID DECREASE, YOU'RE DOWN TO 20.3 MILLION, BUT THAT VERY LIKELY WILL NOT BE THE CASE WITH YOUR NEW VALUATION REPORT.

YOU'LL LIKELY SEE AN INCREASE IN THAT LIABILITY.

THEN WE HAVE THE POST-EMPLOYMENT HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.

THIS IS OPEB IF YOU'RE USED TO THAT ACRONYM.

THIS PLAN BACKED DOWN IN 2020, WAS ABOUT FULLY FUNDED.

THE LIABILITY HAS INCHED UP SOME IN 2021 AND THEN AT THE END OF 2022, THE TOTAL OR THE NET OPEB LIABILITY WAS AT ABOUT 1.5 MILLION.

THIS PLAN IS A TRUE 12-31-2022 VALUATION.

THIS IS A RESULT OF THAT MARKET CONDITION AT THE END OF 2022.

SWITCHING GEARS, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT INTERNAL CONTROLS AND COMPLIANCE.

THIS YEAR WE DID HAVE ONE FINDING, IT WAS A MATERIAL WEAKNESS AND IT'S RELATED TO THE RECORDING OF DEBT TRANSACTIONS.

[00:20:03]

THE DEBT TRANSACTIONS THAT YOU RECORD HERE ARE NOT AS SIMPLE AS PERHAPS OTHER TOWNSHIPS DEBT TRANSACTIONS.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE DEBT THAT'S REALLY BEING MANAGED THROUGH THE CITY OF EAST LANSING, AND THE COMMUNICATION SOMETIMES OF WHAT YOU'RE PAYING FOR AND WHAT TIME PERIOD IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN HOW MOST DEBT PAYMENTS HAPPEN.

IT IS MORE CONFUSING, WHAT HAPPENED IS THERE WAS AN AMOUNT RECORDED ABOUT 1.5 MILLION WAS PUT INTO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE.

THAT REALLY SHOULD HAVE STILL BEEN IN LONG TERM DEBT.

YOU CAN'T REALLY RELIEVE THE LONG TERM DEBT BALANCE UNTIL THE ACTUAL CASH HAS GONE OUT.

THAT NEEDED TO GET MOVED BACK INTO LONG TERM DEBT.

REALLY, THAT PARTICULAR TRANSACTION ONLY AFFECTED THE BALANCE SHEET AND ONLY AFFECTED THE LIABILITY SECTION OF THE BALANCE SHEET.

THERE WERE A FEW OTHER PIECES OF THAT TRANSACTION THAT NEEDED TO BE RECLASSIFIED AS WELL, BUT THE MAJORITY WAS JUST MOVING AMOUNTS FROM ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BACK DOWN INTO THE LONG TERM LIABILITY.

THERE WERE TWO OTHER PIECES THEN IN THIS FINDING, THE FIRST IS RELATED TO THAT DRAIN ASSESSMENT.

THE GATSBY SAYS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE THESE PARTICULAR DEBT ARRANGEMENTS, THE PROCEEDS AND THE CAPITAL OUTLAY STILL NEED TO BE RECORDED WITHIN THE FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

THAT PIECE WAS MISSING, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN GENERAL FUND AND HADN'T BEEN.

THAT IS NOW PROPERLY RECORDED AS OF YEAR END.

BUT WHAT THAT CAUSED IS A BUDGET OVERAGE AT THE END OF THE YEAR BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT BUDGETED FOR WITHIN THAT GENERAL GOVERNMENT CATEGORY.

YOUR GENERAL FUND DID HAVE A MATERIAL BUDGET OVERAGE WITHIN THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT AREA, BUT ONLY BECAUSE OF RECORDING THAT IN AND OUT DEBT TRANSACTION.

JUST GIVEN THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE TRANSACTION, WE DO HAVE TO CONSIDER IT A MATERIAL WEAKNESS.

WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT AT LENGTH WITH AMANDA AND HER TEAM AND I THINK WE ALL ARE FEELING BETTER ABOUT IT.

THIS WAS AN ISSUE AT THE END OF THE PRIOR YEAR AS WELL, BUT AGAIN, IT IS A VERY COMPLICATED.

THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TIME THAT AMANDA HAD BEEN THROUGH RECORDING THIS HERSELF.

I THINK NOW HAS A MUCH BETTER GRASP OF HOW THE COMMUNICATION WORKS FROM THE CITY OF EAST LANSING AND WHAT TO WATCH FOR IN THE SYSTEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT GETTING TRIGGERED INTO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AT YEAR END.

WE DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES.

THEN THIS YEAR WE HAD TO PERFORM A SINGLE AUDIT, WHICH IS AN AUDIT THAT LOOKS MORE IN DEPTH AT YOUR FEDERAL DOLLARS.

YOU HAD ABOUT 1.8 MILLION IN FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE YEAR.

WE DID TEST A MAJORITY OF THOSE EXPENDITURES RELATED TO THE RPA FUNDING.

I'M REALLY HAPPY TO ANNOUNCE THAT THERE WERE NO FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS.

YOU HAVE NOT HAD A SINGLE AUDIT IN A VERY LONG TIME.

I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHEN I DIDN'T KEEP GOING BACK TO SEE.

BUT THE FACT THAT YOU COULD HAVE A SINGLE AUDIT AND NOT HAVE ANY FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS.

YOUR FIRST GO AROUND IS REALLY IMPRESSIVE.

IT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT TEAM AND WHAT THEY DO TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE STAYING ON TOP OF THINGS.

I KNOW AMANDA GOT RIGHT ON IT AND GOT YOUR FEDERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL PUT TOGETHER.

THAT IS NOT A FUN JOB, SHE REALLY SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR MAKING SURE SHE GOT THAT TAKEN CARE OF SO THAT IT WASN'T AN ISSUE IN THIS YEAR.

THEN THE LAST ITEM THAT I HAVE IS WE DID HAVE A MANAGEMENT COMMENT RELATED TO THE RPA FUND.

AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THE RPA FUND ACTUALLY HAS DEFICIT UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE.

NOT TOTAL FUND BALANCE, JUST THE UNASSIGNED PORTION.

TOTAL FUND BALANCE IS 13,000 FOR THE YEAR, BUT WHAT HAPPENED IS SOME OF THE CONTRACTS, I BELIEVE THERE IT CONTRACTS HAD TO BE PAID IN ADVANCE.

WHEN THOSE WERE PAID IN ADVANCE, THAT MEANT WE HAVE TO CATEGORIZE SOME OF THAT FUND BALANCE INTO NON-SPENDABLE.

WE HAVE 54,000 IN NON-SPENDABLE FUND BALANCE, TOTAL FUND BALANCE OF ONLY 13,000,

[00:25:01]

WHICH FORCES US THEN TO HAVE A NEGATIVE UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE.

THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT YOU CAN DO ABOUT THAT.

YOU COULD HAVE WITHHELD PAYMENT, BUT IF YOUR CONTRACT SAID YOU HAD TO PAY BY A CERTAIN DAY, YOU HAVE TO PAY BY A CERTAIN DATE.

I AM NOT OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, BUT I DO NEED TO POINT IT OUT TO YOU THAT IT DID IN FACT HAPPEN.

THAT FUND ACTUALLY HAS 2.7 MILLION IN CASH.

THE CASH IS ALL SITTING THERE FROM THAT GRANT FUNDING, THE OFFSET IS UNEARNED REVENUE AS SOON AS BASICALLY THE NEXT YEAR STARTS, AND THAT PREPAID STARTS BEING RELIEVED.

THIS SITUATION STARTS TAKING CARE OF ITSELF.

I DO WANT TO POINT IT OUT TO YOU, BUT I WOULD NOT GET OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

THE FUND IS OKAY.

WITH THAT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK AMANDA AND HER TEAM.

THEY DO A GREAT JOB GETTING READY, IT IS A LOT OF PREPARATION.

SHE'S BUSY WITH A LOT OF OTHER REPORTING THINGS ALL AT THE SAME TIME THIS YEAR, YOU'RE UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

SHE WAS MOVING AND HAVING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE SOME THINGS WERE.

BUT REALLY APPRECIATE HER AND HER TEAM AND EVERYTHING THAT SHE DID AND ALL EFFORTS SHE PUTS IN TO MAKE SURE THAT IT GETS DONE.

I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM

>> THANK YOU, OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I SEE NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR GREAT.

>> FOR BEING THE PRESENTATIONS IS THE 2022 MOLES ANNUAL PENSION VALUATION REPORT.

AND MANAGER WALSH, WILL LEAD US TO THAT. [NOISE]

>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR. GOOD EVENING BOARD.

BEFORE I START MY REPORT, WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY BE BRIEF, I DO WANT TO THANK MS. BARNES.

SHE'S BEEN WITH US. YOUR ROLE HERE HAS BEEN OUR AUDITORS FOR I THINK THIS IS THE SIXTH AUDIT NOW, AND WE'VE BEEN WELL SERVED BY SHE AND HER FIRM.

ALSO I WANT TO GIVE HIGH GRADES TO OUR DIRECTOR GARBER.

HER WORK HAS BEEN OUTSTANDING.

SHE'S BEEN WITH US JUST OVER A YEAR, BUT THIS IS HER SECOND AUDIT.

MANY OF YOU WILL RECALL WHERE WE WERE JUST OVER A YEAR AGO.

SOME OF YOU WERE IN HERE ACTUALLY GOING OVER SOME AUDIT STUFF.

I'D HELP US OUT DURING A TRANSITION PERIOD, WHICH WAS NOT REAL PRETTY.

I WANT TO REFLECT ON THAT AND THANK THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE FOR THAT.

SOMETIMES WE FORGET TO THANK PEOPLE, AND IT'S IMPORTANT.

MS. BARNES TALKED ABOUT THE THREE LEGS OF OUR FINANCES THAT THE RETIREE HEALTH CARE, THE TOWNSHIP PENSION FUND, WHICH IS CLOSED AND HAS LITTLE DEBT, AND OF COURSE THEN THE BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM AND THAT'S THE MERS.

THAT'S THE LARGE PENSION FUND THAT WE HAVE.

WE JUST RECEIVED OUR VALUATION A WEEK AGO FROM MERS.

I DO HOWEVER WANTED TO COVER THAT FOR YOU.

I ALWAYS START WITH A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE BACK IN AUGUST OF 2013, 10 YEARS AGO.

THIS IS WHERE THE WHOLE ISSUE STARTED WITH OUR PENSION.

OUR PAYMENT WENT UP, AND THINK ABOUT THIS 10 YEARS AGO.

OUR PENSION PAYMENT WENT UP A $0.5 MILLION, 10 YEARS AGO.

WHAT IS THAT IN TODAY'S DOLLARS? THIS REALLY BROUGHT THE INTERESTS LEVEL UP AMONG THE BOARD AT THAT TIME LIKE, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE WE'RE SWALLOWING IN DEBT HERE.

THE 2022 RATIO OUR FUNDED POSITION ACTUALLY WENT UP FROM 72-74%.

JUST INCREDIBLE FOR WHAT WE WENT THROUGH.

MS. BARNES IS RIGHT, MOST PENSION FUNDS IN MICHIGAN, WILL TAKE A REAL HIT THIS YEAR OF MERS.

WE'LL GET INTO THIS AS TO WHY OURS WENT UP.

IT'S PROBABLY REALLY GOOD PLANNING AND IT'S REALLY GOOD FOR THOUGHT, AND IT'S GOOD EXECUTION ON BEHALF OF THE TOWNSHIP, IS WHY IT WENT UP.

OUR FUNDING LEVEL, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF OUR HISTORY HERE, IF YOU GO BACK JUST TO 2005, WE'RE 51% FUNDED AND JUST GO BACK TO 2015, WE'RE AT 57% FUNDED.

WHAT WERE THE ANOMALIES IN MICHIGAN AS FAR AS COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE SEEN THIS KIND OF GROWTH IN OUR FUND, 60% PUTS YOU BELOW THE STATE GUIDELINES AND PUT YOU INTO WHAT WOULD BE CALLED A DANGER ZONE AS FAR AS THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY SAYS.

WE HAVE REACHED 74% IN OUR FUNDING.

MONTHLY CONTRIBUTIONS.

THIS IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT ONE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORT IN FRONT OF YOU, WE COULD GO THE EASY ROUTE AND PUT IN THE NON-PHASED IN AMOUNT OF 278,000 A YEAR FOR NEXT YEAR.

[00:30:05]

BUT AGAIN, WE ALWAYS USE THE HIGHER AMOUNT, THE NO PHASED IN AMOUNT, AND WE PAY THE 287 AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE OUR PAYMENTS ARE GOING FROM JUST 2022.

THESE ARE MONTHLY PAYMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE MADE.

IT'S VERY CLEAR IN THE MERS ACTUARIAL, THERE'S THIS PARAGRAPH FURTHER ABOUT WHAT DO YOU NEED TO DO IN 10 YEARS? WE WOULD NEED TO PAY, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE FORMER PAGE, NOT 287,000 A MONTH, WE WOULD NEED TO INCREASE IT TO 391,000 A MONTH FOR EACH MONTH.

THAT WOULD MAKE IT A $4.7 MILLION ACCELERATED PAYOFF.

BUT WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

WE'RE DOING SOMETHING WAY BEYOND THAT.

THIS BOARD HAS ADOPTED SEVERAL YEARS AGO, WE ARE NOT ADHERING TO THE 10-YEAR PAY OFF.

WE'RE NOT ADHERING TO THE 7% THAT MOST, EVERY OTHER COMMUNITY FOLLOWS THE RATE OF RETURN.

WE'RE PAYING AT A 5% ANTICIPATED RATE OF RETURN, WHICH REALLY INCREASES YOUR PAYMENT SIGNIFICANTLY.

HERE THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, YOU NEED TO PAY 391 OR 4.7 A YEAR.

WE'RE ACTUALLY SET TO PREPARED TO PAY $5.8 MILLION IN THE 2024 BUDGET.

IT JUST GETS INTO THE ADOPTION OF THE 5% AND WHAT THOSE PAYMENTS ARE BASED ON THE 5% RATE OF RETURN.

IT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

IT'S LIKE $2 MILLION OF DIFFERENCE IN PAYMENTS PER YEAR.

REMEMBER OUR COMMITMENT THAT WE MADE IN 2017 TO THE VOTERS WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED IS THAT WE WERE PUTTING 1.5 MILLION ADDITIONAL ABOVE THE ART.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT WAS BASED ON 7% RATE OF RETURN.

WE'RE PAYING OVER $2 MILLION AT A 5% RATE OF RETURN.

HERE'S A GOOD CHART FOR ILLUSTRATION.

IF YOU JUST DID THE 7%, THIS IS WHAT MERS REQUIRES, A LOT OF COMMUNITY STRUGGLE TO MAKE THIS PAYMENT.

THAT PAYMENT WOULD BE $3.4 MILLION.

THAT'S WHAT MERS SAYS YOU NEED TO PAY.

IF YOU WANT TO JUMP IT UP AND PAY $2.3 MILLION MORE, YOU CAN GO TO THE 5% ANTICIPATED RATE OF RETURN FOR A $5.8 MILLION PAYMENT.

OR IF YOU WANT TO PAY THIS OFF AT 10 YEARS, YOU CAN PAY 4.7.

AGAIN, WE'VE ADOPTED THE 5% RATE OF RETURN AND IT'S A $2.3 MILLION INCREASE OVER WHAT MERS DEMANDS THAT YOU PAY.

ACCRUED LIABILITIES AND ASSETS.

THIS IS JUST THE DEPARTMENTS, EACH DEPARTMENT, HOW THEY'RE FUNDED.

THIS IS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, THEIR PENSION, YOU CAN SEE THEIR INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY THERE, THEY ARE AT 77% FUNDED.

THIS IS THE POLICE PATROL.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE TO YOU WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS NUMBER.

WAIT A SECOND. WHY ARE YOU SAYING THEY'RE 93% FUNDED? WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT WHICH I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION THERE.

IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IT WON'T SAY 93% FUNDED.

I'LL GET INTO WHY THIS IS IN A MINUTE.

THERE'S $5.4 MILLION IN A SURPLUS FUND, THOSE ARE THE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS THAT WE HAVE PUT IN SINCE 2017 PLUS INTEREST.

$5.4 MILLION EACH FOR POLICE AND FIRE.

$10.8 MILLION IS IN THE SURPLUS FUND.

WE DO SOMETHING THAT WE SAID WE WERE DOING 2017 AND WE'RE STILL DOING IT AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO IT.

WE ARE NOT USING THAT 5.4 MILLION FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE WHAT OUR ACTUAL REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION IS.

IF WE TOOK THIS 5.4 MILLION THAT'S IN THE POLICE SURPLUS FUND AND WE PUT THAT INTO THE PILE OF MONEY FOR POLICE, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO YOUR REQUIRED PAYMENT?

>> REDUCE.

>> IT'D GO DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY.

WE COULD REALLY FALSIFY WHAT WE'RE DOING OR FORGE A LITTLE BIT BY INCLUDING THAT.

BUT WE SAID NO, THIS MONEY WILL GO INTO A SEPARATE FUND.

IF YOU GO AND YOU DO THE MATH IN THIS, WHICH I'VE DONE, AND YOU TAKE THE 5.4 MILLION AND THEN YOU DIVIDE IT BY TWO 2.7 MILLION.

IT'S ABOUT 2.72, AND YOU PUT THAT EACH INTO POLICE.

NOW, IT'S NOT PERFECT BECAUSE YOU'RE PUTTING HALF OF IT IN PATROL AND HALF OF IT IN COMMAND.

ACTUARIAL SHOWS THAT YOU'RE 77% FUNDED.

THAT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T GET CREDIT FOR THE 2.72.

NOW, THE NUMBER 1 QUESTION ALWAYS COMES UP IS, IS THERE 5.4 MILLION AND THE 5.4 MILLION FIGURED INTO THE 74% FUNDED? YES. THOSE DOLLARS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR WHEN YOU DETERMINE OUR FUNDING POSITION, BUT THEY'RE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR WHEN THEY DETERMINE WHAT OUR PAYMENT IS EACH YEAR BECAUSE WE WOULD PAY FAR LESS IF WE DID.

THE FIREFIGHTERS PENSION. AGAIN, IT SHOWS 50% IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRAPH.

THE FIREFIGHTERS ARE ACTUALLY,

[00:35:01]

IF YOU GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR THE 5.4 MILLION, YOU'D WANT TO SPLIT THIS UP BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE UNIT IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THEY'RE ACTUALLY AT 68% FUNDED.

IT'S THE HIGHEST THEY'VE BEEN FOR A LONG TIME.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS, THEY ARE AT 79% FUNDED.

THE TEAMSTERS ARE AT 80% FUNDED.

[NOISE] HERE'S AN INTERESTING SLIDE WE WANT TO SPEND A MOMENT ON.

THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE IN PENSIONS, AND I WON'T GO OVER ALL OF THOSE, IF YOU WERE HERE AT THAT TIME WHENEVER YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE DID BACK IN 2017, I CAN SPEND THAT TIME WITH YOU.

BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THIS EVENING, WE'VE MADE CHANGES TO THE FIRE PENSION.

WE WENT TO A HYBRID SYSTEM.

WE'D REDUCE THE MULTIPLIER, WHICH IS 2.5% FOR THE FIRE.

WE REDUCED IT DOWN TO 1.75% AND THEN GAVE THEM A 10% DC.

THEY HAVE A HYBRID PENSION, AND THEY HAD THEIR CHOICE.

I THINK EVERYONE THAT WAS HIRED AT THAT TIME TOOK THE HYBRID.

THE QUESTION IS, HOW'S THAT WORKING OUT FOR US? WELL, SIX YEARS LATER, WE'RE 86% FUNDED WITH THIS NEW PENSION IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

POLICE COMMAND, AGAIN, 69% FUNDED.

IF YOU ADD IN THE $2.72 MILLION, IT'S IN SURPLUS 5.4 DIVIDED BY 2.5 IN PATROL, 0.5 IN COMMAND, THEY ARE ACTUALLY 69% FUNDED.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE CHARTER THERE, THEY SHOW THAT THEY'RE 57% FUNDED.

THEN AGAIN, JUST TAKING A LOOK AT THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE MADE IN 2017 AND ARE THEY WORKING FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? 89%.

TOTAL ACCRUED LIABILITIES FOR THE TOWNSHIP.

THIS IS AN INTERESTING SLIDE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT OUR ACCRUED LIABILITY FOR MERS WAS $23.4 MILLION IN '21.

EVEN THOUGH WE HAD A VERY DIFFICULT YEAR IN THE MARKET, OUR NET POSITION INCREASED.

OUR NET POSITION OF FUNDING WENT FROM $23.4 MILLION AND NOW IT'S SMART, SO $400,000 DECLINE BUT IT'S A DECLINE.

I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF, I DID NOT EXPECT THAT AFTER THE MARKET PERFORMANCE IN 2022.

OUR FUNDING POSITION WENT UP, OUR LIABILITIES WENT DOWN, AND THOSE ARE TWO GOOD THINGS.

BEING REALISTIC, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PAY THIS OFF NOW? DO WE HAVE TO BE AT 100%? NO, WE DON'T NEED TO BE AT 100%, BUT 74% IS A HELL A LOT BETTER THAN 51%.

IF WE CAN GET UP INTO THE 80S AND 90% OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS, WE'VE MADE SIGNIFICANT STRIDES.

THEN WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THE FUNDING THAT WE'RE PUTTING INTO THIS, THE ACTUAL REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION WILL GO DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY AS WE CONTINUE TO INCREASE AND THAT WILL ALLOW THE BOARD THEN TO HAVE SOME DISCRETIONARY FUNDS TO DO SOME OTHER THINGS, BECAUSE WE'RE MAKING SIGNIFICANT PENSION PAYMENTS.

BUT IT'S WORKING. SUMMARY. WE'RE MAKING STEADY PROGRESS.

I'M NOT TELLING YOU THAT WE'RE LIGHTING THE WORLD ON FIRE, BUT FOR OUR TOWNSHIP THAT WAS 51% FUNDED IN '05 AND NOW IS 74%.

IF YOU LOOKED AT THOSE SLIDES CAREFULLY THAT MS. BARNES SHOWED, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WASN'T HIGHLIGHTED THERE ON THE RETIREE HEALTH CARE, SHE TALKED ABOUT HOW WE'RE A MILLION OR SOMETHING UNDERFUNDED, BUT WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE GRAPH THAT WENT THAT WAY.

OUR DEBT WAS ALMOST FIVE MILLION FOR RETIREE HEALTH CARE.

THE FACT THAT WE'RE DOWN TO ALMOST A MILLION ON OUR HEALTH CARE IS A HUGE SIGNIFICANT, AND THOSE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE WELL UNDER 40% IN MICHIGAN, AND WE'RE UP IN THE 80%,.

OUR PENSION FUNDS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH.

OUR PENSION FUNDS ARE STILL GENEROUS.

OUR PENSION FUNDS ARE VERY GENEROUS.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S STILL HARD TO KEEP PEOPLE IN THIS ECONOMY, SO IT'S A GOOD THING THAT OUR BENEFITS ARE WHERE THEY ARE BECAUSE WE'VE CONTINUED TO STRUGGLE IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY AREA.

WE'RE CONTRIBUTING $2.3 MILLION MORE THAN REQUIRED, AND IF WE WANT TO GET TO 100%, I'M THINKING RIGHT NOW, IT'S JUST A GUESS.

THIS COULD BE 2032, THIS COULD BE 2035, IT'S ALL BASED ON THE MARKET, BUT TO BE REALISTIC, WE'RE LOOKING AT 2035.

BUT WHAT WERE WE LOOKED AT THAT A FEW YEARS AGO? FINALLY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR LEGACY DEBT, THERE'S THREE STOOLS TO THIS.

THERE ARE THREE LEGS TO THE STOOL, AS MS. BARNES POINTED OUT; AND IT'S THE RETIREE HEALTH CARE, THE TOWNSHIP PENSION FUND, AND MERS.

LET'S LOOK AT WHERE WE WERE 10 YEARS AGO TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

WE ARE DOING SIGNIFICANT WORK IN THIS AREA AND WE'VE

[00:40:03]

ELIMINATED APPROXIMATELY $14 MILLION OF DEBT IN THE LAST 10 YEARS.

OUR NUMBERS OF SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT WHAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS DONE AND IT'S REALLY OUR TAXPAYERS BECAUSE OUR TAXPAYERS IN 2017 SAID WE TRUST YOU.

I'LL TELL YOU SOME OF US SPENT A WHOLE SUMMER GOING AROUND AND DOING, I THINK WE WENT TO 23 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT SUMMER.

THERE WAS AN AUGUST VOTE IN 2013 FOR THE POLICE AND FIRE MILLAGE, 1.483 MILS, AND THAT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY APPROVED BACK IN 2017.

I WANT THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW, I WANT THE BOARD TO KNOW, I WANT OUR TEAM TO KNOW, EVERYTHING WE SAID WE WOULD DO, WE'VE DONE IN A WHOLE LOT MORE AND TONIGHT ILLUSTRATES THAT BECAUSE WE'RE REQUIRED TO PUT IT WHERE WE'RE REQUIRED.

WE PROMISED TO PUT IN $1.5 MILLION OVER THE REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION AND WE'RE GOING TO BE PRESENTING A BUDGET TO YOU IN AUGUST THAT WILL PUT IN $2.3 MILLION OVER THAT.

THAT'S A SUMMARY OF WHERE THINGS ARE AT WITH MERS AND WITH THE OTHER FUNDS AND I'D BE HAPPY IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.

WE HAVE A HANDOUT IN FRONT OF YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BOARD MEMBERS, MR. DESCHAINE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION.

THIS BOARD DID MAKE THAT PROMISE TO THE COMMUNITY IN 2017.

IF YOU PASS THIS POLICE AND FIRE MILLAGE WILL ADD TWO NEW POLICE OFFICERS, TWO NEW FIREFIGHTERS, REPLACE EQUIPMENT AND PAY DOWN TO PENSION DEBT IN 10 YEARS.

NOW THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BIT AMBITIOUS IN THAT BOARD BACK THEN, THREE OF US WERE ON THE BOARD BACK THEN, BUT WE HOPE TO DO IT.

WE FOUND THIS TO BE A HARDER ONE TO TURN AROUND QUICKLY AS WE THOUGHT WHEN WE WERE AT 53% THEN.

WE'RE NOW AT 74%.

IT LOOKS LIKE REALISTICALLY IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER 12 YEARS BEFORE WE WE'RE LUCKY TO BE AT 100%, IS THAT YOUR ESTIMATE NOW?

>> BEST GUESS AND IT'S TOTALLY A GUESS, MARKET-DRIVEN.

I PREDICTED WE WOULD BE 67%, 68% THIS YEAR BASED ON THE ECONOMY.

WE WENT UP 2%.

>> THAT'S MY FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. THAT'S DUE TO THEIR SMOOTHING.

THEY TAKE FIVE-YEAR ROLLING AVERAGE.

THREE OF THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS HAVE BEEN PRETTY GOOD YEARS IN THE MARKET.

THE MARKET WAS DOWN AS MUCH AS 25% IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR FROM ITS HIGH IN JANUARY.

MARKET CAME BACK A BIT, BUT IT WAS DOWN A LOT IN 2022 AND I WAS SURPRISED AS WELL THAT NUMBER CAME UP HIGHER, BUT THAT'S WHERE THE SMOOTHING PAYS OFF.

>> AND THE EXTRA PAYMENTS.

>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> CLERK GUTHRIE.

SIR, COULD YOU GO TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE THAT WAS ON THE END? THANK YOU.

FIRST MANAGER WALSH, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS.

YOU AND THE TEAM AND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PUT INTO HERE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE'D BE WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY WITHOUT THAT WORK THAT YOU'VE PUT INTO IT.

>> GIVEN THE EXTENSION HERE FROM 2027-2035, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BLOW SMOKE UP YOUR WAY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

YOU'VE DONE SUCH A GOOD JOB THUS FAR WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOW THIS BOARD SHOULD PUT MONEY TOWARDS THIS PENSION LIABILITY, DO YOU FORESEE A WAY HOW THIS WOULD GET PAID DURING THIS TIME PASSES WHEN THIS MILLAGE ENDS OR IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT RIGHT NOW?

>> NO. WE WERE IN THE 50% AREA AND I'M HOPING THAT BY THE TIME THIS MILLAGE ENDS IN 2026-2027, I'M HOPING THAT WE'RE IN THE MID-80S, WHICH WOULD PUT US IN A GREAT POSITION, TOP 15% IN THE STATE.

THAT'S WHERE I'M HOPING REALISTICALLY THAT WE'LL BE.

>> WELL, DO WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE VOTERS DO YOU THINK OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU MAY BE ABLE TO BUDGET FOR IN THE FUTURE?

>> IF I WAS RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD BECAUSE THAT'S A BOARD DECISION, IF I WAS RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD TONIGHT AND WE HAD TO MAKE A DECISION AND WE WERE 84-85% FUNDED, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE CUT THE MILLAGE IN HALF AND TAKE THAT AND ALLOT IT TO THE PENSION FUND BECAUSE WE'VE GONE UP 30 POINTS IN THE LAST 10 YEARS.

I DON'T. I WILL TELL YOU IF WE WERE FOR IN THE MID-80S WE WILL NOT NEED A 1.5 BECAUSE KEEP IN MIND WHAT 1.5 MILS BRINGS IN TODAY AND ESPECIALLY AT THE END OF THE 10 YEARS IS GOING TO BE QUITE A BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE BROUGHT IN IN 2013.

OUR TAXABLE VALUE AT THAT TIME WAS ABOUT 1.4, 1.5 BILLION.

[00:45:04]

TODAY IT'S TWO BILLION.

WE'RE BRINGING IN A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS MORE WITH AN INCREASED TAXABLE VALUE THAN WE WERE BACK THEN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. WALSH FOR YOUR GOOD WORK AND THIS INTERESTING REPORT.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.

>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A REALLY DEDICATED TEAM, THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB WITH THE BOARD AND THE TEAM, THE TAXPAYERS, TO GET US WHERE WE ARE AND WE'RE IN A GREAT POSITION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ITEM 5 ON OUR AGENDA IS CITIZENS ADDRESS AGENDA ITEMS AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS.

[5. CITIZENS ADDRESS AGENDA ITEMS AND NON-AGENDAITEMS]

I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY GREEN CARDS.

IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD AT THIS TIME, PLEASE, YOU MAY GO TO THE PODIUM, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND WHEN YOU FINISH AT THE END OF YOUR THREE MINUTES, PLEASE FILL OUT A GREEN CARD.

>> I DIDN'T SEE THE GREEN CARDS, WHERE ARE THEY?

>> BUT I WILL FILL ONE OUT. [LAUGHTER]

>> YOU WERE SO EXCITED TO TALK, YOU JUST WALKED RIGHT BY WHEN YOU COME IN.

>> WELL, WE WERE GETTING READY FOR THE PLEDGE.

>> MY NAME IS MARK SANDY TUCCI, I'M AT 5909 BLYTHEFIELD DRIVE, EAST LANSING.

I HOPE I'M HERE FOR THE LAST TIME ON THIS SUBJECT ANYWAYS.

I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT I TALKED ABOUT AT THE LAST MEETING AND THAT IS HAVING THE ABILITY TO DO A SMALL GROW AT A PROVISIONING CENTER.

I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN CONCERN IN TERMS OF SMELL AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND I'VE ALSO UNDERSTAND THERE HAS BEEN A CONCERN THAT IF ONE DOES IT, THEN ALL WANT TO DO IT.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I'VE TALKED TO MOST OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS, THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING INTO THE PROPERTY I OWN ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO WANT TO DO THIS.

WHETHER MY GUYS ARE STUPID OR SMART, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE STORY IS, BUT I DO THINK IT'S SOMETHING YOU SHOULD LOOK AT AND THINK ABOUT.

THE BEST WAY FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS TO ACTUALLY GO TO AN OPERATION THAT DOES THIS.

THE PEOPLE THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH HAVE A PROVISIONING CENTER IN JACKSON WHERE THEY HAVE A SMALL GROW OPERATION THAT THEY USE FOR MARKETING PURPOSES.

THEY'VE TOLD ME THAT ANYONE ON THE BOARD OR ANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO THERE AND SEE FOR THEMSELVES ARE WELCOME TO GO.

THEY CAN EITHER TALK TO MYSELF OR BOB WHO'S SPEAKING IN A LITTLE BIT TO SET SOMETHING UP AND WE WILL BE HAPPY TO DO IT.

THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT, AND IN MY LAST 50 SECONDS, I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT SUBJECT.

COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY REDID THE CURBS AND PUT IN FOR THE HANDICAPPED, THOSE PLATES, WITH THE BRAILLE ON IT, AND I WANT TO SAY THAT WHOEVER YOU HIRED DID ONE HELL OF A JOB.

THEY NOT ONLY DID EVERYTHING AND PICKED EVERYTHING UP, BUT THEY PLANTED GRASS, PUT STRAW ON TOP OF IT, CAME AND WATERED IT BETTER THAN I COULD DO MYSELF.

NOW I'VE GOT GRASS ABOUT THIS HIGH GROWING OUT OF THE STRAW, AND WHOEVER THEY ARE, IF I WERE YOU, I'D STICK WITH THEM. THANK YOU.

>> BOB BALDORI 2719 HOPE ROAD.

COUPLE OF US HAVE BEEN THERE FOR ABOUT 50 YEARS.

I'M HERE TO FOLLOW UP ON MARK'S REQUEST THAT THE GROW LICENSE, WHICH WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REALLY NUMBER 1, BE INCLUDED IN THE NEW ORDINANCE.

THE INTERESTED LOCAL PARTIES, MARK AND OTHERS OWN ALMOST ALL OF THE PROPERTY IN THAT OVERLAY, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 35 ACRES AND THEY'VE BEEN REPEATEDLY REQUESTED THAT THEIR SMALL GROW LICENSE BE PERMITTED AT THAT LOCATION ALONG WITH THE RETAIL LICENSE.

THIS IS THE ONLY OVERLAY ACTUALLY OWNED AND OPERATED BY A LONGTIME LOCAL RESIDENCE.

[00:50:03]

THEY HAVE INVESTED HEAVILY IN THIS PROJECT, RELYING ON OBTAINING USE FOR A SMALL INDOOR GROW WITH THE RETAIL LICENSE, WHICH WAS IN THE ORIGINAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA ORDINANCE.

THERE ARE NO ORDERS THAT'S NOT A OPEN QUESTION, YOU CAN GO DOWN ANYTIME WITH ME OR WITHOUT ME.

THE TEMPLATE FOR THIS BUILDING IS IN JACKSON.

IT'S CALLED STONE DEPOT, PLANS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED FOR IT.

THERE ARE NO ORDERS OUTSIDE OF THE ROOM, LET ALONE THE BUILDING.

WE HAVE INVITED OVER AND OVER ANY SKEPTICAL BOARD MEMBERS TO VISIT.

THAT INVITATION STILL STANDS.

THE IDEA FOR THIS, THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE A BIG INDUSTRIAL GROW, IT'S A SMALL INDOOR GROW.

IT'S A MARKETING TOOL, BUT IT'S ALSO A LOCAL VIA APPROACH TO IT.

WHAT WILL BE GROWN THERE WON'T BE SOLD ANYWHERE ELSE, IT'LL BE SOLD RIGHT OUT THAT DOOR.

AFTER THE ORIGINAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA ORDINANCE WAS PASSED, NOBODY APPLIED FOR A LICENSE TO GROW IN ANY OF THE OTHER OVERLAYS, SO IN A SENSE, WE'RE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO DID.

THERE'S ALSO NO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ANYWHERE NEAR THIS PLACE, IT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY.

AS BEST I CAN TELL, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO DOWNSIDE TO GRANTING THIS REQUEST.

THE BUILDING WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME WITH OR WITHOUT THE GROW, THE FOOTPRINT, THE LOOK OF THE BUILDING.

IT'LL MEAN MORE REVENUE FOR THE TOWNSHIP AND IT WILL BE A COMPATIBLE USE FOR THE PROPERTY.

I'M JUST RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT YOU INCLUDE A SMALL CLASS, A GROW OPTION TO OVERLAY NUMBER 1. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE AT THIS POINT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD? THIS TIME WE HAVE ITEM 6,

[6. TOWNSHIP MANAGER REPORT]

WHICH IS THE TOWNSHIP MANAGER'S REPORT.

MR. FRANK WALSH.

>> THANK YOU. MADAM SUPERVISOR AND BOARD, JUST A FEW THINGS.

THE BUILDING RENOVATIONS GOING WELL.

IT'S NOT GOING WELL HERE, IT'S GOING WELL OVER AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS THE SECURITY SYSTEM AND THE FLOORING BEGAN TO BE PUT INTO PLACE THE DOWNSTAIRS HERE, THE MAIN LEVEL OF THIS BUILDING THE PAINTING WILL BE FINISHED BY THE END OF THE WEEK AND THEN THEY'LL BE MOVING UPSTAIRS AND YOU CAN SEE AS YOU GO OUT INTO THE HALLWAY, THE CARPET IS HERE.

THE CARPET WILL START TO BE INSTALLED NEXT WEEK.

WE'RE RIGHT ON COURSE.

WE'RE STILL HOPING OUR TARGET WAS OCTOBER 1ST.

WE'RE HOPING 1ST TO SEPTEMBER FOR COMPLETION.

WE WILL NOT BE MOVING BACK INTO THIS BUILDING UNTIL IT'S READY FOR EVERYONE TO MOVE BACK.

WE DID THIS AS A TEAM.

WE WON'T MOVE BACK UNTIL IT'S ALL READY FOR ALL OF US TO MOVE BACK IN.

THAT CHIP AND FOG, THAT'S BEEN AN ISSUE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

IF YOU WANT TO GO SEE THE WORK OVER THE CHIP AND FOG ROADS, SHAWNEE AND MOMMY, AND THEN SKYLINE UP IN THE NORTH PART OF THE COMMUNITY ARE ALL HAVE BEEN RESURFACED, AND SO FAR THE REPORTS OF THE RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN GLOWING.

WE CONTINUE TO MAKE THAT IMPROVEMENTS.

I'VE BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH MR. SCALES OVER IN THE OLD ENGLISH ESTATES, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT REALLY CAME FORWARD ON THIS ISSUE AND PROVIDED SOME DATES TO HIM HERE THIS WEEK THAT WE SHOULD BE OVER IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IN ABOUT TWO WEEKS.

THERE ARE A FEW AREAS THAT NEED TO BE FIXED BEFORE WE VISIT.

THERE'S A FEW SINKHOLES OVER THERE THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE WE JUST COME IN.

OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO COME IN AND HAVE SOME DIPS.

WE'RE WORKING ON THOSE.

MR. OPSOMMER HAS HIRED A COUPLE OF ENGINEERING FIRMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DOING SOME WORK FOR US IN THE FUTURE.

CELEBRATE RADIANCE COMING UP JUNE 24TH, THE ROBERT'S RULES TRAINING THAT I THINK TRUSTEE WISINSKI BROUGHT THIS UP MAYBE SIX WEEKS AGO ABOUT HAVING SOME TRAINING.

WE WENT THROUGH BOARD DISCUSSION ON THAT THROUGH THE CLERK'S OFFICE, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT MR. MERYL, THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE MICHIGAN TOWNSHIP ASSOCIATION, WILL BE PROVIDING THAT AS A TWO NIGHT COURSE.

THOSE DATES ARE JUNE 27TH AND JUNE 28TH.

SIX TO 08:00 PM HERE AT THE CENTRAL FIRE STATION, EXCUSE ME, WILL BE THE TRAINING FOR MR. MARROW.

AN INVITATION HAS BEEN SENT OUT TO ALL 110 APPOINTED AND ELECTED OFFICIALS.

[00:55:01]

IF YOU WANT TO SIGN UP THROUGH MISPRINTS, PLEASE DO SO.

WE ARE UNDERWAY WITH THE BUDGET PREP.

WE SENT A NOTE TO CANADA TODAY ABOUT THE WHOLE READY RIGHT ISSUE AND APPOINT TWO MILS AND HOW DO WE MAKE THIS SO IT'S FAIR FOR OUR TAXPAYERS, AND WE GOT A RESPONSE AND WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT ARE THE INTERNSHIP.

REMEMBER, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FIRST RESPONSE OUT TO HOLIDAY TOWNSHIP.

CHIEF HAMEL HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS WITH CHIEF BALL OF ADELE HIGH.

OUR POSITION IS WE'RE GOING TO BE CHARGING $350 PER TRANSPORT TO THE TOWNSHIP, ON TOP OF WHAT WE CHARGE THE PATIENT.

THIS IS NOT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

MINUS TAXPAYERS PROVIDE SERVICE AT NO COST TO OUR NEIGHBORS.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS AND NOT WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE ABOUT.

WE'VE TAKEN A PRETTY FIRM POSITION.

IF THIS DOESN'T GO FORWARD, THEY DON'T START PAYING $350 PER CALL WHEN WE TRANSPORT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION, AND I BELIEVE THAT AT THAT POINT, THE BOARD WILL BE BROUGHT IN.

WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING QUITE EXTENSIVE TRADING ON PHISHING, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING ON.

WE HAVE DEI TRAINING, WE HAVE PHISHING TRAINING.

WE'VE DETERMINED WE REALLY NEED TO GET OUR PHISHING TRAINING DONE BECAUSE WE HAD A NEAR EXPOSURE HERE ABOUT SIX WEEKS AGO AND WE'RE REALLY BEEFING UP OUR TRAINING ON THIS AND TO PROTECT OUR ASSETS.

FINALLY, I WANT TO THANK DIRECTOR MASSEY AND OUR COMMUNICATIONS TEAM.

THEY WORKED REALLY HARD OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS WITH A SUPERVISOR ALSO PREPARING OUR MML ACHIEVEMENT AWARD ENTRY.

WE'VE ENTERED AN AWARD FOR OUR MERIDIAN CARES PROGRAM AND WHAT WE DO, WHAT WE HAVE DONE AND WHAT WE CONTINUE TO DO FOCUSING ON TRUSTEE WILSON AND ALL THE EFFORTS THAT SHE PUT IN WHAT TRUSTEE HENDRICKSON INTO THE READING CARES ABOUT YOU.

WE FOCUSED ON THAT.

WE ALSO FOCUSED ON THE RESPONSE TO NOB HILL AND THE CHRISTMAS EVE, A PARTY THAT WE THREW FOR THE KIDS, AND WE ALSO FOCUSED ON THE MENTAL HEALTH ASPECT AND WHAT OUR RESPONSE TO MICHIGAN STATE.

ALL OF THAT RAN INTO OUR APPLICATION.

I KNOW YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF INFORMATION TONIGHT, SO I'LL STEP ASIDE, LET YOU GET DOWN WITH YOUR MEETING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> I HAVE JUST ONE REQUEST.

IF YOU WOULD TALK ABOUT PHISHING A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY, MAYBE JUST IN CASE ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THIS DISCUSSION, AND SO THIS IS ABOUT CYBERSECURITY.

THAT THE TRAINING IS GOING TO BE EXPECTED FOR EVERYONE WITH E-MAIL ADDRESSES IN THE TOWNSHIP AND I THINK THE NOTICE HAS GONE OUT FOR THOSE DATES AS WELL.

>> CORRECT. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

YEAH. WE HAD A CYBER ATTACK APPROXIMATELY ABOUT SIX OR EIGHT WEEKS AGO.

THEY WAS PRETTY EXTENSIVE, AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR 165, 175 TEAM MEMBERS THAT HAVE A MERIDIAN EMAIL ADDRESS ARE WELL AWARE OF THE DANGERS, THE EXPOSURE, AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

IN ADDITION TO THE TRAINING WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE PUTTING OUT, AND ALL OF OUR TEAM KNOWS THIS, WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING OUT OURSELVES, SOME BOGUS STUFF TO OUR EMPLOYEES AND MAKING SURE THEY CAN RECOGNIZE ABOUT A PHISHING ATTEMPT VERSUS SHAFT FOR THE TOWNSHIP OR ANYONE ELSE.

WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING REALLY HARD WITH OUR TEAM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AS PROTECTED AS POSSIBLE FROM THESE TYPE OF ATTEMPTS BECAUSE THE LAST ONE WAS PRETTY SCARY.

>> ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? THANK YOU, MR. WALSH.

>> THIS TIME, WE COME TO ITEM 7,

[7. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES ANDANNOUNCEMENTS]

WHICH IS WHAT MEMBER REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. MR. DESHANE.

>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR. REAL BRIEFLY MAY 17 WAS A CAT A BOARD MEETING.

MAY 29TH, I ATTENDED ANOTHER EXCELLENT ALL DAY SERVICES, PUT DOWN BY GUTHRIE AT GLENDALE CEMETERY.

IT WAS WELL ATTENDED AND THE MERIDIAN COMMUNITY BAND CAME OUT AND PERFORMED FOR WELL OVER AN HOUR.

WE HAD AN EXCELLENT SPEAKER AND IT WAS A REALLY MEANINGFUL EVENT.

I KNOW THERE WERE SEVERAL OF HIS BOARD MEMBERS THERE AND I KNOW WE ALL LEFT REALLY IMPRESSED BY YOUR EVENT AND JUST THIS LEMON TREE OF OUR RESIDENTS THERE TO HONOR OUR LOST VETERANS.

THE LAST THING I'LL MENTION THAT THESE SPECIALISTS BILLS WENT OUT JUNE 1.

THESE ARE TYPICALLY FOR THINGS LIKE SPECIAL SIDEWALK ASSESSMENTS, LAKE LANSING, SPECIAL DISTRICT AROUND THE CLEANSING TO KEEP THE LAKE FROM BEING OVERRUN BY SEAWEEDS AND OTHER INVASIVE SPECIES, AND SPECIAL SECTION 20 DRAINS LIKE THE DANIEL'S DRAIN.

IF YOU'VE GOT ONE OF THOSE BARRELS LAST YEAR DIDN'T GO IN THIS YEAR PLEASE CALL THE TREASURER'S OFFICE AT 8534140 AND WE'LL LOOK YOU UP AND WILL SEND WORD OUT TO YOU IF IT'S NOT ALREADY PAID OFF.

[01:00:06]

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BILLS WENT OUT, YOU SHOULD HAVE THEM BYE NOW. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. I THINK TRUSTEE SUNDLAND WAS NEXT.

>> YES. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I ATTENDED THE MAY 18TH INTERPRETATION COMMISSION MEETING AND LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT M43, AND WE'RE GOING TO GET SOME GREAT STREET LIGHTS, SOME LED LIGHTING GOING ON.

M43 THE MDOT. THREE MONTHS, SEPTEMBER 1ST IS THE REOPEN DATE, SO THERE IS PAVING GOING FROM MERCER OF THE PER-CLICK AND THERE'S ALL SORTS OF SO THAT IS WINDING DOWN.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE THREE PEDESTRIAN ISLANDS THAT ARE GOING OUT TO GRAND RIVER.

THERE'S GOING TO BE ONE BY THE MYERS BUS BAY AREA, THE DEALERSHIP AND CAMPUS HILL APARTMENTS.

TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE OKEMOS ROAD OR THE UNDER PATH THAT IS GOING IN UNDERNEATH THE NEW BRIDGE.

OF COURSE, WEATHER PERMITTING, BECAUSE THAT AREA HAS BEEN KNOWN TO FLOOD, BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE A PATHWAY TO TRY TO CONNECT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE MSU PATHWAY.

EVIDENTLY MARINE ROAD, THEY'RE WORKING ON WIDENING.

I CAN'T READ MY OWN HANDWRITING.

>> I HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM SOMETIMES, NO WORRIES.

>> FULL SIGNAGE OR SOMETHING.

I DON'T KNOW. ANYWAY, THAT'S MY REPORT.

>> THANK YOU MADAM SUPERVISOR.

I BELIEVE A GROUP OF US WERE TASKED WITH COMING UP WITH A CONCEPT FOR A COMMUNITY CENTER INCORPORATING A SENIOR CENTER.

I'D LIKE TO COME UP WITH A CONCEPT AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY, MEETING EVERY TWO WEEKS.

WE'VE DONE FIELD TRIPS, WE'VE DONE A NUMBER OF THINGS TO LOOK AT THE FEASIBILITY OF HAVING SUCH A FACILITY IN OUR COMMUNITY.

I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT WE COMPLETED OUR WORK AND THAT I WILL BRING YOU A REPORT AT OUR NEXT MEETING. THANK YOU.

>> MR. HENDRICKSON.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM SUPERVISOR. WEDNESDAY, MAY 31ST, I AMONGST YOURSELF AND TRUSTEE WILSON ATTENDED THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS MEETING WHERE WE GOT TO HEAR FROM LEADERS IN OUR COMMUNITY AMONGST THEIR VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.

IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO COME TOGETHER WITH OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISCUSS ANY CONCERNS OR ISSUES THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFICALLY.

THEN ALSO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM OUR INGHAM COUNTY PROSECUTOR, JOHN DEWANE, WHO CAME TO SPEAK ABOUT HIS EFFORTS, WHICH INTEGRATE NICELY WITH WHAT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IS ALREADY DOING.

VERY PLEASED TO HEAR THAT MOST OF THE CONCERNS THAT OUR RESIDENTS HAVE ARE TRAFFIC-RELATED.

THAT I THINK REFLECTS VERY WELL ON THE JOB THAT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IS DOING TO MONITOR ALL THE OTHER POSSIBLE SITUATIONS THAT COULD BE OCCURRING.

I THINK OVERALL, THE TENOR OF THE ROOM WAS SATISFIED.

>> IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO ADD TO YOUR REPORT FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOODS MEETING.

THIS IS A MEETING THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR MANY YEARS IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

THE PARTICIPANTS ARE MORE OFTEN THAN NOT MEMBERS OF HOME OWNER ASSOCIATIONS.

THE SUBJECT ACTUALLY CAME UP IN THIS MEETING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE WERE MANY COMMUNITIES THAT WERE NOT REPRESENTED IN THIS MEETING BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, AND THUS IDENTIFIED SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AND LEADERS TO INTERFACE WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AT THIS TIME.

I DO REMEMBER THAT ONE OF THE COMMENTS OR ONE OF THE CHARGES THAT CAME OUT OF THAT MEETING WAS TO GET INFORMATION TO THESE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES TO LOOK TO JOINING THIS ACTIVITY ON A REGULAR BASIS, I BELIEVE THEY MEET QUARTERLY,

[01:05:01]

AND OPEN UP THIS DIALOG BETWEEN THE MANY COMMUNITIES IN OUR COMMUNITY WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT WHO'S WORKING VERY DILIGENTLY IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS TO KEEP US ALL SAFE.

I WOULD IMAGINE, I THINK, THE CHARGE WENT OUT TO THE REGULAR MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP TO INVITE AND BRING IN REPRESENTATIVES FROM COMMUNITIES THAT HAD NOT BEEN REPRESENTED BEFORE.

I THINK THAT WAS A VERY GOOD MOVE AND I APPRECIATED THAT OPENING OBVIOUSLY.

WE HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS.

WE MOVE TO ITEM 9, THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> EIGHTH FIRST.

>> AM I DOING IT AGAIN? YES. APPROVAL OF OUR AGENDA,

[8. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

PLEASE. [LAUGHTER] MR. DESCHAINE.

>> I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.

>> YES. SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WILSON.

ANY COMMENTS OR OBSERVATIONS THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH? THEN MR. LEMASTER, IF WE COULD GET A ROLL CALL VOTE.

>> I CAN ACTUALLY DO THIS IN FORM OF THE VOICE VOTE.

>> FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, CORRECT.

>> BUT OKAY. [LAUGHTER]

>> GIVE ME ROLL CALL VOTE.

>> SUPERVISOR JACKSON?

>> CLERK GUTHRIE?

>> TREASURER DESCHAINE?

>> THANK YOU. NOW WE MOVE TO ITEM 9,

>> MOTION CARRIED, 7-0.

[9. CONSENT AGENDA]

WHICH REPRESENTS THE CONSENT AGENDA INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS, MINUTES FROM OUR MAY 16, 2023 REGULAR BOARD MEETING, AND THE MANAGERS BILLS.

FOR THIS, WE ACTUALLY DO NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE.

MR. HENDRICKSON.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM SUPERVISOR. I MOVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.

>> SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WISINSKI. MR. LEMASTER.

>> CLERK GUTHRIE?

>> TREASURER DESCHAINE?

>> SUPERVISOR JACKSON.

QUESTIONS FOR THE ATTORNEY.

> MOTION CARRIED 7-0.

>> YES. ITEM 10,

[10. QUESTIONS FOR THE ATTORNEY]

WE DON'T APPEAR TO HAVE ANY, WE ALSO HAVE NO PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT.

TWELVE, AGAINST OUR ACTION ITEMS,

[12. A. Acceptance of 2022 Audit Findings]

12A IS ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2022 AUDIT FINDINGS.

I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE PRESENTED BY AMANDA GARBER, OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR.

>> GOOD EVENING. I THINK ELLIE FROM YEO & YEO GAVE A PRETTY DETAILED, REALLY GREAT PRESENTATION.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY, BUT TONIGHT WE'RE LOOKING FOR APPROVAL OF THE 2022 AUDIT.

>> BOARD MEMBERS. [NOISE] TRUSTEE, WILSON.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE 2022 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS PRESENTED BY YO AND YO.

>> SUPPORTED BY MR. HENDRICKSON.

TRUSTEE, WILSON.

>> THANK YOU AGAIN, MADAM SUPERVISOR.

I'VE HAD THE ROLE OF BEING AUDITED AND ALSO BEING AN AUDITOR.

THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A CLEAN AUDIT IS EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE BECAUSE YOU CAME INTO A SITUATION THAT WAS SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT AND YOU HAVE SMOOTHED THE PATH AND DONE EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO GAAP PROCEDURES AND SO ON.

I'M REALLY PLEASED TO SEE WE DID AS WELL AS WE DID IN THE AUDIT, PARTICULARLY THE SINGLE AUDIT, AND CONGRATULATE YOU ON A JOB WELL DONE.

>> HEY, MADAM SUPERVISOR. IT'S BEEN A BIT OF A THEME EVER SINCE I JOINED THE BOARD THAT WE SING THE PRAISES OF THE TOWNSHIP FINANCIAL POSITION AND STEWARDSHIP.

>> MR. HENDRICKSON.

I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T CONTINUE TO DO SO AFTER REVIEWING THIS.

I WILL SAY IT TOOK ME A NOT INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET THROUGH THE COMPILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SINCE THE FRIDAY PACKET WAS PUBLISHED, BUT IT WAS WELL WORTH THE READ.

LOTS OF GOOD INFORMATION IN HERE AND LOTS OF GOOD NEWS IN HERE.

[01:10:03]

THANK YOU TO DIRECTOR GARBER AND MANAGER WALSH ON KEEPING US NOT ONLY SOLVENT, BUT THRIVING FROM A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE.

>> OTHER COMMENTS? MR. DESCHAINE.

>> I DO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THIS VERY CLEAN AUDIT AND THE SINGLE AUDIT, WHICH [INAUDIBLE] I EXPECTED TO FIND SOME EFFICIENCIES THERE AND DIDN'T.

DO YOU WANT TO PUT IN LAY PERSON'S TERMS THAT IN THE SHORT WEAKNESS THAT SHE MENTIONED, INCORRECT RECORDING OF DEBT TRANSACTIONS, I GUESS WITH THE RPA FUND, WHAT HAPPENED THERE AND WHAT IS THE CORRECTION PLAN THAT SHE'S OUTLINED FOR US?

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RPA FUND?

>> BASICALLY, THERE'S AN ACCOUNTING DEFICIT IN THAT FUND, NOT AN ACTUAL DEFICIT DUE TO SOME IT AGREEMENTS WITH OUR IT OVERHAUL PROJECT THAT IS BEING FUNDED BY RPA.

THERE ARE SOME INVOICES THAT COVER, I BELIEVE, A THREE-YEAR PERIOD.

WE PAID THEM IN '22, BUT THEY COVER '23, '24, '25.

IT'S THOSE AMOUNTS.

AS WE GO THROUGH '23, SOME MORE OF THAT IS GOING TO DROP DOWN.

I SUSPECT THAT DEFICIT WILL BE ELIMINATED IN '23 DUE TO THE HIGHER INTEREST REVENUE AS WELL AND SOME OF THOSE ACTUALLY BEING EXPENSED.

>> OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS PRESENTED BY YO AND YO.

FOR THIS, WE NEED A VOTE.

WE CAN USE A VOICE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MATERIAL PRESENTED TO US, PLEASE SAY YES.

>> OPPOSING NO? CHAIR VOTES YES, AND MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU, MS. GARBER FOR YOUR WORK AND YOUR PRESENTATION.

ITEM 12B IS A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF FLAG DAY.

[12. B. Resolution in Support of Flag Day]

I BELIEVE THIS COMES TO US FROM CLERK GUTHRIE.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO [OVERLAPPING] REPORT THIS ONE.

I DIDN'T INCLUDE A MEMO WITH THAT.

I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS REALLY NECESSARY.

MAYBE I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BECAUSE THERE MIGHT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MOTION TO GO ALONG WITH IT, BUT JUST TO RECOGNIZE THE FLAG AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FLAG, ESPECIALLY COMING OFF OF MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND AND THE RAISING OF THE FLAG AND THE IMPORTANCE THAT THE FLAG MEANS TO US WITH PUBLIC SERVICE AND WITH OUR MILITARY, AND HOW THE FLAG IS A SYMBOL OF FREEDOM FOR OUR NATION, AND THAT IT BRINGS OUR CITIZENS TOGETHER, AND IT HAS A HISTORY OF WHO WE ARE IN AMERICA.

WITH FLAG DAY COMING UP ON JUNE 14TH, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING NATIONAL FLAG DAY, ENCOURAGING RESIDENTS AND THE TOWNSHIP TO HAVE A FLAG UP AT EACH OF THE BUILDINGS THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS.

JUST RECOGNIZING IT TONIGHT, I MENTIONED IN THE RESOLUTION ABOUT THE NATIONAL FLAG FOUNDATION.

THEY HAVE A VERY GOOD WEBSITE WITH THE HISTORY OF THE FLAG, HOW THE FLAG'S PAID TRIBUTE OVER THE YEARS, HOW IT'S CHANGED OVER THE YEARS, AND A LOT OF REALLY GOOD RESOURCE IN VIDEOS THAT I ENCOURAGE RESIDENTS TO GO TO THAT WEBSITE AND LOOK AT.

>> MR. DESCHAINE.

>> I MOVE TO THIS BOARD TO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING NATIONAL FLAG DAY.

>> SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

>> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT ONE OF OUR LOCAL SERVICE CLUBS THAT I'VE BEEN PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF THE KIWANIS CLUB HAS DONE FLAGS OVER MERIDIAN NOW FOR 12 YEARS.

WE'RE AVERAGING ABOUT 900 FLAGS KEPT PUT UP FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING FLAG HOLIDAYS: MEMORIAL DAY, FLAG DAY, JUNETEENTH WE'VE HAD IT THIS YEAR, INDEPENDENCE DAY, LABOR DAY, PATRIOT'S DAY, AND VETERANS DAY.

THE PROGRAM IS A HUGE SUCCESS HERE IN THE TOWNSHIP.

WE DON'T MARKET IT.

WE HAVE PEOPLE COME TO US AND SAY, OH YEAH, I WANT ONE OF THOSE FLAGS, ALL THESE SUBSCRIBERS WE LOSE WHEN PEOPLE MOVE OUT OF THE AREA.

OUR TOWNSHIP STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE FLAG AND IS PROUD TO DO IT.

REGARDING HAVING AT ALL THE LOCATIONS,

[01:15:01]

THE MANAGER MAKES SURE THAT THE TOWNSHIP SUBSCRIBES TO FLAGS OVER MERIDIAN.

THEY PUT THEM UP HERE AT TOWN HALL, AT PARKS, AND OTHER TOWNSHIP BUILDINGS.

>> YES. THANK YOU, MADAM SUPERVISOR.

KIWANIS DOES A FANTASTIC JOB.

I REMEMBER I HAD A FRIEND THAT BOUGHT MY FIRST FLAG GEAR AND IT WAS FANTASTIC AND WE MOVED.

THERE IS THAT TO TRANSITION, BUT IT WAS WITHIN THE TOWNSHIPS, SO I HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT, CONTACT KIWANIS.

BUT I WILL SAY DURING THAT TIME, I THINK YOU GOT 3, 4 RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE AMERICAN FLAG HAS GOTTEN A VERY NEGATIVE WRAP IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

I CAN SAY THAT PERSONALLY HAVING MY KIWANIS FLAG IN MY FRONT YARD, ONE OF MY KIDDO'S FRIENDS ACCUSED US OF BEING EITHER RACIST AND OR REPUBLICAN.

TO THEM, IN THEIR MIND, THIS IS A NEGATIVE SYMBOL.

I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE FOCUS ON THE POSITIVES IN THAT WE GET THAT WORD BACK OUT TO OUR YOUTH THAT THIS IS SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF AND THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

>> TRUSTEE HENDRICKSON.

THANK YOU TO CLERK GUTHRIE FOR BRINGING THIS TO THE BOARD.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT, OF COURSE, AND ALSO, TO TREASURER DESCHAINE, AND THE KIWANIS FOR THE GOOD WORK THAT THEY DO IN CONTINUING THAT PROGRAM.

I'M GOING TO BE BOARD GRAMMARIAN ONE MORE TIME AND OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE TREASURER FOR HIS MOTION THAT WE UPDATE THE PREFACE TO READ HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE AT 6:00 P.M. NOT THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE SINCE THAT'S WHEN WE ARE MEETING, BUT OTHERWISE, VERY PLEASED TO SUPPORT IT.

>> FRIENDLY MOTION ACCEPTED.

>> TAKEN US BACK IN TIME THERE. OTHER COMMENTS?

>> I TOO WOULD LIKE TO THANK CLERK GUTHRIE FOR BRINGING THIS TO US, AND PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE COMING NATIONAL FLAG DAY IN THE MONTH OF JUNE, WHICH IS JUNE WHAT?

>> 14TH.

>> 14TH, SPECIFICALLY.

THIS IS A RESOLUTION PRESENTED TO US.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY MR. DUSHANE, I BELIEVE, SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WISINSKI,.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION, PLEASE SAY YES.

>> OPPOSE, NO. CHAIR VOTES YES, AND THE MOTION PASSES.

>> 12C IS A PINCHING BOARD APPOINTMENT.

[12. C. Pension Board Appointment]

WE HAVE A VACANCY ON THE PENSION BOARD AND AN APPLICATION THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM MR. JAMES HUDOLPH APPLYING TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD FOR A TERM ENDING 12, 31, 25.

CAN I GET SOMEONE TO READ THE MOTION? TRUSTEE WILSON.

MOVE TO A POINT, JIM HOUGH.

I APOLOGIZE [OVERLAPPING] FOR THE PRONUNCIATION.

>> IT'S HUDOLPH.

>> HUDOLPH. THANK YOU.

TO THE PENSION BOARD FOR A TERM ENDING 12, 31, 25.

>> SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

TRUSTEE WILSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT FURTHER?

>> LOOKING AT MR. HUDOLPH'S APPLICATION AND HIS BACKGROUND INCLUDING EDUCATION AND JOB RESPONSIBILITIES AS A CONTROLLER, HE APPEARS TO BE THE TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT WE WOULD WALK THEM ON THE PENSION BOARD.

THAT'S WHY I WILL BE SUPPORTING HIM.

>> TRUSTEE WISINSKI DO YOU HAVE THE BALANCE?

>> IN ADDITION TO WHAT TRUSTEE WILSON SAID, RESUME LOOKS FANTASTIC.

ALSO JUST WANTED TO NOTE BEEN A RESIDENT FOR MERIDIAN, IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP FOR 35 YEARS.

>> FOR 35 YEARS. THAT'S CORRECT.

I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT I BELIEVE MR. HUDOLPH IS RETIRED, AND SPECIFICALLY APPLY FOR THIS POSITION BASED ON HIS INTERESTS AND EXPERIENCE.

[01:20:08]

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPOINT JIM HUDOLPH TO THE PENSION BOARD FOR A TERM ENDING 12, 31, 25 ON FAVOR OF THE MOTION THAT WAS [LAUGHTER] READ BY TRUSTEE WILSON. PLEASE SAY YES.

>> IF ELSE, NO, AND THEN CHAIR VOTE YOU YES, AND MR. HUDOLPH HAS BEEN APPOINTED.

[12. D. Financial Advisor Consideration]

ITEM 12D, FINANCIAL ADVISOR CONSIDERATION.

BELIEVE THIS IS A DISCUSSION THAT MR. DESHANE WILL LEAD.

>> THANK YOU. BEFORE YOUR BOARD IS A MEMOIR, I PUT TOGETHER MY RECOMMENDATION FOR US HIRING A FINANCIAL ADVISOR FOR MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

YOU HAVE NOT HAD A FINANCIAL ADVISOR BEFORE NOW.

OTHER COMMUNITIES DO.

SOME CITIES BIGGER THAN AN ACE AND ARB OR GRAND RAPIDS, FOR EXAMPLE.

THEY HAVE TWO OR THREE FINANCIAL ADVISORS.

SOME COMMUNITIES SMALLER THAN US LIKE GAIL HIGH TOWNSHIP HAD ONE FOR YEARS.

THE BENEFITS OF FINANCIAL ADVISOR IS REALLY TO THE BOARD AND TO THE MANAGER.

THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE WORKING WITH ALONG WITH MANAGER WALSH AND DIRECTOR GARBER REGARDING THE STRATEGIC DIRECTION OF OUR INVESTMENTS.

NOW THERE ISN'T A LOT, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF LATITUDE AS TO HOW WE CAN MAKE THESE INVESTMENTS.

THEY HAVE TO BE IN VERY SAFE, SECURE INSTRUMENTS, NO STOCKS, NO SPECULATE.

JUNK BONDS HAS TO BE TREASURY GRADE BONDS AND CVS, MONEY MARKETS AND SOME SHORT-TERM CORPORATE PAPER INSTRUMENT ALL RATED EXTREMELY SAFE.

REMEMBER OUR THREE GOALS FOR OUR INVESTMENT POLICY THAT THIS BOARD HAS APPROVED IS SAFETY, SECURITY, LIQUIDITY AND LAST OF ALL RETURNS.

WE WANT TO MAKE MONEY OFF THIS, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE SAFE, IT'S GOT TO BE LIQUID, BE ABLE TO THE TOWNSHIP, THEN COMES THE CRITERIA FOR GETTING A RETURN ON IT.

I RECOMMEND THIS NOW IN PART BECAUSE OUR INVESTMENTS HAVE GROWN, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MEMO, WE HAVE AROUND $66 MILLION IN FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS CURRENTLY.

WE CREATED THE PENSION STABILIZATION FUND AS WELL AS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, IS A SIGN OF THE FACT WE DO HAVE EXCESS CASH THAT WE'RE SETTING ASIDE FOR FUTURE PROJECTS AND THEN MAKE SURE WE ALWAYS MAKE OUR PENSION PAYMENT AS INTENDED, OR DESCRIBED BY THEIR MANAGER.

SENT OUT A MEMO TO A THREE FIRMS THAT I THOUGHT IT'D BE GOOD CANDIDATES FOR THIS, AND WE INTERVIEWED TWO OF THEM.

ONE WE SELECTED WAS ROBINSON CAPITAL, I FELL ON HIM, GREG PROUST.

GREG ACTUALLY TEACHES COURSES EVERY YEAR ON THE CERTIFIED PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT COURSE AND THE ADVANCED CERTIFIED FUNDS PUBLIC INVESTMENT COURSE FOR THE MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL TREASURES ASSOCIATION.

HE'S THE DEAN OF THIS AREA.

HE HAS A SMALLER FIRM BASED IN GROSS POINT FIRMS. WE GOT HIS PROPOSAL BACK AND WE CHECKED HIS REFERENCES AS WELL AS THE OTHER REFERENCES.

MR. PROUST FROM REVENUE CAPITALS, CREDENTIALS OR I'M SORRY, IS REFERENCES JUST STOOD OUT AMONGST THE REST.

WHEN METRO DETROIT AREA TREASURERS TOLD ME I ACTUALLY HAVE THREE DIFFERENT INVESTMENT ADVISORS, BUT WHEN I HAVE A QUESTION, I CALL GREG.

HE'S MY GO-TO MAN.

HE IS THE GUY, CAN GET A QUICK ANSWER FROM, HE'S ALWAYS AVAILABLE, AND OUR RETURN IS INCREASED AND I FEEL MUCH MORE SECURE ABOUT THE STRATEGY WE'RE FOLLOWING FOR OUR INVESTMENTS.

MEETING WITH GREG AND THE OTHER CANDIDATES ARE BOTH MANAGER WALSH AND DIRECTOR GARBER.

I HAD THE SAME IMPRESSION THAT WE WERE VERY IMPRESSED WITH GREG'S CONFIDENCE.

HE'S JUST UNSHAKABLE.

HE'S BEEN IN THIS INDUSTRY WITH 30 YEARS.

HE'LL PROVIDE US WITH ADVICE.

IF WE DISAGREE WITH HIM, WE DISAGREE WITH HIM, BUT HE HAS SOME CORE PRINCIPLES FOR MUNICIPAL INVESTING AND HE WILL SHARE THOSE WITH US AND GIVE US DIRECTION.

ONE BENEFIT OF HIRING HIS FIRM MIGHT BE THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO REDUCE OUR CASH POSITION AND INVEST WHEREVER WE'RE CURRENTLY IN CHECKING ACCOUNTS INTO SOME INTERESTS EARNING FUNDS.

WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET, HE'LL MAKE THAT LOOK AT OUR FUNDS AND OUR CURRENT BANK ACCOUNTS AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO US.

NOT PROMISING THAT, BUT IT IS A POSSIBILITY, IT'S HAPPENED TO OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT HE HAS WORKED WITH.

THAT IS MY REASON FOR OPPOSING THIS TO YOU.

ONE MORE THING I DO WANT TO ADD, THE BOARD WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS BECAUSE WHILE WE HAVE GREAT COMMUNICATION, WE UNDERSTAND SUPPORT, NO ONE IS LIKING WHEN WE HAVE IT, AN ELECTED FULL-TIME OFFICIAL AND A BOY WHERE THERE'S NOT GREAT COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THAT PERSON.

IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN TO THE TREASURER, AND BOARD WASN'T GETTING THE INFORMATION THEY WANTED,

[01:25:02]

THEY COULD TURN TO THIS INVESTMENT ADVISOR WHO THE BOARD IS HIRING TO, IN ESSENCE, LOOK OVER MY SHOULDER AND ADVISE THE TEAM THAT WE HAVE MANAGER WALSH, DIRECTOR GARBER AND MYSELF ON INVESTMENTS.

SHOULD THE TREASURER NOT SHARE AS MUCH AS HIS BOARD LIKES, THE BOARD WILL HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT WOULD COME FROM OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS.

IT PROVIDES, IF YOU WILL, SOME SAFETY GUARD RAILS FOR THE CONCERT TREASURER DOES, AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT $66 MILLION OF THE PUBLIC'S MONEY, WE SHOULD HAVE GUARDRAILS.

HOW WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AS MANY EYES ON THAT MONEY, MAKING SURE IT'S INVESTED PRUDENTLY AND ACCORDING TO OUR INVESTMENT POLICY AS POSSIBLE.

THERE'S MANY BENEFITS AND THE COST FOR THIS IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN I THOUGHT, IT'D BE $25,000, WHICH IS 25 ON OUR FOREIGN INVESTMENT POOL OF $66 MILLION.

IT'S VERY SMALL AMOUNT, LESS THAN 1,000 SEVERAL PERCENT.

IT'S NOT AN EXPENSIVE INVESTMENT FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE AND I'M SURE IT WILL RETURN GOOD RESULTS FOR THE BOARD.

>> HENDRICKSON?

>> THANK YOU, MADAM SUPERVISOR. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP MERIDIAN AND ROBINSON CAPITAL, EFFECTIVE JUNE 7TH, 2023.

>> SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WILSON.

MR. HENDRICKSON?

>> THANK YOU, MADAM SUPERVISOR, AND THANK YOU TO THE TREASURER FOR BRINGING THIS GREAT IDEA FORWARD.

IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE A SECOND SET OF EYES LOOKING OVER OUR SHOULDER.

IT'S EXCELLENT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO SO IN SUCH A COST-EFFECTIVE WAY.

FROM WHAT YOU'VE TOLD US ABOUT THE REFERENCE CHECK THAT WAS DONE, IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH HE COMES VERY WELL RECOMMENDED.

THE FIRM COMES WELL RECOMMENDED, BUT ESPECIALLY THE ADVISOR IN SPECIFIC, AND SO, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

>>TRUSTEE WILSON?

>> I WILL ALSO BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IS THAT WHEN WE ELECT A TREASURER, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY SKILLED IN ALL ASPECTS OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ASSET MANAGEMENT.

WE UNDERSTAND HOW WELL TREASURER DESCHAINE IS DOING HIS JOB.

BUT I ALSO AGREE THAT HAVING A SPECIALIST COME IN WHO WORKS WITH MICHIGAN PUBLIC FUNDS THAT IS THEIR SPECIALTY AND CAN ADVISE US, IS A REALLY SOUND PRINCIPLE TO FOLLOW.

I WILL BE SUPPORTING FOR THAT REASON.

IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO, WITH OUR FUNDS INCREASING AND IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE IS ON BOARD TOO AS FAR AS THE OPINION OF THAT THIS WOULD ENHANCE OUR INVESTMENTS.

>> I DO SUPPORT THIS.

THE ONLY THING I WOULD THINK ABOUT IS WHETHER WE'RE SAYING EFFECTIVE JUNE 7TH, 2023.

IS THERE AN END DATE TO THE CONTRACT THAT WE WILL THEN RE-VOTE WHEN WE APPROVE THE SERVICES?

>> MR. DESCHAINE?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, TRUSTEE SUNDLAND.

THERE WAS NO END DATE, BUT THE CONTRACT CAN BE TERMINATED BY ANY PARTY AT ANYTIME.

BUT CERTAINLY A THREE-DAY NOTICE.

IF WE FIND AFTER SIX MONTHS WE'RE NOT GETTING WHAT WANT FROM HIM, WE CAN GIVE HIM A WRITTEN NOTICE AND THE AGREEMENT IS CANCELED.

IT'S OPEN-ENDED, BUT THAT'S TO OUR BENEFIT.

AS LONG AS WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE GETTING RESULTS FROM HIM, WE WILL CONTINUE TO EMPLOY HIM.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE TREASURER FOR BRINGING THIS TO OUR ATTENTION. TRUSTEE WILSON, YOU'RE RIGHT.

YOU CAN'T BE EXPERTS AT EVERYTHING, AND I THINK IT'S ONLY DUE DILIGENCE TO DO THAT.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT IN THE COVER LETTER, IT STATES THAT THE SERVICES RANGED FROM 25,000-48,000.

ACTUAL ROBINSON WAS THE $25,000 BID. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YES, THANK YOU.

I THINK THIS MAKES SENSE.

LIKE YOU SAID, IF IN THE EVENT YOU HAD TO LEAVE OR WE WOULD HAVE SOME BACKUP, AND JUST WITH THE MARKET THE WAY IT IS AND OUR INVESTMENTS, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, I THINK IT'S JUST PRUDENT. THANK YOU.

>> TRUSTEE CLERK, GUTHRIE. [LAUGHTER]

I CONCUR WITH ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT OUR BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ALREADY SAID.

I JUST HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE 25,000.

DOES THIS COME OUT OF FUND BALANCE? THIS WASN'T BUDGETED, CORRECT? WHERE DOES THIS MONEY COME FROM? JUST A PROCEDURAL QUESTION.

>> THAT'S THE SAME QUESTION MANAGER WALSH ASKED ME WHEN I REMEMBER I WORKED BY HIM.

[01:30:04]

[LAUGHTER] HE WANTED TO KNOW HOW WE'RE DOING ON THE INTEREST INCOME FOR THE YEAR AND I SAID LOOK, BUT WE BUDGETED 250,000.

WE ARE LIKELY TO EXCEED ONE MILLION DOLLAR INTEREST INCOME THIS YEAR, SO I'LL COME UP WITH THOSE EXCESS EARNINGS WE HAVE ON OUR CURRENT INVESTMENTS.

>> GUTHRIE.

>> MANAGER WALSH, [LAUGHTER] I'M SORRY.

I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO TRANSLATE YOUR POINT. [LAUGHTER].

>> I'M SORRY. I HADN'T SEEN HIM THERE.

[LAUGHTER] MANAGER WALSH, DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS?

>> ONE OTHER POINT THAT HASN'T BEEN MENTIONED IS, EVERY YEAR WE STRUGGLE WITH WHEN DO WE INVEST THAT EXTRA $1.5 MILLION DOLLARS, IT MATTERS.

I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON HOW TO DO IT YET.

AMANDA AND I TOGETHER PROBABLY AREN'T EXPERTS IN THAT AREA.

WHEN DO WE INVEST THAT MONEY? THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE THINGS ALSO ADDITIONALLY THAT WE'LL BE WORKING WITH ROBINSON CAPITAL ON, THAT'D BE GIVING US SOME ADVICE.

AND THEN WE MIGHT WANT TO DO THAT, THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THIS.

SO JUST ANOTHER PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT WILL BE GETTING FROM ROBINSON CAPITAL. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. I TOO AGREE WITH YOUR CHOICE AND YOUR REASONING FOR MAKING THAT CHOICE.

I DO HAVE SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE OPEN ENDEDNESS OF THIS CONTRACT.

I DON'T REMEMBER US EVER HAVING ANOTHER CONTRACT WITH ANY OTHER ADVISORS THAT IS OPEN ENDED.

I GUESS I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT YOUR REASONING FOR THAT TRUST VERSUS A ONE-YEAR OR THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT OR WHAT.

EVEN THOUGH IT CAN BE CHANGED AT ANY TIME.

>> THE ADVANTAGE OF IT WOULD BE AN OPEN-ENDED AND MONTH-TO-MONTH, IF YOU WILL, IS THAT IF WE FIND THERE'S NOT A GOOD FIT AND EVEN THOUGH WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO WORK VERY WELL WITH HIM, IF AFTER OUR FIRST TWO OR THREE MONTHS, WE SAY WE JUST DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE, WE CAN TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT RIGHT THEN.

WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE TERMINATION PROCESS, MAYBE PAY THEM OFF FOR THE YEAR.

SO IT GIVES US THE BENEFIT THAT IF THERE IS NOT A GOOD FIT THAT WE CAN TERMINATE THAT.

OR IF MR. PROWSE RETIRES IN TWO YEARS AND HIS REPLACEMENT COMES IN AND HE ISN'T A GOOD FIT, THEN WE'RE NOT STUCK FOR ANOTHER TWO OR THREE YEARS, OR ONE YEAR OF AN AGREEMENT.

WE CAN MAKE A CHANGE RIGHT THEN TO ANOTHER FINANCIAL ADVISOR IF WE CHOSE TO.

WE GET HIS SERVICES AND WE DON'T TIE OUR HANDS TO BE TIED TO THEM.

IT'S A NEW THING WE'VE NEVER TRIED BEFORE, A FINANCIAL ADVISOR.

SO THE ADVANTAGE OF IT, BEING MONTH TO MONTH, IS IF IT IS NOT WHAT WE THINK IT'S GOING TO BE, WE CAN TERMINATE IT AND TRY A DIFFERENT ADVISOR OR TERMINATE THAT CONCEPT COMPLETELY.

I DON'T THINK WE WILL, BUT IT GIVES US THAT OPTION.

>> THEN, ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.

THE RATES WE NOTED IN THIS PROPOSAL ARE ANNUAL RATES?

>> YES. IT BREAKS OUT THE MONTHLY COST FOR IT, BUT YES, IF THAT'S THE ANNUAL RATE, 25,000 PER YEAR.

AND I BELIEVE HE LISTED IN HERE.

THE MONTHLY COST IS $2,083.33 PER MONTH.

>> I WOULD HAVE SOME CONCERN THAT IT SAYS THE PROPOSED COST FOR THESE ADVISORY SERVICES RANGE FROM 25,000-48,000.

SO YOU HAVEN'T QUITE TIED IN THE COST.

>> THAT IS THE COST OF ALL THREE OF THESE ADVISORS.

THEY RANGE FROM ALL THREE OF THEM.

THE ONE WE PICKED, TRUSTEE SUNDLAND, IS THE $25,000.

>> I SEE. BUT YOU'RE ASKING US TO AGREE TO A $25,000 A YEAR RATE.

>> AS SEEN IN THE ATTACHED PROPOSAL TO IT, YES.

>> I THINK THAT COULD BE CLARIFIED JUST A LITTLE BIT IN SOME WAY.

THAT IT'S SEVERABLE TO ALL PARTIES.

MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE THAT IN THERE WITH A 30-DAY NOTICE OR WHATEVER, IS TYPICAL.

AND THEN SPELL OUT BECAUSE THIS SOUNDS REALLY, THE 25-48, IT SOUNDS REALLY VAGUE AS TO HOW MUCH WE'RE GOING TO PAY.

I KNOW THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID.

THAT THOSE SERVICES ARE RANGING FROM BUT IT ALMOST APPEARS THAT WE'RE AGREEING TO UP TO $48,000.

SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT.

[01:35:02]

AND MAYBE THAT IT'S SEVERABLE TO ALL PARTIES.

>> MR. HENDRICKSON.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM SUPERVISOR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THE MOTION THAT I'VE BROUGHT ABOUT THIS ISSUE WAS TO ACCEPT THE ADVISORY AGREEMENT.

THE ADVISORY AGREEMENT IS FOUND LATER IN OUR PACKET, AND IT DOES INCLUDE THE SEPARABILITY CLAUSE THAT YOU DISCUSSED.

AND IT DOES INCLUDE THE ANNUAL COST OF 25,000, AND IT DOES INCLUDE THE MONTHLY COST OF $2,083.

>> IT'S ALL GOOD.

>> RIGHT. THE MEMO THAT THE TREASURER PROVIDED WAS TO GIVE US ALL OF THE OPTIONS THAT THEY CONSIDERED.

THE ADVISORY AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE MOVING TONIGHT IS RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC $25,000 ANNUAL CHARGE, AND DOESN'T CONTAIN THE TERMINATION CLAUSE OF 30 DAYS.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? THEN WE HAVE A MOTION.

TRUSTEE HENDRICKSON SECONDED BY TRUSTEE WILSON TO APPROVE THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN AND ROBINSON CAPITAL EFFECTIVE JUNE 7TH, 2023.

THIS WOULD REQUIRE A ROLL CALL VOTE. MR. LEMASTER.

>> TREASURER DESCHAINE?

>> SUPERVISOR JACKSON?

>> CLERK GUTHRIE?

>> THANK YOU. ITEM 13 ON OUR AGENDA IS BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS,

>> MOTION CARRIED 7-0.

[13. A. Residents Listening Tour]

THE FIRST OF WHICH IS 13A RESIDENTS' LISTENING TOUR.

I PRESUME MR. WALSH WILL INTRODUCE THIS IDEA TO US.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM SUPERVISOR. AGAIN, I'LL BE BRIEF.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE GOALS SETTING THAT THE BOARD DID IN 2022, IT'S A LENGTHY LIST OF PRETTY LOFTY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR 2023.

THAT WAS ELIMINATED DOWN TO THREE TOP GOALS.

ONE OF THOSE GOALS WAS WHAT WAS BEING MENTIONED EARLIER, THE COMMUNITY AND SENIOR CENTER THAT TRUSTEE WILSON MENTIONED.

THE SECOND GOAL WAS THE EXPANSION OF THE LAKE LANSING TO MSU PATHWAY PHASES I AND II.

THE THIRD GOAL WAS TO ENHANCE YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

THOSE ARE YOUR TOP THREE GOALS.

TWO OF THOSE WERE KNOCK AND OUT.

BUT NUMBER III, AS WE LOOKED AT NUMBER III, AND I'VE TALKED TO SUPERVISOR JACKSON ABOUT THIS, ABOUT WHERE WE MAY GO WITH THIS JUST TO PUT IT OUT THERE TO GIVE YOU A STARTING POINT, BASIS POINT FOR YOUR DISCUSSION HOW YOU WANT TO DO IT WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD BREAK DOWN THE 22 PRECINCTS INTO BASICALLY SIX NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE WOULD GO OUT AND THE BOARD, IT'D BE THE BOARD'S MEETING, NOT THE ADMINISTRATION, THE BOARD WOULD MEET.

I WOULD SEND OUT INVITATIONS BASED ON A VOTER REGISTRATION LIST WITHIN, SAY, THOSE THREE OR FOUR PRECINCTS BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE SIX MEETINGS IN 22 PRECINCTS.

WE WOULD HAVE THE MEETINGS OUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, NONE OF THE MEETINGS WOULD BE HELD AT THE TOWNSHIP.

WE WOULD BE LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, IF WE MEET WITH THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE TOWNSHIP, WE MIGHT MEET AT BENNETT WOODS, WE MIGHT NEED THE BUILDING THAT WE'RE RUNNING RIGHT LATE.

THAT'S A STARTING POINT THAT WE WOULD GO OUT AND WHERE THERE WOULD BE A PRESENTATION MADE BY THE BOARD TO START OUT WITH ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, AND THEN TAKING QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK, I WOULD ASK THE STAFF, THE KEY LEADERS IN TOWNSHIP TO BE AT THOSE MEETINGS BECAUSE THERE MAY BE A QUESTION THAT'S RELATED TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, ACCOUNTING.

THAT'S JUST A STARTING POINT FOR YOUR DISCUSSIONS.

I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW YOU WANT TO GO ABOUT ASSISTING ONE OF YOUR TOP THREE GOALS FOR 2023.

WE'RE THINKING RIGHT NOW OF TWO MEETINGS IN OCTOBER, TWO IN NOVEMBER, AND TWO IN DECEMBER.

THAT'S HOW WE WOULD LAY IT OUT.

BUT, AGAIN, ANXIOUS TO HEAR HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD.

BUT WE PROBABLY, IN OTHER WORDS, THE MIDPOINT OF THE YEAR, YOU SHOULD START PROBABLY PLANNING ON HOW WE WANT TO DO THIS.

>> THANK YOU. MR. HENDRICKSON.

>> THAT'S ALL.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM SUPERVISOR. THANK YOU TO MANAGER WALSH FOR BRINGING THIS IDEA TO US.

I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT NOTION TO GET OUT INTO THE WORLD, OUT OF THE TOWN HALL ROOM AND BE HEARING DIRECTLY FROM RESIDENTS OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP AS TO ISSUES THAT THEY'RE SEEING AND THE ASPIRATIONS THAT THEY HAVE

[01:40:04]

FOR THE TOWNSHIP [NOISE].

I THINK IT WOULD BE LOVELY IF WE CAN, PERHAPS MOVE IT UP ONE MONTH OUT OF DECEMBER.

I KNOW THAT THAT'S A TRICKY TIME FOR A LOT OF FAMILIES, AND SO IF WE CAN FIND A WAY TO DO SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AS OPPOSED TO OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, I THINK THAT WE'D SEE A LOT HIGHER INTEREST IN THOSE MEETINGS THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED LATER.

I THINK THIS IS A VERY GOOD IDEA.

I THINK THAT THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD MENTION IS THAT THE MORE STRUCTURE WE CAN SEND OUT IN THE NOTICE AHEAD OF TIME TO PRIME THE PUMP, TO GET THE IDEAS FLOWING, THE BETTER.

BECAUSE IF WE SHOW UP FOR LISTENING, THEY'RE EXPECTING US TO TELL THEM MORE THAN JUST OUR STANDARD UPDATE.

WE'RE HERE TO LISTEN TO THEM.

>> RIGHT.

>> HOW DO WE BEST COMMUNICATE TO THEM SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT? WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE? WHAT DO YOU WANT, THAT KIND OF? SOME THOUGHT-PROVOKING QUESTIONS, MAYBE IN THAT INITIAL COMMUNICATION THAT GOES OUT, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA, I THINK.

BUT THANK YOU AGAIN FOR BRINGING THIS BACK TO US.

>> CLERK GUTHRIE.

I CONCUR WITH THE COMMENTS FROM TRUSTEE HENDRICKSON REGARDING NOT HAVING IT IN DECEMBER AND HAVING IT IN SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER.

LOTS OF FAMILY GET-TOGETHERS, PARTIES, COOKIE EXCHANGES, ORGANIZATIONS, NON-PROFITS, VOLUNTEERISM, A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON IN THAT MONTH.

I TOO WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT MOVED UP.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE MAYBE SOME COMMUNICATIONS IN THE, YOU KNOW THE TAX BILLS THAT GO OUT IN SEPTEMBER OR AUGUST [OVERLAPPING].

>> ON JULY.

>> MID-JULY.

>> IF WE ARE REAL QUICK, WE'LL GET THEM OUT IN THE JULY NOTICE [OVERLAPPING].

>> SOME KIND OF LIKE SAVE THE DAY, THIS IS COMING UP KIND OF THING OR SOMETHING.

THEN I'M CURIOUS, WITH 44,000 RESIDENTS, WE HAVE 33,000 REGISTERED VOTERS, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS WE HAVE, 22,000, SO I'M CURIOUS WHY THE VOTER ROLE AND NOT HOUSEHOLDS.

I JUST WONDERED WHY THAT DECISION WAS MADE OR WHY THAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION OVER SOME OTHER LIST MAYBE.

I'M NOT OPPOSED, I'M JUST CURIOUS.

>> YEAH. I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS THE EASIEST LIST TO GET TO, AND ALSO, WE'RE MORE APT TO GET EVERYONE, INCLUDING RENTERS AND EVERY ONE BY DOING THIS LIST, IT'S VERY INCLUSIVE.

>> OKAY. YEAH.

>> RATHER THAN HOUSEHOLDS WE MAY MISS SOME AREAS.

THAT'S THE REASON THAT I THOUGHT THE VOTER LIST.

>> I THINK THE TIMING OF SENDING OUT THESE INVITATIONS IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO GET OUT IN ADVANCE SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW.

WE WILL ONLY GET PROBABLY A TINY FRACTION OF THOSE THAT ARE INVITED.

BUT SOMETIMES WE'RE SURPRISED.

WE RECENTLY HAD THE INDIAN HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO TO WHICH MANAGER WALSH AND POLICE CHIEF PLAGA CAME AND WE TURNED OUT WAY MORE HOUSEHOLDS THAN I EXPECTED AND ALSO HIT SOME VERY INQUIRING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.

I THINK THAT OPEN FORMAT OF TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON AT THE TOWNSHIP AND HAVING THOSE OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS OUT THERE TO GET PEOPLE THINKING AND PUTTING SOME COOKIES AT THE BACK OF THE ROOM WILL GET PEOPLE INVOLVED IN BEING PART OF THE PROCESS.

WE'LL ALSO HEAR WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T WORK. LET'S DO IT.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD SIMILAR COMMENTS.

I APPRECIATE YOU THINKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

I WAS THINKING ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A STANDING AGENDA AGAIN, GETTING IT OUT EARLY SO PEOPLE CAN START THINKING ABOUT IT? FOR ME, I WOULD WANT IT TO BE CONVERSATION TOWARDS ME AS OPPOSED TO US TELLING UPDATES ALL THE TIME.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A WAY SPECIFIC TO EACH DIFFERENT AREA, IF THEY MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT CONCERNS, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT JUST, I GUESS, SUGGESTING CERTAIN TOPICS, BUT ALSO MOST IMPORTANTLY, REQUESTING CERTAIN TOPICS.

>> IF I MAY?

>> YES, MR. WALSH.

>> YEAH. ALL GOOD POINTS AND I CERTAINLY RESPECT TO POINT ABOUT DECEMBER, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT.

WHAT I HAD ENVISIONED IS A LETTER THAT ACTUALLY GOES OUT AND ABOUT SIX WEEKS OF SCHEDULE,

[01:45:03]

TOO FAR IN ADVANCE BECAUSE PEOPLE LOSE THAT.

BUT TO GET IT OUT FURTHER SIX WEEKS IN ADVANCE AND HAVE A LETTER SIGNED BY ALL SEVEN BOARD MEMBERS, THAT'S AN INVITATION FROM YOU, NOT FROM US.

WE'LL WORK ON THAT LETTER, WE'LL GET GOING AT IT.

IF POSSIBLE, IF WE CAN [NOISE] REALLY THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, NAIL DOWN THE LOCATIONS, JUST THAT, WE'D BE ABLE TO PUT THAT IN THE TAX BILL.

WE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN IN TWO WEEKS TO NAIL DOWN ALL THE LOCATIONS FOR EACH, BUT WE MAY, WE COULD SAVE THE DATE.

>> OKAY. ARE THERE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, MR. DESCHAINE?

>> WITH ALL THE OTHER COMMENTS MADE.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR JACKSON AND MANAGER WALSH FOR BRINGING THIS IDEA TO THE BOARD.

IT'S AN EXCELLENT IDEA AND I THINK IT'S THE THING WE SHOULD BE DOING, WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS EVERY YEAR.

I'M GLAD WE ARE FINALLY GETTING IT DONE THIS YEAR.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR BRINGING THIS TO THE BOARD.

>> THANK YOU. MR. WALSH?

>> I'M GOOD.

>> I THINK WHAT WE'VE AGREED ON IS WE LIKE THE IDEA, WE LIKE THE GENERAL STRUCTURE, THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE QUICKLY APPARENTLY IS LOCATIONS.

>> DATES.

REMEMBER TWO DATES FOR EACH MONTH.

WE PROBABLY SHOULD BEGIN WORKING ON THIS INVITATION SO THAT WE GET WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO GET BOTH A REVIEW OF OUR STATUS AND ASKING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OF OUR ATTENDEES.

MAYBE NEXT MONTH? YOUR THING IS GOING OUT IN JULY, RIGHT?

>> YEAH, WE NEED TO HAVE IT DONE BY THE JUNE 23RD.

THAT'S TWO WEEKS AND TWO DAYS FROM NOW.

WE'VE GOT TO GET REALLY BUSY.

>> WE CAN GET IT DONE.

>> YOU CAN GET IT DONE?

>> I CAN GET A DRAFT WRITTEN PRETTY QUICKLY FOR YOU TO LOOK AT.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MARK.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I APPRECIATE IT.

>> I'M IN 13B,

[13. B. Marihuana Ordinance Updates]

IS THE MARIJUANA ORDINANCE UPDATES.

THIS WILL BE LED BY MR. SCHMIDT.

>> THOUGH NOT CERTAINLY ENTIRELY BY ME.

>> YOU ARE WELCOME TO INCLUDE WHOMEVER YOU NEED TO HELP GET US THROUGH THIS.

>> [LAUGHTER] IT IS WHAT IT IS. THANK YOU.

>> WE'RE GLAD TO SEE WHO IT IS.

>> YES, ME TOO.

>> IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING, WE HAVE THE THREE TAX AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BOARD'S DIRECTION ON RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.

GOING THROUGH THEM BRIEFLY, ORDINANCE 2022-19 IS THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO EFFECTUATE THIS CHANGE.

THAT INCLUDES MODIFICATIONS IN THE LANGUAGE TO REMOVE SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO MEDICAL.

TO MAKE THE REFERENCE BROADER.

IT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF TWO AREAS FROM THE OVERLAY MAP AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THAT'S THE AREA ON TOWN ROAD AND THAT IS THE AREA ON DON AVENUE AND IT IS A MODIFICATION LANGUAGE TO SPECIFICALLY ALLOW FOR ONLY RETAIL ORIENTED USES.

ALTHOUGH AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S LAST DISCUSSION OF IT, THEY DID RECOMMEND THE BOARD CONSIDER ADDING GROW OPERATIONS BACK IN.

THE ONLY CHANGE TO THIS ORDINANCE THAT'S OCCURRED SINCE IT WAS REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID INITIALLY RECOMMEND A PROHIBITION ON DRIVE-THROUGH USES.

THE BOARD'S CONVERSATION HAS CHANGED TO ALLOWING THOSE NON-CONTACT USES.

THAT LANGUAGE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM ORDINANCE 2020-19 FROM THEIR FIRST DRAFT, YOU SAW THAT.

ORDINANCE 2023-02 IS THE LICENSING ORDINANCE FOR RECREATIONAL SALES.

AGAIN, ONLY PROVISIONING CENTERS PERMITTED ARE SUBJECT TO COMPETITIVE REVIEW, THE STANDARDS OF WHICH WE WILL HAVE TO ESTABLISH AFTER THIS ORDINANCE IS IN PLACE, AND MR. CRUSHER, WHO IS HERE THIS EVENING, CAN GO THROUGH ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE, BUT WE BELIEVE WE HAVE GOTTEN TO WHERE THE BOARD WANTS TO BE ON THIS ISSUE BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD.

THEN LASTLY IS ORDINANCE 2023-03 IS THAT UPDATE TO THE LICENSING ORDINANCE FOR THE MEDICAL FACILITIES.

FUNCTIONALLY, WHAT THIS DOES IS IT BRINGS THE PROCESS LARGELY IN LINE WITH THE RECREATIONAL, IT ELIMINATES THE LOTTERY, IT ELIMINATES THE ANNUAL SECOND TUESDAY OF THE YEAR OPENING OF THE WINDOW AND MAKES IT MORE LIKE THE RECREATIONAL FACILITY.

[01:50:02]

BUT AGAIN, THEY ARE SEPARATE BECAUSE THEY HAVE SEPARATE STATE ENABLING LEGISLATION BEHIND THEM.

THERE'S TWO SEPARATE ORDINANCES HERE.

AGAIN, I'VE BRIEFLY UPDATED THE TIMELINE JUST SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE THAT I PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO YOU, I BELIEVE IN FEBRUARY.

THIS IS STILL ROUGHLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE SEEMS TO BE INTRODUCE THAN ADOPTED AND PUBLISHED.

THE NEXT STEP WILL BE TO ESTABLISH THE SCORING CRITERIA.

OUR STAFF HAS ALREADY BEEN WORKING ON PULLING THINGS TOGETHER AND WE WILL HAVE THAT FOR YOU IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

AT THAT POINT, ONCE WE HAVE THOSE CRITERIA IN PLACE, WE NEED TO ESTABLISH A WINDOW WHEN THE BOARD WANTS TO OPEN THESE APPLICATIONS.

STAFF CONTINUES TO SUGGEST AT LEAST A COUPLE OF MONTH WINDOW TO GIVE APPLICANTS AND OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE.

THE APPLICATIONS WILL THEN BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED OR DENIED BASED ON THE FOUR MONTHS THAT ARE LAID OUT IN THE ORDINANCE AND THEN THEY WILL NEED TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND BEGIN THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION, AND SO THAT'S THE BROAD OVERVIEW ON I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. CRUSHER FOR ANY SPECIFICS THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT AT THIS POINT.

>> THE ONE ITEM I WOULD REALLY HIGHLIGHT, THAT'S A CHANGE IN THE TAX FROM WHAT YOU SAW BEFORE IS THE INCLUSION OF A CONDITIONAL PERMIT PROCESS.

THE AWARDING OF THE PERMITS, WE ADDED AN INTERMEDIATE STEP, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION FROM STAFF ABOUT THIS.

ESSENTIALLY THE APPLICATIONS WOULD COME IN.

WE WOULD HAVE OUR SCORING ALL THAT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO SET UP IN THE GUIDELINES A BOARD WOULD SELECT VIA COMPETITIVE REVIEW WHO THOSE APPLICANTS ARE, ONE PER OVERLAY, AND THEN THEY WOULD BE AWARDED CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AND THE OTHER APPLICANTS WOULD BE DENIED.

THEN UNDER THAT CONDITIONAL APPROVAL PIECES, WHEN THEY GO AND APPLY FOR THEIR SUP AND GET THROUGH OTHER PERMITS, BUILD OUT THE CONSTRUCTION, WHATEVER IT IS.

IF IT TAKES THEM MORE THAN A YEAR, THEY WOULD RENEW THE CURRENT DRAFT OF THE ORDINANCE, HAS THAT CONDITIONAL APPROVAL THEN WHEN THEY'RE DONE, WHEN THEY'RE READY TO MOVE IN, ESSENTIALLY, THEY'LL COME BACK TO STAFF AND SAY, HEY, WE FINISHED OUR BUILDING PERMITS, WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR SITE PLAN AND OUR SUP.

THERE'S BEEN A BUREAU FIRE SAFETY WALK THROUGH FROM THE STATE AND WE'RE READY FOR OUR FINAL PERMIT.

STAFF WOULD ISSUE THAT FINAL PERMANENT TO THEM IN THIS CURRENT DRAFT.

THIS BOARD WOULDN'T ACTUALLY SEE THE FORMER PERMIT, YOU WOULD BE MAKING THAT INITIAL POLICY DECISION.

WHO'S GETTING THAT CONDITIONAL PERMIT.

AGAIN, SINCE WE'RE GOING TO AN ANNUAL PROCESS WITH A SPECIFIC RENEWAL DATE, WHEN THEY GET THEIR PERMIT IT WON'T MATTER FROM A RENEWAL PERSPECTIVE OR HOW LONG WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK TO THEM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY WE COULD STRUCTURE IT DIFFERENTLY SO THAT STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THIS BOARD ISSUED A FINAL PERMANENT SO THAT YOU WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHAT THROUGH HOW THAT INTERCEDING 6,12,18 MONTHS HAS GONE IN TERMS OF OPENING THE FACILITIES.

YOU GO FROM THE PAPER VERSION BASICALLY TO THE 3D VERSION, TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME OF THAT.

WE COULD ADJUST THAT PROCESS.

I WANTED TO RAISE THAT POINT, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE CURRENTLY AN ATR REQUIREMENT TO OPEN WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.

NOW WITH THE ABILITY TO GET SIX MONTH EXTENSIONS.

THE POLICY DECISION BEHIND THAT IS SOMEWHAT SOME OF WHAT WE SAW ON THE MEDICAL SIDE AND THE TIME TO GET THOSE OPEN.

THE OPERATIONAL CONCERN IS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE BUILDING A NEW BUILDING OR MAKING SIGNIFICANT REMODEL, 18 MONTHS FROM CONDITIONAL APPROVAL COULD BE QUITE SOME TIME.

YOU'RE GOING TO APPLY FOR YOUR SUP WITHIN 60 DAYS AS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE.

BUT YOU MIGHT BE THE FOURTH PERSON IN LINE, IT MIGHT TAKE YOU ANOTHER TWO MONTHS TO EVEN GET YOUR SPECIAL USE PERMIT SO THAT YOU CAN THEN GO GET A BUILDING PERMANENT AND START YOUR CONSTRUCTION.

JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT WHETHER WE WANT TO MOVE THAT 18 MONTH DURATION FROM CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT AWARDING.

IT WOULD MAKE DIFFERENT TIMEFRAMES FOR DIFFERENT APPLICANTS BECAUSE THEY GET THEIR SUP'S AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

IT WOULD ELONGATE THE PROCESS.

BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY MIGHT BE FOURTH IN LINE TO GET THEIR SUP.

AFTER CONDITIONAL APPROVAL IT MIGHT BE FOUR MONTHS OR SOMETHING TO GET THEIR SUP.

[01:55:06]

I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THAT.

I WAS LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE EARLIER TODAY AND THERE ARE SIX MONTH EXTENSIONS, PLURAL.

THEY COULD COME BACK AND GET ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS ON GOOD FAITH FOR A GOOD REASON IF THEY CAN COME IN AND SAY, HEY, LOOK, WE WERE THE LAST ONES GET OUR SUP, WE'VE BEEN DILIGENTLY BUILDING OUT.

WE'RE BUILDING A WHOLE NEW BUILDING.

OUR CONTRACTOR WALKED OFF THE JOB AND SLOWED US DOWN FOUR MONTHS WHAT HAVE YOU.

THERE IS FLEXIBILITY THERE, BUT I DID WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT BIT OF ATTENTION IN THE OPERATIONAL VERSUS THE PERMIT SIDE.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT I ECHO DIRECTOR SCHMIDT'S COMMENTS THAT WE BELIEVE WE'VE INCORPORATED ALL THE DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD INTO THIS DRAFT.

>> THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] I APPRECIATE THAT.

MR. DESHANE.

I APPRECIATE THE TIMELINE YOU PUT ON HERE AGAIN FOR US.

THE STEPS ONE THROUGH SIX, I THINK I HAVE A BETTER HANDLE ON THE PROCESS NOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO.

I DO HAVE JUST THREE OR FOUR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RECREATIONAL ORDINANCE, PAGE 15 OR PAGE 300, AND THE PACKET UNDER SECTION E ABOUT THE PERMIT IS ISSUED.

YOU TALK ABOUT EXTENDING THE GEARING, THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AND EXTENDING THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PERMIT WAS ISSUED BEFORE TRANSFER CAN BE ALLOWED IN BY PERMIT.

I WENT BACK AND RE-READ YOUR DEFINITION OF PERMIT, DOESN'T SAY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, BUT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE MILESTONE THEY'VE PASSED AT THIS POINT. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> FOLLOWING UP ON THAT [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] THIS UNUSUAL HARDSHIP REALLY CONCERNS ME BECAUSE WHAT I THINK IS UNUSUAL HARDSHIP, MR. BELT DORIA, AND OTHER PROVIDERS MAY HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF IT.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO COME BACK AT OUR NEXT DISCUSSION AND GIVE US EXAMPLE OF WHAT A LEGAL DEFINITION OF UNUSUAL HARDSHIP IS, AND WHAT IS UNUSUAL HARDSHIP AND WHAT IS NOT SO THAT WE IF THIS GETS CHALLENGED IN COURT, IT CAN BE ON THE RECORD THAT THE BOARD LOOKED AT VALID EXAMPLES ON UNUSUAL HARDSHIP AND INVALID EXAMPLES OF THAT.

RATHER THAN JUST LEAVE THAT TERM OUT THERE BECAUSE I THINK IT CAN BE ABUSED OR ATTEMPTED TO BE ABUSED.

WE COULD SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN COURT EDUCATING THESE LICENSES ABOUT WHAT IS LEGALLY UNUSUAL HARDSHIP. THAT'S MY THOUGHT ANYWAY.

MOVING ON TO PAGE 17, 3A, SECURITY SURVEILLANCE.

BUT THESE CAMERAS ARE GOING TO BE THERE.

WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW DRIVE-THROUGH AND DRIVE UP, A SECURITY CAMERA ON THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING DOESN'T REALLY GIVE US MUCH INFORMATION.

WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS VALIDATE THAT THAT PERSON HAS SHOWN AN ID, THAT THEY MATCHES THE ID.

YOU'RE GOING NEED A CAMERA ESSENTIALLY RIGHT NEXT TO THE VEHICLE OR IN THE DRIVE-THROUGH IN MY OPINION.

I'D LIKE TO SEE US TOUGHEN UP THE SECURITY CAMERA SO THAT IT DOES IN FACT GIVE US VALID INFORMATION AND NOT JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE PARKING LOT.

NEXT PAGE, PAGE 18, USE OF MARIJUANA IN OUR PROHIBITION OF SMOKING, ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INCLUDING MARIJUANA AND THE PREMISES.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT VAPING WOULD BE CONSIDERED CONSUMPTION THERE.

VAPING WOULD BE ABLE TO JUST WELL.

THEN LASTLY, OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS REGARDING LIMITED CONTACT TRANSACTIONS ON PAGE 304 OR PAGE 19 OF IT.

AGAIN, THAT'S REGARDING 11E, THE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING GOOD IMAGES FROM THAT VIDEO SURVEILLANCE.

>> IF I COULD [OVERLAPPING].

I THINK YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD IN TERMS OF SURVEILLANCE.

THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE THAT YOU HIGHLIGHTED IS THE GENERAL SURVEILLANCE THAT APPLIES TO EVERYONE.

IT DOES COVER THE ENTIRE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.

THEN SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE DRIVE-THROUGHS, WE THEN REITERATE THAT LANGUAGE AND HAVE IT REQUIRE THEM TO CLEARLY RECORD THE AREA DESIGNATED FOR THE DELIVERY, INCLUDING THE DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW SERVICE.

THERE WILL BE A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A CAMERA THERE THAT'S CLEARLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT TRANSACTION OCCURRING.

THEN INDIVIDUALLY, IF AND WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES FORWARD PROPOSING A DRIVE-THROUGH,

[02:00:03]

THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THEIR SITE PLAN WHERE THE LOCATIONS OF THOSE CAMERAS ARE.

WE CAN HAVE A SECURED SO THAT CAN BE IN THEIR, MARIJUANA APPLICATION AS AN APPLICANT, WHICH IS PROHIBITED FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER FLORIDA UNDER STATE LAW.

WE'RE NOT AT RISK OF DISCLOSING THEIR SECURITY PROCEDURES OR WHERE THEIR CAMERAS ARE, BUT THE TOWNSHIP HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE LOCATIONS.

YOU WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO SAY, THERE'S A CAMERA, AND WHATEVER 10 FEET OVER TO THE LEFT AND THAT'S GOING TO POINT IN THIS DIRECTION.

IT'S GOING TO BE A 720P OR A 1080P CAMERA, WHATEVER THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

YOU CAN MAKE THAT DECISION IN REAL TIME ON THE APPLICANT.

IS THIS SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE SECURITY ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS? WE DO HAVE THE ORDINANCE PROVISIONS TO REQUIRE THOSE CONDITIONS AND MAKE SURE THAT IT IS SAFELY SET UP.

>> THANK YOU. MR. HENDRICKSON.

I'D LIKE US TO TURN BACK TO PAGE 15 IF YOU COULD.

THIS IS ON THE SUBJECT OF TRANSFERS AND THE TREASURER TOOK US THERE A MINUTE AGO, BUT I HAD A CONCERN ABOUT TWO PARAGRAPHS THAT SEEM CONTRADICTORY.

I WANTED TO JUST CLARIFY, SPECIFICALLY PARAGRAPH B AND E. IN PARAGRAPH B, WE SAY THAT NO CONDITIONAL PERMANENT HOLDER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, SHALL OTHERWISE CONVEY MORE THAN ONE PERCENT OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IN THE ENTITY OWNING THE PERMIT, WHETHER IN A SINGLE TRANSACTION OR A SUM OF MULTIPLE TRANSACTIONS, THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

IN SECTION E, WE SAY NO PERMANENT HOLDER OR CONDITIONAL PERMANENT OLDER SHALL, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH MORE THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IN THE ENTITY HOLDING, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE DIFFERENCE IN NUMBERS THERE JUST SO I CAN FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT, PLEASE?

>> YEAH, GOOD QUESTION.

THE ONE PERCENT LANGUAGE, PARAGRAPH B IS CLARIFYING THAT ANY TYPE OF TRANSFER OF ANY INTERESTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THIS BOARD.

IF I APPLY AND I START OPERATING AND NOW I WANT TO BRING IN A FIVE PERCENT SHAREHOLDER, I HAVE TO APPLY FOR A TRANSFER APPLICATION TO DO THAT, BECAUSE IT'S MORE THAN ONE PERCENT, AND WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A WAY TO SAY ANYTHING YOU TRANSFER, ANY INTEREST.

THEN THE 10% LIMIT IS YOUR CAP ON TRANSFERS WITHIN THE FIRST THREE YEARS.

THAT'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT IF SOMEONE IS APPROVED FOR CONDITIONAL PERMITS, WE'VE APPROVED THAT APPLICANT BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE SUBMITTED IN THE INDIVIDUAL'S CORE PRESENTING THEMSELVES TO OPERATE THAT FACILITY.

WE HAVE AN EXPECTATION AS A MUNICIPALITY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME INDIVIDUALS AND NOT ESSENTIALLY FLIP THAT CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO A THIRD PARTY INVESTOR WHO'S THEN GOING TO COME IN AND TRY AND OPERATE ACCORDING TO THEIR APPLICATIONS.

THE 10% LIMIT CAPS HOW MANY OR HOW MUCH OF THOSE ONE PERCENT TRANSFERS YOU COULD HAVE IN THAT THREE-YEAR PERIOD. GO AHEAD.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, SECTION B HERE SAYS, THE TOWNSHIP BOARD SHALL SIGN OFF ON ANY TRANSFERS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED.

SECTION E SAYS, IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS, NOT MORE THAN 10%, BUT AT 3-YEARS PLUS ONE DAY, THE TOWNSHIPS STILL MAINTAINS THE YES, NO AUTHORITY ON ANY TRANSFERS.

>> THANK YOU. THAT WAS WHAT I HAD THE QUESTION OF.

>> I'LL REFER YOU TO PAGE 4, SECTION 40-68.

NUMBER ONE IS THE TOWNSHIP AUTHORIZES THE OPERATION OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF ESTABLISHMENTS AND THAT IS SOLELY RETAILER.

IF YOU MOVE DOWN TO, I BELIEVE IT'S PAGE 18.

LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND THIS QUICKLY.

THERE IS ADDRESSES WHAT IS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN AND THAT AT ALL HAS TO BE INDOORS.

IT REFERS TO GROW.

IS THERE A REASON WHY WE HAVE INCLUDED THAT?

>> ARE YOU IN SUBSECTION D AT THE TOP OF PAGE 18.

>> NO, 10 [OVERLAPPING]

>> ON PAGE 10. SORRY.

>> IT'S REALLY BEING EXPANSIVE.

I SEE YOUR POINT THAT IT IS OVER INCLUSIVE OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY PERMITTED AS A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT.

FRANKLY, IT'S JUST STANDARD LANGUAGE TO SAY AS A WAY TO SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DO WITH MARIJUANA

[02:05:03]

HAS TO BE OCCURRING WITHIN THAT BUILDING SUBJECT TO THE CURBSIDE DELIVERY THAT WE CAN ALLOW.

>> DO WE EXPLICITLY STATE IN THE DOCUMENT THAT NO GROW OPERATION IS ALLOWED?

>> YES. THAT'S YOUR NEXT IF YOU GO BACK TO PAGE 4, YOUR SUBSECTION 3 OF THAT SECTION, STATES THAT IT'S UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE ANY OF THESE.

>> MICROBUSINESSES.

>> ESTABLISHMENTS. THAT HAS YOUR MICROBUSINESSES AND YOUR GROWERS CLASSES A, B, AND C. IN THAT WAY, IF THE TEMPERATURE WOULD LIKE TO PERMIT ONE OF THOSE IN THE FUTURE, IT WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ENSURING THAT THIS BOARD AND THE PUBLIC POLICY WOULD BE FULLY INVOLVED.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> TRUSTEE WISINSKI..

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS.

I HAVE A COUPLE, JUST QUESTIONS LIKE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AS WELL OF COURSE I DID PUT PAGE NUMBERS.

I HAVE SECTION 2 E4.

WHICH C-SECTION 2, MISSING.

THE QUESTION IS IT REFERS TO ALL RELATED ACTIVITIES INDOORS AND I DIDN'T KNOW HOW THAT RELATED TO DRIVE THROUGH CURVED INDOOR TRANSPORT.

THOSE ARE NOT INDOOR ACTIVITIES.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS A CONFLICT THERE OR IF I'M JUST READING IT WRONG.

>> WHICH PROVISION ARE YOUR LOOKING AT?

>> OH JUST SAID THAT.

>> I'VE SAID PAGE 2, BUT I HAVE SECTION 2 E4.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. MAYBE 2 4E.

I CAN FIND IT IN THAT [BACKGROUND] I WILL FIND THAT ONE FOR YOU.

>> THAT'S THE APPEAL PROVISIONS.

A GENERAL ANSWER TO THAT CONCERN AGAIN, THERE MIGHT BE SOME TENSION THERE HAVING LIMITED CONTACT TRANSACTIONS AND HOME DELIVERY, WHICH COULD BE CONSTRUED AS OUTDOORS, THEN YOU HAVE A STATUTORY PROVISION WHERE THE MORE SPECIFIC CRITERIA IS GOING TO CONTROL.

THAT'S A GENERAL STATEMENT.

EVERYTHING MUST BE IN INDOORS AND THEN YOU GO TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH AND HERE YOU SEE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A CURBSIDE DELIVERY.

WELL, THAT'S VERY SPECIFIC.

THAT'S GOING TO OVERRIDE THE GENERAL ONLY SO FAR AS IT'S STATED IN THAT EXCEPTION.

IT WOULDN'T CREATE A CONFLICT FOR THE LIMITED CONTACT TRANSACTIONS.

THOSE WOULD BECOME AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE.

>> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.

JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

THE OTHER QUESTION WAS PAGE 9.

LET'S SEE IF I DID THIS ONE RIGHT.

REGARDING BACKGROUND CHECKS.

I WAS JUST WONDERING, SO IT LEAVES THE BACKGROUND CHECK LANGUAGE VERY VAGUE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANAGEMENT HANDLES ANY TYPE OF MISDEMEANOR OR IS IT A FELONY LIKE, DO WE HAVE THAT DEFINED ON WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED NON ELIGIBLE BASED ON A BACKGROUND CHECK.

>> NO THERE ISN'T SPECIFIC CRITERIA ON THAT.

BUT THOSE WOULD BE ITEMS, AGAIN, THAT THIS BOARD WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW.

PART OF WHAT WE DO WHEN WE ASSIST CLIENTS IN PROCESSING MARIJUANA APPLICATIONS IS CONDUCT SOME BACKGROUND CHECKS AND THEN WE PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THOSE RESULTS TO THEM AND SAY, HEY, THERE ARE SOME MINOR VIOLATIONS.

WRITE A SPEEDING TICKET OR SOMETHING OR IF THERE'S A MAJOR VIOLATION THAT WE COME UP WITH THEM, WE FLAG THOSE AND SAY, YOU REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS APPLICANTS BACKGROUND IS.

IF THIS IS SOMEONE WHO'S STILL FIT TO HOLD A LICENSE OF THIS TYPE.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S IN ORDINANCE, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IF THERE WAS A MAJOR CONCERN OR VIOLATION, THEN YOU WOULD GET THAT INFORMATION AND BE ABLE TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION.

[02:10:03]

THERE'S ALSO PROVISIONS WITHIN THE ORDINANCE TO DISCLOSE ANY ONGOING VIOLATIONS.

AGAIN, IF WE HAVE SOME BAD OPERATOR AND MAYBE THEY HAD A BAD MANAGER OR SOMETHING AND THEY HAVE SOME PROBLEMS. WE GET DISCLOSURES ON THAT AND DEAL WITH IT AT THAT TIME.

>> I READ THAT IT'S REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED REGARDLESS, BUT THEN WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT WHAT THE VIOLATIONS ARE.

>> THANK YOU. SORRY. I ACTUALLY READ THIS ONE INSIDE AND OUT. PAGE 12.

WE REFER TO A IT WOULD BE 3C.

THE TOWNSHIP WILL APPOINT A HEARING OFFICER FOR EACH MATTER AND THAT IS WITH REGARD TO AN APPEAL.

I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW DOES THAT WORK? IT CAN'T BE SOMEBODY THAT WAS ON THE COMMITTEE, BUT JUST WONDERING HOW THAT WORKS.

>> ESSENTIALLY YOU'D MAKE A DETERMINATION.

IF SOMEONE SUBMITTED ON APPEAL, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'D HAVE TO DECIDE IS WHO CAN REVIEW THAT.

WHO DO YOU KNOW IN THE TOWNSHIP THAT HAS A PROPER DISPOSITION TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

SOMEONE WHO IS ON THE TOWNSHIP BOARD COULD NOT EVALUATE IT.

BUT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, A PLANNING COMMISSIONER WITH BACKGROUND IN CIVIL INFRACTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT AT THE MAGISTRATE LEVEL, COULD BRING THAT TYPE OF DISPOSITION AND BE AN APPROPRIATE HEARING OFFICER IF THEY HAVEN'T BEEN PREVIOUSLY INVOLVED.

OR ANOTHER RESIDENT WITH SOME NEUTRAL DISPOSITION OR ADJUDICATOR POSITION.

EVEN AS EVA MEMBER, THEY HEAR APPEALS, MAKE SIMILAR TYPES OF DETERMINATIONS.

THERE'LL BE A POOL OF FOLKS THAT YOU COULD CONSIDER.

WE CAN WORK THROUGH THAT AT THAT TIME.

THE KEY IS TO FIND SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE NEUTRAL AND HEAR THE FACTS IN A NEUTRAL MANNER AND MAKE A DECISION.

>> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

PAGE 18, THERE'S A LITTLE DISCREPANCY HERE IN MY HEAD WHERE IN 7B WE INDICATE THAT WE'RE PROHIBITED FROM SELLING, SOLICITING AND RECEIVING ORDERS OVER THE INTERNET EXCEPT THE PROVIDED SUBSECTION C. C SAYS MAY ACCEPT ONLINE ORDERS ONLY FOR DELIVERY TO A PHYSICAL ADDRESS.

I'VE NEVER BEEN THROUGH A DRIVE-THROUGH, BUT I KNOW THE WAY THAT CURBSIDE.

IT'S ALL DONE VIA TEXT.

LIKE ONCE YOU'RE ESTABLISHED PATRON THE FACILITY AND YOU'VE BEEN CLEARED, THEN IT'S THROUGH AN INTERNET TYPE SERVICE.

HOW DOES THAT WORK FOR THE CURBSIDE AND THE DELIVERY?

>> GOOD QUESTION. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE STICKY POINTS OF MARIJUANA EVOLVING OVER TIME.

THE BROAD GOAL IS THAT WE DON'T WANT ANY OUT-OF-STATE PURCHASERS.

THAT'S THE BIGGEST CONCERN WITH ALLOWING ANY TYPE OF ONLINE ORDERING.

TO YOUR SPECIFIC POINT, YES.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE CURBSIDE OR DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE VIA AN INTERNET SALE.

WHAT IS NOT PROHIBITED WOULD BE A TELEPHONIC SALE.

THEY COULD INTERACT WITH THE RETAILER VIA TEXT MESSAGE OVER THE PHONE RATHER THAN THE INTERNET.

THERE ARE SOME PROVISIONS IN THE CRA RULES ABOUT HAVING TELEPHONE SERVICE AS WELL AS ONLINE SERVICE.

IT IS AN AREA WHERE WE COULD ADD THAT IN AND SAY ONLINE ORDERS FOR DELIVERY OR CONTACT SERVICE, THAT WOULD THEN INCLUDE YOUR DRIVE-THROUGHS AND YOUR CURBSIDE OR LEAVING IT AS IS STILL PROVIDES, THE OPTION FOR THAT CUSTOMER TO USE THEIR TELEPHONE CONSISTENT WITH THE CRA RULES, TO BE ABLE TO PLACE THAT ORDER AND INTERACT IN A CONTACTLESS WAY TO GET THEIR CURBSIDE.

>> THAT MAKES SENSE. ON PAGE 19, 11B CONTRADICTS THAT AND IT SAYS SALES LOCATIONS MAKES UP ONLINE OR TELEPHONIC ORDERS.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING EITHER WAY PER SE.

I MEAN, I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION, JUST SO THAT IT'S CLEAR.

>> THAT IS ACTUALLY TAKING THAT LANGUAGE FROM THE RULE.

THAT'S WHAT THE RULE HAS, WHICH IS WHY IT'S LIKE THAT.

THAT'S A GOOD POINT THAT THERE IS AGAIN, WITH THE LIMITED CONTRACT TRANSACTIONS, IT'S THEN BRINGING IN ONLINE ITSELF RATHER THAN HAVING IT IN THE GENERAL RULE.

>> GOT IT. PRETTY MUCH ALL MY QUESTIONS

[02:15:01]

EXCEPT FOR ONE TO DIRECTOR SCHMIDT AND I PRETTY SURE I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT PAGE 18 AND THAT WOULD BE 7C.

WHERE ARE WE? OH, THE SIGN RESTRICTIONS.

IT SAYS NO PICTURES, PHOTOGRAPHS, DRAWINGS, DEPICT STATION.

FOR SOME REASON I HAVE IT IN MY HEAD THAT THAT GOES AGAINST THE NEW SIGN ORDINANCE.

>> IT DOES. BUT AS YOU MAY RECALL, THIS QUESTION HAS COME UP PREVIOUSLY AND BECAUSE IT IS A FEDERALLY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, WE'RE STILL VERY MUCH IN THE CLEAR HERE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> I FEEL LIKE WE HAD LOTS OF DISCUSSION.

THEN I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS OR CONSIDERATIONS. THE TIMELINE.

I UNDERSTAND YOU PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THIS AND I WAS DOING THE MATH AND IN THE END IT SAYS, LIKELY WON'T HAPPEN UNTIL LATE 24, 25.

BUT NOW WHEN I DO THE MATH, IT IS MUCH SOONER THAN THAT.

I WONDER IF LIKE, DO WE NEED TWO TO FOUR MONTHS FOR ESTABLISHING A SCORING CRITERIA?

>> WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO HERE IS JUST PUT TOGETHER A REALISTIC EXPECTATION OF THINGS.

BECAUSE OUR INITIAL THOUGHT ON PUTTING THE ORDINANCE TOGETHER TOOK THREE MONTHS LONGER THAN WE EXPECTED.

STEP 1 IS WHAT IT IS.

THAT'S GRAYED OUT. TWO, FOUR MONTHS, IT REALLY IS LARGELY DEPENDENT ON THE BOARD.

STAFF WILL BE PREPARED TO PROVIDE OPTIONS AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE A MATTER OF HOW MUCH DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO GO INTO THAT.

STEP 3, DATE AND TIME OF THE WINDOW.

AGAIN, STAFF WAS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED TO LEAVE A TWO MONTH GAP THERE FOR PEOPLE TO PROVIDE A GOOD APPLICATION.

BECAUSE THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS GET A SERIES OF HALF COMPLETED APPLICATIONS.

THEN WE KICK THEM ALL ON A TECHNICALITY.

THEN IT BECOMES A RACE TO SEE IF WE FIX THE PROBLEMS. THAT'S NOT IDEAL.

THE FOUR MONTHS IS IN THE ORDINANCE FOR THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL DENIAL THE CONDITIONAL PERMIT, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, TWO, THREE MONTHS IS PRETTY STANDARD. I'LL BE HONEST.

PART OF THE REASON EARLY 2025 CAME OUT IS BECAUSE CONSTRUCTION WISE, IF YOU'RE NOT IN A STRIP MALL, BUILDING IS GOING TO BE TIGHT WITHIN TAKE ONE THROUGH FIVE, AND NOW START BUILDING.

THAT'S WHERE IT'S NO FAULT OF US.

IT'S CONSTRUCTION AND IT'S GETTING CONTRACTORS LINED UP AND GETTING MATERIALS AND NOT HITTING SHORTAGES.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PUT OUT A REALISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S WITH A NEW BUILDING, IT IS GOING TO TAKE TIME.

>> WE'RE NOT SETTING THOSE TIMELINES, THEY'RE JUST GUIDANCE.

>> THIS IS JUST OUR GUIDANCE BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW.

>> AND THE BOARD CAN HELP PUSH IT ALONG BY MAKING DECISIONS QUICKER.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> FASTER. LAST THING I JUST WANT TO BRING UP BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS SINCE OUR LAST MEETING AND WE'LL SEE WHAT THE REMAINDER OF THE BOARD FEELS.

BUT I'VE GIVEN THE MICRO GRID OVERLAY IN THE ONE OVERLAY DISTRICT MORE THOUGHT AND ONE OF MY THOUGHTS WAS WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THIS AND NOW WE'VE BEEN TOLD WE DO HAVE INTEREST.

I JUST WANTED TO OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY ROOM FOR DISCUSSION IN THE REMAINDER OF THE BOARD, GIVEN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD RECOMMENDED IT, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY REASON NOT TO HAVE IT OTHER THAN WE DIDN'T REALLY THINK THERE WAS INTERESTED IN THAT.

I WANTED TO OPEN THAT UP SUPERVISOR AND SEE IF THAT WAS SOMETHING FOR DISCUSSION.

>> YEAH. WE DISCUSSED IT IN THE PAST.

I DON'T THINK WE DISMISSED IT BECAUSE OF LACK OF INTEREST.

WE DISMISSED IT BECAUSE IT'S A REAL FOCUS OF A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE SCENT, THE SMELL.

WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO OPEN THAT POTENTIAL PROBLEMS THERE.

FURTHER, THIS BOARD DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT IF WE'D LOVE IT AND WANTS, UNLESS WE WANT TO FACE HUGE LEGAL BASE, WE GOING TO BE ALLOWING IT FOR ALL FIVE.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE IT EVERYWHERE AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO FACE THE PROBLEMS WITH THE CERTAIN.

LOTS OF PROMISES WE MADE ABOUT IT INITIALLY, BUT WE ALL HAVE EXPERIENCES THE GROW OPERATIONS ARE STINKY AND THEN IMPACTS THE NEIGHBORS.

I THINK THAT'S WHY WE DISMISSED IT [NOISE].

>> THIS GROW OPERATION OR THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE ONLY ALLOWS INDOORS IN THERE IS NO SCENT OR SO IN THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS SPECIFICALLY, YOU CANNOT HAVE ANY ORDERS OUTSIDE OF THAT BUILDING.

[02:20:02]

THE ORDINANCE COVERS US ON THAT. AS FAR AS THAT.

IF THAT IS A CONCERN, THAT'S A VALID CONCERN, BUT IF THAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE, THAT THAT CAN'T HAPPEN, I MIGHT THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT JUST TO CONSIDER.

THE OTHER THING IS, EVEN WITH OUR MEDICAL ORDINANCE, WE HAD DIFFERENT OVERLAYS WITH DIFFERENT USES.

IF WE CONSIDER DIFFERENT USES OF DIFFERENT OVERLAYS, THEN NOT SURE HOW THAT OPENS IS UP FOR LIABILITY NOW, MORE THAN IT DID IN THE PAST.

>> SOME MORE QUESTIONS?

>> WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY. [LAUGHTER] IF YOU HAVE AN OPINION..

>> IS THAT A QUESTION FOR?

>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY. THAT'S OKAY.

>> [OVERLAPPING] YOU DO YOU HAVE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE LOCATION OF ESTABLISHMENTS AND JUST AS YOU CAN SAY, WE ONLY WANT RETAILERS, WE DON'T WANT GROWERS WHILE WE WANT A CERTAIN NUMBER.

YOU CAN ALSO SAY WE WANT THESE ONES OVER HERE AND THOSE ONES OVER THERE IN BOTH MURMUR AND YOU'RE ZONING.

I DON T THINK THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH DESIGNATING A CERTAIN OVERLAY OR TWO OVERLAYS AS GROWERS PERMITTED THERE FROM A LITIGATION STANDPOINT, IF THERE WAS A DESIRABLE LOCATION THAT WASN'T OPTED IN.

FOR EXAMPLE, GROWERS WERE PERMITTED IN DAWN AVENUE PRIOR AND IF THEY WERE NOT PERMITTED IN DAWN AVENUE ON FOR THESE, THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE AN APPLICANT COME IN AND SAY, HEY, I THOUGHT IT WAS PERMITTED IN THERE.

I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT AND THEY MIGHT LOOK TO TAKE SOME ACTION OR LOBBY POLITICALLY TO ADD GROWERS TO THAT AREA IF THEY'RE ALREADY PERMITTED IN ANOTHER SPOT.

AT A MINIMUM, I WOULD SAY IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT SOMEONE WOULD PUSH TO EXPAND THE LOCATIONS OF GROWS IF THEY'RE PERMITTED IN ONE MORE SO THAN THEY WOULD SUE.

BUT AGAIN, I CAN'T CONTROL WHO MAKES LAWSUITS FOR DIFFERENT PIECES.

THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING I'D SAY ON TOP OF THAT IS WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY GROW OR APPLICATIONS FOR THAT DAWN AVENUE AREA.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE OVERLAYS FOR CHANGING.

>> MR. ANDERSON.

ON THE TOPIC OF THE GROW, SINCE WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT.

THESE APPLICANTS, GO THROUGH THIS TRADITIONAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN THE TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE? THAT'S CORRECT?

>> IT'S BEEN A MINUTE SINCE I LOOKED AT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA IN FULL, BUT THERE IS A PROVISION AS THEY'RE NOT ABOUT IMPACTING LOCAL.

I'M BLANKING ON THE TERMINOLOGY.

[OVERLAPPING] THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT ODOR AND NOISE POLLUTION AND ODOR POLLUTION AND WHAT NOT THAT IMPACTS THE ABILITY TO GET A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AS THEY'RE NOT [OVERLAPPING].

>> THE LANGUAGE, AS I RECALL, IS THAT IT'S NOT EXPECTED TO CAUSE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

THERE'S ALSO ONE THAT DISCUSSES THE IMPACT ON THE TOWNSHIP AS A WHOLE.

>> OKAY. THEORETICALLY, IF WE WERE TO PERMIT A GROW OPERATION AND EVEN IF WE DIDN'T BRING INTO THIS NEW ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE CREATING HERE, RESTRICTIONS ON ODOR IMPACTING THE LOCAL AREA WHAT WOULD BE THE REPERCUSSIONS FROM VIOLATING YOUR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SO FAR AS HAVING AN IMPACT ON THE LOCAL RESIDENTS.

>> IT BECOMES AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE, TO BE PERFECTLY FRANK, [BACKGROUND] IT WILL BE, SO WE ISSUE THEM A VIOLATION.

IF A VIOLATION IS FOUND, THEY'D HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIX THE PROBLEM THEY DIDN'T FIX THE PROBLEM.

AT THAT POINT, WE COULD START THE PROCESS OF REVOKING YOUR SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

AT THAT POINT, THE ATTORNEYS WILL GET INVOLVED.

>> SURE.

>> BECAUSE WE WOULD FUNCTION AS SHOWN DOWN AT THAT POINT.

>> THEN THAT'S WHAT WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA.

WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE CREATES ITS OWN ENFORCEMENT STRUCTURE AS WELL.

I'M GOING TO GO DOWN INTO THE BOTTOM HERE.

BASICALLY, THEY'D BE FINED IF THEY ARE FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE, $500 AND UPON ADDITIONAL I'M SORRY, I WASN'T READY TO TALK ABOUT THIS NECESSARILY, BUT UPON ADDITIONAL REPEAT OFFENSES, WHICH IS THE SECOND VIOLATION AND THEN A SIX-MONTH PERIOD, THEIR PERMIT COULD BE REVOKED. IS THAT ACCURATE?

[02:25:02]

>> ESSENTIALLY, IF SMELL IS THE CONCERN IMPACTING THE NEIGHBORS, THEN WE HAVE TWO POSSIBLE VENUES TO PURSUE ACTION AGAINST THE PERMANENT HOLDER FOR VIOLATING EITHER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR THE MARIJUANA ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR.

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY TO ME.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MICRO GROW AND IT WILL BE INDOORS.

I DON'T KNOW IF MICRO GROW IS DEFINED IN THIS, IT IS?

>> THERE'S TWO TYPES OF MICRO-BUSINESSES, BOTH OF WHICH ARE A GROWER RETAILER COMBINED.

THE MICRO-BUSINESS CLASS A THINK CAN HAVE 300 PLANTS.

A REGULAR MICRO-BUSINESS I THINK IS 100.

THEN THERE'S ALSO A CLASS, A GROWER, WHICH IS WHAT YOU HEARD ABOUT IN PUBLIC COMMENT, WHICH WOULD BE A SEPARATE FACILITY.

IF THAT WERE ESTABLISHED IN THE TOWNSHIP, THEY WOULD APPLY FOR A CLASS A GROWER PERMANENT, AND A RETAILER PERMANENT, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO SEPARATE PERMITS, ONE FOR EACH ESTABLISHMENT.

THEN THE GROWER HAS ITS OWN CLASS, A GROWER LIMIT, WHICH IS EITHER 100 OR 500.

>> IT'S 500.

>> BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT FROM MEDICAL.

I ALWAYS GET THEM MIXED UP.

BUT, SO HOW MANY PLANTS COULD BE GROWN WOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER YOU AUTHORIZE A MICRO-BUSINESS CLASS, A, OR A CLASS A GROWER.

>> WOW. WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

I THINK WE JUST NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT.

BUT, BECAUSE I'M JUST MICRO GROW, SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE, NOT A HUGE OPERATION, NOT A SEPARATE HUGE GROW OR OPERATION.

I'M WONDERING [NOISE] DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WOMEN TEAM, SMALLER OR NOT.

A MICRO GROW TO SUPPLEMENT OR TO ENHANCE THE BUSINESSES THAT THEY'RE DOING VERSUS THIS WHOLE HUGE GROW OPERATION? THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION.

>> OF COURSE ANSWER QUESTION.

>> I'M SORRY. [LAUGHTER]

>> WERE YOU FINISHED. [OVERLAPPING].

FIRST OFF, I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING THIS TOPIC ONE TWICE WE VOTED ON THIS AND EACH OF US [BACKGROUND] WE DIDN'T VOTE ON IT, BUT WE AGREED TO NOT HAVE IT AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE AND STRAW VOTES, WHATEVER.

WE DID THAT TWICE.

>> YEAH.

>> SECONDLY, AREAS LIKE WATER, IT GOES EVERYWHERE.

YOU CAN'T CONTAIN WATER ANYMORE THAN YOU CAN CONTAIN AIR.

IF YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO CONTAIN AIR INSIDE A FACILITY IS NOT POSSIBLE.

THIRDLY, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FROM THE ATTORNEYS, IF THIS IS GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IT AT A FUTURE MEETING AND KEEP THIS DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US TONIGHT AND HAVE SOMETHING ELSE PRESENTED TO US IN THE FUTURE ABOUT MICRO GROW, SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY DISCUSS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT BEFORE US TONIGHT IN AN ORDINANCE THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING BEFORE US.

I DON'T KNOW.

ONE GROW OPERATION, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW BIG OR SMALL THAT DOESN'T HAVE ODOR THAT'S COMING OUT OF A GROW OPERATION THAT PEOPLE DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT.

I'VE HEARD NUMEROUS STUDIES AND CASES I'VE BEEN TO CONFERENCES TALKING ABOUT GROW OPERATIONS WHERE IT HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO GIVE A CITATION OR A CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION AND DO A FOLLOW-THROUGH AND A FACILITY WHO HAS FOLDERS, YOU DRIVE BY.

I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY A BAD EXAMPLE BECAUSE IT WAS ONCE OUR TOWNSHIP AND THEN LARGE GROW OPERATIONS.

ANYWHERE THAT I'VE BEEN LARGE, SMALL, THE ODOR IS NOT CONTAINED.

[02:30:01]

I CAN SMELL OLIVE GARDEN FROM OVER HERE.

THE ODOR SUPPOSED TO BE INSIDE THE KITCHEN.

I CAN SMELL CHILIES, I CAN SMELL OLIVE GARDEN.

SMELLS GO EVERYWHERE.

IT'S JUST LIKE WATER.

THE NOTION THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY SMELL AT ALL, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU WANT A ROW OPERATION OR NOT.

BUT THE THOUGHT THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY SMELL IS A RIDICULOUS THOUGHT BECAUSE IT'S AIR. IT GOES EVERYWHERE.

IF THIS IS GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE IN OTHER COMMUNITIES.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURES ARE IF ANYONE HAS HAD PERMITS TAKEN AWAY.

IS THIS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE? IS THIS A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE? IS THIS MARIJUANA? BECAUSE WHATEVER THE INDUSTRY IS CALLED, THE STATE OF MICHIGAN IS, WHOSE DOES THIS END UP FALLING UPON AND WHO ACTUALLY ENFORCES THIS? BECAUSE I'VE HEARD SEVERAL DIFFERENT STORIES ON IT.

IN REGARDS TO WHAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT, I CONCUR WITH TREASURY SHANE'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE UNUSUAL HARDSHIP.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT AS ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS IN YOUR DEFINITION SECTION FOR UNUSUAL HARDSHIP.

I GET IT, IT'S A LITTLE VAGUE.

IT'S LIKE VERY OR A LADDER, MUCH LIKE WHAT IS UNUSUAL HARDSHIP.

BUT IF THAT'S INCLUDED IN DEFINITIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT.

I ALSO AGREE WITH SEVERAL OTHER COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS IN REGARDS TO THE LANGUAGE FOR ONLINE SALES ORDERING, ORDERING ONLINE, ORDERING OVER THE PHONE.

HOW ARE PEOPLE GOING TO ORDER IT AND IS IT GOING TO BE A POINT-OF-SALE? BECAUSE MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT YOU ORDER ONLINE, BUT THE PLAINTIFFS, DALE, IS WHEN YOU GET THERE.

YOU'RE NOT REALLY BUYING IT ONLINE.

I HAD THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT SEVERAL OTHER BOARD MEMBERS DID IN REGARDS TO THE VAGUENESS OF THAT LANGUAGE AND WANTING IT TO BE MORE CLEAR AND TIGHTENED UP SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION WITH THESE BUSINESSES.

THEY GOT IN TROUBLE AND WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE PURCHASING SO THAT NO ONE'S IN TROUBLE.

THEN MY OTHER COMMENT IS THAT WHEN WE DESIGNATE SOMEONE ELSE TO DO SOMETHING, I WOULD LIKE TO ELIMINATE HE, SHE OR HIS HER.

FOR EXAMPLE ON PAGE 27, YOU SAY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OR HIS OR HER DESIGNEE, I THINK WE CAN JUST ELIMINATE HIS HER AND SAY OR DESIGNEE.

WE DON'T NEED TO SAY HIS, HER.

THEY MAY NOT IDENTIFY AS HIS HER LIKE THAT STRICKEN FROM OUR ORDINANCE LANGUAGE IN THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT.

>> THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH CLERK GUTHRIE.

IF WE'RE GOING TO INTRODUCE GROW WHEAT, WE'RE A LONG WAYS FROM MOVING TOWARDS FINAL APPROVAL OF THIS OR ACTION ON THIS.

WE'VE GOT A LOT MORE DISCUSSIONS TO HAVE ABOUT GROW LIKELIHOOD THE OTHER APPLICANTS WOULD SUE TO HAVE GROW AS WELL.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPERCUSSIONS, THE ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT WE'RE GOING TO NEED FOR THAT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO SENSE.

IT'S ANOTHER TWO OR THREE MEETINGS, I THINK AT LEAST BEFORE WE CAN GET TO ADOPTION.

WHEN WE PUT THIS TOGETHER, THE PAST FEW MONTHS, THERE WERE SOME TRADE-OFFS, SOME PEOPLE WANTED TO DRIVE THROUGH.

OUR COMMISSION DIDN'T APPROVE DRIVE-THROUGH OR CURBSIDE, BUT WE PUT IT IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE SAID GROW, BUT WE SAID NO TO IT.

THEY WOULD TAKE EVERYTHING PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTED.

WE TOOK SOME, WE DROPPED SOME.

I WAS HOPING THAT WE HAD REACHED A CONSENSUS ON A SENSIBLE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA ORDINANCE.

JUST REMEMBER THE 49.95% OF THE RESONANCE VOTED AGAINST RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA 10 MONTHS AGO.

THIS PAST BY SIX VOTES.

THEN NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THE 49.95 THAT DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT.

A GROW, TO ME, IS A KICKING THE FACE TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT SAID NO TO IT.

WE'RE NOT ONLY GOING TO ALLOW RECREATIONAL, BUT WE'RE NOW GOING TO GROW HERE IN ONE OR MORE OF THESE STORES.

I THINK IT'S THE WRONG MESSAGE TO SEND TO OUR VOTERS.

THIS IS A GRANT FROM MR. DORIAN AND OTHERS THAT WANT TO GROW.

THIS IS AN INDUSTRY PERFECT ORDINANCE, BUT WHAT ABOUT HALF OF OUR POPULATION THAT VOTED AGAINST THIS? WE'VE GOT TO TAKE THEM INTO ACCOUNT.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT REVENUE, IT'S NOT ABOUT MAKING THE POT INDUSTRY HAPPY.

IT'S ABOUT WHAT'S THE BEST THING FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

[02:35:03]

WHAT IS GOING TO CREATE A SOLID ORDINANCE THAT FIRST AND FOREMOST, AS LITTLE HARM TO OUR RESIDENTS.

I REALLY INTEND TO VOTE FOR THIS ORDINANCE AND I HOPE WE'LL HAVE A SEVEN OVER VOTE.

BUT IF WE'RE BRINGING GROW, I CAN'T PROMISE TO VOTE FOR THIS ORDINANCE.

I'VE ALWAYS LOVED BROMATE AS WELL.

WE'RE LEFT WITH A SPLIT VOTE TWICE AND LESS WITH STRAW POLL, AS WE SAID, NO, TO BRING IT UP NOW, TO ME IT BLOWS UP THIS WHOLE PROCESS FOR SETTING YOURSELVES BACK SEVERAL MONTHS.

WE'RE NOT A WINNER TAKE ALL BOARD.

WE ARE AN INCLUSIVE BOARD.

IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IF THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T CREASE UNDER AGE MARIJUANA CONSUMPTION, IT DOESN'T CAUSE AN INCREASE IN CRIME.

WITH ALLOWING THE STORES DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT OUR EXCELLENT NEIGHBORHOODS AND SCHOOLS.

WE'VE GOT TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT THIS.

BECAUSE ONCE WE PASS THIS ORDINANCE, WE LOSE CONTROL.

WELL, IT'S UP TO THE COURTS AND OTHERS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE MEANT.

WE'VE GOT TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT THIS THIS ORDINANCE.

THE LAST TIME THIS BOARD VOTED ON RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA IN 2019, WE VOTED 7-0 AGAINST IT.

THIS IS A CHANGE FROM THAT TO ALLOW IT.

BUT OUR CURRENT STANCE WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE AGAINST IT.

AGAIN, I WANT US TO SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE AND WE'VE GOT TO GIVE THEM THAT OR TAKE A LITTLE WORK UNDER A CONSENSUS AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE ALL WORKING TOGETHER.

WE HAVE ONE VOICE TO SPEAK FOR THE TOWNSHIP.

FOUR, THREE VOTES OR FIVE, TWO VOTE.

THAT'S A MIXED MESSAGE TO THE COMMUNITY AND THAT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD FOR THIS BOARD.

WE WANT TO, IF POSSIBLE, FINAL ORDINANCE, WE CAN ALL VOTE FOR IT.

I'M NOT TRYING TO SLOW DOWN THIS PROCESS AT ALL, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REPRESENT THE 49.95% OF OUR RESIDENTS THAT VOTED AGAINST IT.

WE HAD 12,544 PEOPLE COME OUT AND VOTE IN AUGUST.

THOSE ARE BIG NUMBERS.

OUR RESIDENCE CARE ABOUT THIS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.

THEY ARE PAYING ATTENTION. THEY WON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THIS ORDINANCE.

WE NEED TO RESPECT BOTH SIDES.

I REALLY DO SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE AND HAVE A 7-0 VOLT.

BUT BROOKLYN RAIL RIGHT NOW IT COMPLETELY TURNS OVER MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS GOING TO BE.

I HOPE IT WON'T GO ANY FURTHER THAN THIS DISCUSSION TONIGHT BECAUSE IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT ANIMAL IF WE INCLUDE GROW.

THESE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT.

TREASURER, AND CLERK GUTHRIE.

JUST A COUPLE OF CLARIFYING, 46% OF RESIDENTS DID NOT VOTE, 46% OF THE VOTES WERE FOR OR AGAINST.

THAT'S NOT ALL THE RESIDENTS DIDN'T VOTE.

WE DON'T HAVE A FULL VOICE.

I JUST LIKE TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

YES, IT WAS SIX VOTES.

THAT'S OF THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED.

NOT OTHER RESIDENTS.

YOU CAN'T EXTRAPOLATE THAT AGAINST ALL THE RESIDENTS.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO JUST CLARIFY IS THAT THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES ARE ALREADY IN OUR MEDICAL ORDINANCE.

THEY'RE ALLOWED IN OUR MEDICAL ORDINANCE.

IT'S NOT AS IF WE'RE CHANGING ANYTHING.

WE'VE ALREADY LOOKED INTO IT.

WE'VE ALREADY DONE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT ON OUR MEDICAL ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS THESE ACTIVITIES.

TO BRING IT BACK UP AND TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND THE EFFECT IT IS IN THIS ORDINANCE IS JUST IN THIS ORDINANCE AS NO.

I THINK THIS IS WHY I BROUGHT IT.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT IT.

YOU'RE RIGHT. WE SHOULDN'T MAKE RASH DECISIONS.

BUT JUST TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THOSE POINTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY ALLOWED IT.

WE ARE REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITY ON BOTH SIDES.

I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE IT 7-0 VOTE BUT IT MIGHT NOT HAPPEN THAT WAY.

TRADITION.

>> IT IS IN OUR MEDICAL INCIDENT, IN ONE AREA.

IT HAS TO BE INDUSTRIALLY ZONED, THAT'S WHAT WE SAID.

IT'S GOING TO CREATE ORDERS, SO WE GOT TO PUT AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE.

THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN ALLOWING IT IN NON-INDUSTRIAL ZONES.

THAT WAS A BIG QUESTION OVER THE BOARD DISCUSSIONS FIVE YEARS AGO.

WHERE CAN WE ALLOW GROWTH THAT WILL IMPACT THE RESIDENT'S, THE NEIGHBORING AREAS AND THAT WAS INDUSTRIAL [NOISE] ONLY.

IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK WITH A PROPOSAL THAT ALLOWED IT IN INDUSTRIAL ZONE ONLY, THAT'S A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION, BUT THAT WAS THE REASON WE APPROVED IT FIVE YEARS AGO.

IT WAS ONLY ALLOWED IN INDUSTRIAL ZONE AREAS.

>> [OVERLAPPING] I APPRECIATE THAT, AGAIN, I LIKE THE DIALOGUE.

THE PROPOSED AREA IS IN A RURAL AREA, SO IT'S NOT ANYWHERE NEAR RESIDENTIAL AND IT'S I BELIEVE NEXT TO A LAND PRESERVE, SO THE PROPOSED OVERLAY FOR THAT PARTICULAR ACTIVITY, IT'S NOT INDUSTRIAL, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT RESIDENTIAL.

IT'S JUST CLARIFYING THERE.

>> WHAT PARTS ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

>> I BELIEVE IT'S, AND I WAS LOOKING AND I ONLY HAVE THE MED OVERLAYS AND THEY CHANGED THE NUMBERS,

[02:40:02]

BUT I BELIEVE THEY HAVE IT ON OVERLAY.

>> IS ACTUALLY RESEARCH PARK, A ZONE RESEARCH PARK.

>> RESEARCH PARK [OVERLAPPING].

>> ONE OF THE STEPS THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE TAKEN A SERIES ON THE PROPERTY.

>> THERE WAS ONE OTHER POINT I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO, IS THE ODOR.

YOU'RE ACTUALLY LIKE WATER AND AIR WILL TAKE ITS PATH.

HOWEVER, THERE'S FRICTION AND THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE-BASED RESEARCH THAT YOU CAN USE FILTRATION TO ELIMINATE ODORS EXITING THAT BUILDING.

THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AND THAT IS ALSO IN OUR MEDICAL ORDINANCE.

I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT.

SINCE SOME OF US WEREN'T HERE DURING THAT LARGE DISCUSSION.

SIR, I'M ALL SET. YOU GUYS ARE THINKING?

>> TRUSTEE HENDRICKSON.

THE GROW OPERATION NOTWITHSTANDING, I THINK THIS BOARD IS VERY CLOSE TO A CONSENSUS.

I THINK THAT WE ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY IF DESIRED, TO, AFTER THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN PASSED DOWN THE ROAD WITH SOME TIME, OBSERVE WHAT OCCURS AND POSSIBLY UPDATE AND AMEND IT.

IF THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT WE CAN SEE AND TOUCH AND THEN OBSERVE THAT SHOWS US THAT WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION THAT'S PROVIDED BY STAFF AND ATTORNEYS THAT WOULD MAKE THOSE BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE TREPIDATION FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE THAT PERHAPS WE CAN GET TO A CONSENSUS ON THAT AS WELL.

I DON'T BELIEVE AND I THINK I'VE HELD THIS POSITION ALL ALONG.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO PROLONG WHAT HAS BEEN A VERY LENGTHY COMMUNITY CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

I THINK WE'VE GIVEN IT A LOT OF DUE DILIGENCE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO PROLONG IT BY A FURTHER SEVERAL MONTHS, PUSHING POTENTIAL APPLICANTS OUT OF THE 2024 CONSTRUCTION CYCLE BY DELAYING FOR ANOTHER TWO MONTHS TO DO FURTHER DUE DILIGENCE ON AN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE DISAGREEMENT ON FUNDAMENTALLY.

I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE WISER FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME OF THE SMALL UPDATES OR INFORMATIONAL ITEMS THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ASKED FOR FROM THE ATTORNEY AND STAFF AT OUR NEXT MEETING WHERE WE'LL TAKE THIS UP FOR INTRODUCTION.

SINCE WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT, AND IF WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH.

IF WE DESIRE TO AS A GROUP MOVE FORWARD WITH ADDING A GROW OPERATION THAT A LATER TIME, THEN WE CAN HAVE THOSE SEPARATE CONVERSATIONS FOR A MEETING OR TWO OR HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES TO MAKE THE BOARD COMFORTABLE ON DECIDING DEFINITIVELY, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

FRANKLY, WE MIGHT GET THAT, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TWO-YEAR CONSTRUCTION WINDOW ANYWAY, WE MAY HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS BEFORE ANYTHING IS DECIDED UPON OR BUILT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SMALL CHANGES OR DISCUSSION OR WHAT HAVE YOU THAT THE ATTORNEY HAS ALREADY WRITTEN DOWN ON HIS NOTEPAD AT OUR NEXT MEETING AND THAT WE MAYBE TACKLE THIS A COUPLE OF MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD ONCE WE'VE GOTTEN THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE SETTLED AND THE CRITERIA FOR THE COMPETITIVE REVIEW SETTLED.

THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.

>> THANK YOU, AND PART OF THIS IS JUST MY GROWING KNOWLEDGE OF THE TERMINOLOGY AND WHAT WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE IN THE BEGINNING, MY THOUGHT WAS A GROW WAS LIKE OUT IN THE FIELDS AND TONS OF PLANTS AND GROW OPERATION, THAT WAS WHAT I WAS THINKING GROWER OPERATION.

NOW I'M HEARING ALONG THE WAY IS THAT THERE'S MUCH SMALLER GROWER INDOOR GROW OPERATIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I WAS PICTURING, SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THAT, AND I'M JUST THINKING MORE IF WE GO AS FAR AS DOING THE ORDINANCE, SHOULD WE DO IT RIGHT OR NOT RIGHT.

BUT SHOULDN'T WE EXPLORE WHAT WE WANT THE FIRST TIME INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING, WE'LL JUST DO THIS AND THEN WE'LL DECIDE LATER IF WE'RE GOING TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE, SO THAT WOULD JUST BE MY CONCERN.

SHOULDN'T WE JUST THINK ABOUT IT AND GET IT BETTER IN OUR MINDS BECAUSE I HAD NO IDEA ALL THE TYPES OF GROWING FACILITIES AND STUFF.

I THINK THERE WAS ONE MORE POINT BUT I COULD JUST CAN'T THINK OF IT, AND THE OTHER THING IS IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO

[02:45:05]

BUILD A BUILDING THAT THEY WANT FOR RECREATIONAL, IS IT FEASIBLE TO ADD ON A, "GROW OPERATION IN THE SAME BUILDING?" I MEAN, DO THEY REALLY NEED TO KNOW UPFRONT WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE MANY GROW OPERATION, DO THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT UPFRONT BECAUSE I THINK, IF SOMEBODY IS BUILDING SOMETHING.

IT'S NOT JUST AN INCONVENIENCE FOR US, BUT IT WOULD BE A HUGE INCONVENIENCE FOR THE COMPANY TO ADD ON PER SE.

L DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THAT.

>> TRUSTEE SUNDLAND TO YOUR POINT, I THINK THAT ANY DEVELOPER OF ANY TYPE BEFORE THEY START CONSTRUCTION WANTS TO KNOW THE FULL EXTENT AND SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.

ALTHOUGH IT'S CERTAINLY FEASIBLE TO BUILD A BUILDING WITH POTENTIAL FOR ADDITION.

IF IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY PART OF YOUR BUSINESS PLAN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GO FORWARD UNTIL YOU CAN BUILD THE WHOLE BUILDING.

I CERTAINLY THINK THAT THERE IS A SCENARIO THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE THAT THEY WOULD WITHHOLD CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THEY KNEW THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROCESS.

>> FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, IT'S NOT A DETRIMENT.

LEGALLY SPEAKING, THEY COULD ADD ON A NEWLY AUTHORIZED ESTABLISHMENT TYPE A YEAR OR TWO FROM NOW, BUT FROM A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE.

>> THANK YOU MADAM SUPERVISOR, I CONCUR WITH TRUSTEE HENDRICKSON, WE HAVE SPENT SO MANY HOURS WORKING ON THIS, AND AS OF OUR LAST MEETING, I FELT WE HAD CONCURRENCE AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS AS TO THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE WANT IT TO HAVE IN THIS PROPOSAL, AND THEN OUR RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA ORDINANCE.

I FEEL LIKE INTRODUCING GROW.

RESPECTFULLY, I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU, AND I ALSO FEEL IT'S UNLEVERED OUR CHANGE THAT I THOUGHT WE HAD CONCURRENCE ON AMONG THE REST OF THE BODY, AND IN FACT YOU.

I WOULD SAY IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON.

IT'S TIME TO GET THIS ORDINANCE DONE, AND WE HAVE DONE SUCH DUE DILIGENCE WITH IT, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH TO PLANT DIRECTOR SCHMIDT AND TO OUR ATTORNEYS BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN INVALUABLE IN HELPING US UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE.

BUT IT'S TIME TO PUT THIS TO BED. THAT'S MY COMMENT.

>> AT THIS POINT, I HAVE SEVERAL COMMENTS [LAUGHTER] I'D LIKE TO MAKE.

FIRST, ABOUT THE ODOR ISSUE: THE ODOR IS FROM THE GROUND-UP, IS WRITTEN TO PROHIBIT THE ESCAPE OF ODOR FROM THIS BUILDING.

I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR GROW AT THIS POINT, I'M JUST DEALING WITH THE ODOR PROBLEM.

THE WHOLE REGULATION SCHEME IS WRITTEN TO EMPLOY AND REQUIRE THE TECHNOLOGY THAT IS USED TO CONTAIN AND CHANGE FOLDERS CREATED IN THIS BUILDING.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> IS NOT A VALID REASON FOR NOT ALLOWING THIS ACTIVITY THE GROWER GO ON IN THE TOWNSHIP, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO ADVOCATE FOR THAT AT THIS POINT.

I JUST THINK THE ARGUMENT ABOUT OLDER ESCAPING THESE EVER SIZE IN BURGLARY FACILITIES IS A SPECIOUS ARGUMENT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A DEFINITION OF MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT, IN THIS ORDINANCE, BECAUSE THERE ARE POINTS AT WHICH WE USE THAT WORD INTERCHANGEABLY WITH MARIJUANA RETAILER AND PROVISIONING CENTER AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE MEAN.

WHEN MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT IS USED, IT'S A BROADER TERM AND SO I THINK IT PUTS US IN PARALLEL USING THAT PHRASE WITHOUT DEFINING IT BEFOREHAND.

[02:50:05]

>> THAT I'M SUPERVISOR, IT'S LOCATED ON PAGE 2 OF THE RECREATIONAL ORDINANCE, PAGE 287 OF THE PACKET.

IT'S AN EXTENSIVE DEFINITION THAT WHAT WE WERE SPEAKING FOR OUR ATTORNEYS HERE, BUT WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS TAKING THE DEFINITIONS AS THEY EXIST IN BURMA AND TRANSLATE IT OVER BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO BE SPECIFIC.

ZONING ORDINANCE SPEAKS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO MERGE MY EXISTING.

AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE TRIED TO MASSAGE IT AND WITHOUT COMPLETELY THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER.

>> BUT IN THAT ZONING ORDINANCE WHEN YOU USE MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT.

YOU WE'RE STILL REFERRING TO THE DEFINITION.

THAT TERM INCLUDES EVERYTHING.

>> WE DIDN'T USE THE TERM MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MARIJUANA BUSINESS.

MARIJUANA BUSINESSES SPECIFICALLY THEN DEFINED AS A RETAILER OR PROVISIONING CENTER, WHICH ARE FURTHER DEFINED AS THEY APPEAR IN THE STATE ACT.

>> WE TRIED TO DO OUR BEST TO KEEP THE TWO SEPARATE SO THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ZONING, THERE'S A SPECIFIC EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVERY YEAR AND THEN WHEN WE GET TO LICENSING, HERE'S THE STANDARDS FOR LICENSING.

>> WELL, I RESPECT THOSE SUGGESTIONS THAT SAY, WE NEED TO MOVE ON AND ESTABLISH MARIJUANA SALES IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE ALL AGREE ON AT THIS POINT.

BUT I ALSO RESPECT THE COMMENT THAT WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.

WE DO IT ALL THE TIME AND WE CAN DO IT IN THIS DISTANCE AND SO I WOULD AGREE THAT I'M NOT PREPARED TO THROW OUT THE BATHROOM, EVERYTHING AT THIS POINT TO DERAIL A PROCESS.

THEN FOR YOU GUYS SO I'M STILL CONFUSED ABOUT HOW WE GET TO SIX.

WE GOT SIX OVERLAY DISTRICT.

WE ARE LIMITING THE NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN EACH LOBE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ONE SITE AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PERMITTING BOTH RECREATIONAL AND MARIJUANA WITH SIX PERMITS.

>> FIVE PERMITS.

>> I'M SORRY, WITH FIVE PERMITS, YEAH.

SO HOW DO WE DO THAT? ARE THERE SEPARATE COMMITS FOR RECREATIONAL IN MARIJUANA?

>> WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS ESSENTIALLY PROMOTING MARIJUANA SALES AND IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANTS FOR THOSE LOCATIONS TO CHOOSE RECREATIONAL OR MEDICAL.

>> NOT OR BECAUSE THEY COULD DO BOTH.

>> LET'S GO BACK. ONLY IF ONE PERMIT WILL ALLOW TO USE THIS.

>> THERE ARE THE ONE PER OVERLAY IS LIMITED PER EACH ORDINANCE SO THERE ARE SIX MEDICAL PERMITS IN FIVE OVERLAYS, ONE PER OVERLAY AND THEN IN THE RECREATIONAL, THERE ARE FIVE PERMITS AVAILABLE, ONE PER OVERLAY.

SO WE HAVE MEDICAL PERMIT LOTTERY WINNERS OR APPLICANTS.

THEY SUBMITTED IN JANUARY.

SO THEY'RE MOVING THROUGH THEIR SPECIAL USE PROCESS.

THEY COULD CONTINUE AND OPEN IN THE LOCATIONS THAT THEY HAVE SELECTED.

WE CAN OPEN A WINDOW IN OCTOBER FOR RECREATIONAL AND NONE OF THOSE LOCATIONS COULD BE SELECTED FOR RECREATIONAL RETAILERS.

FUNCTIONALLY, THAT'S UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, BUT THERE WOULD BE SIX PERMITS AVAILABLE RECREATION WISE.

>> FIVE.

>> FIVE, SORRY. SO WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN OR A POTENTIAL SCENARIO WOULD BE THERE'S

[02:55:06]

A MEDICAL PERMIT APPLICANT AT [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY COULD APPLY FOR A RECREATIONAL PERMIT AND THEY COULD WIN BOTH.

THEY CAN WIN THEIR RECREATIONAL, HAVE THE BEST APPLICATION SO THEY WOULD BE AWARDED THERE AND YOU WOULD HAVE A PROVISIONING CENTER AND A MARIJUANA RETAILER OPERATING OUT OF THE SAME STOREFRONT.

ONE PHYSICAL LOCATION, TWO PERMITS.

SO YOU COULD ALSO HAVE ON GRAND RIVER YOUR MEDICAL APPLICANT.

I'M ONE OF YOUR GRAND RIVER OVERLAYS, NOT WIN AND COMPETITIVE REVIEW FOR A RECREATIONAL AND YET FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY DECIDED TO CONTINUE AND OPEN THAT MEDICAL PROVISIONING CENTERS.

SO YOU COULD THEN HAVE IN YOUR GRAND RIVER OVERLAY, A MEDICAL PROVISIONING CENTER, AND A SEPARATE MARIJUANA RETAILER OPERATING DIFFERENT BUSINESSES IN THE GRAND RIVER AREA.

>> THERE CAN BE AS MANY AS TWO MARIJUANA FACILITIES AND ONE OVERLAY THIS.

THANK YOU. HERE WE ARE.

YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS.

WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE AT THIS POINT AS TRUSTEE WISINSKI?

>> I CAN CERTAINLY SUPPORT WHAT TRUSTEE HENDRICKSON BROUGHT UP IN SUPERVISORY.

YOU WOULD CONFIRM THAT.

WHY HOPE THIS UP RIGHT NOW, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT IT IN THE FUTURE, BUT LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE THAT'S MY THOUGHT.

>> OTHER COMMENTS?

>> I'M VERY GLAD SOME SENTIMENT, I BELIEVE TRUSTEE WILSON, TRUSTEE HENDRICKSON. ANYONE ELSE?

>> THE ONLY POINT I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP AND THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR, IS THAT FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE, DOES A POTENTIAL BUSINESS HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS IS ONLY RECREATIONAL.

I DON'T THINK THE MEDICAL UNLESS THERE'S RECREATIONAL IS NOT VERY FEASIBLE BUT I JUST WONDER FROM A BUSINESS IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A DIFFERENT BUILDING BASED ON THE POSSIBILITY OF NOT A HUGE GROWN.

I DON'T KNOW, MANY GROW.

I THINK THAT THAT IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT THAT IT WOULD ENHANCE THEIR ABILITY TO EXPERIMENT WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF MARIJUANA OR I DON'T KNOW.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

BUT THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF THAT WE WANT TO GET THIS ORDINANCE DONE, WE WANT TO GET IT IN PLACE AND WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE IT.

I JUST WANT TO BE FAIR TO THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE GOING IN AND THEIR INVESTMENT.

WHETHER THAT WE EXPLORE THIS OPTION.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

>> I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN.

I THINK THAT THE TYPE OF BUSINESS THAT IS BEING SUGGESTED AND PROMOTED, IN ONE INSTANCE IT'S FIRST OF ALL RETAIL AND SECONDLY SMALL GROWTH.

IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, THERE IS RETAILERS FIRST AND THE ADDITION OF SMALL GROWTH AND THE ADDITION OF MEDICAL OR RECREATIONAL, WHICHEVER ONE THE FACILITY DOESN'T HAVE IS STILL A POSSIBILITY AT SOME POINT.

BUT MINIMALLY, EVERYTHING IS ABOUT RETAIL.

[03:00:04]

I WOULD NOT WANT TO RECOMMEND ANYTHING TO A BUSINESS ABOUT THE STRATEGIES AND DEVELOPMENT AND SO FORTH BUT WHAT'S ON THE TABLE BEFORE US NOW DEALS WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF ALL THESE BUSINESSES, WHICH IS GOING TO BE RETAIL EVEN IF WE COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT SMALL RETAIL IS A MAJOR PART OF THAT.

BACK IN MY MIND IS A PART OF THAT AND SO IN MY MIND, IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY REASONABLE TO COME BACK AND ADJUST OUR RETAIL PERMISSION, OUR RETAIL DESIGN PROGRAM TO INCLUDE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT WHICH MAY INCLUDE SMALL GROWTH. TRUSTEE, ADDITION?

>> I AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME BACK AND ADDRESS IT IN A FUTURE POINT, BUT LET'S BE HONEST, THIS IS A NEW ORDINANCE.

THIS IS A GROW ORDINANCE WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING.

>> NO. THIS IS NOT.

>> BUT TO ADD AT THE GROW ADDITION.

>> IT WILL BE AN AMENDMENT.

>> BUT IT FUNDAMENTALLY HAS TO BE LOOKED AT AS A NEW ORDINANCE BECAUSE WE'VE GOT ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS WITH GROW THAT WE DON'T HAVE WITH RETAIL ONLY.

IT'S MORE OF A QUESTION IS, WHEN DOES THIS BOARD GOING TO DO THAT? IF WE CAN DO IT IN TWO MONTHS, WE SHOULD JUST DO IT NOW.

TRUSTEE HENDRICKSON MENTIONED TWO MONTHS.

IF THAT'S YOUR INTENTION, THEN WE SHOULD KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY LATER.

TRUSTEE WISINSKI POINT OUT, WE CAN GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS QUICKER IF WE ARE FOCUSED ON IT.

WE'D GO THROUGH STEPS ONE THROUGH SIX.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE REACH ONE THROUGH SIX FOR THE EXISTING RETAIL OPERATIONS.

MAKE A COMMITMENT TO DOING THAT, THEN COME BACK AND LOOK AT THE GROW OPERATION.

OTHERWISE, IF WE TAKE ON ROW IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR STEPS HERE, WE'RE EITHER GOING TO LAY THESE STEPS OR NOT VET THEM AS PROPERLY AS WE SHOULD.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS THAT WE WOULD WAIT UNTIL WE GOT THROUGH TO SIX BEFORE WE TAKE UP THIS ISSUE OF GROWTH AT A FUTURE POINT.

BECAUSE IF NOT, WE MIGHT AS WELL JUST DISCUSS IT OUT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS ANYWAY.

>> I CONVERSE THIS CONSENSUS, THE IDEA THAT MOST OF US HAVE BEEN PROMOTING AT THIS ONE.

>> THAT WE WOULD ONLY TAKE ON THE DISCUSSION OF GROWTH AFTER WE FINISH THE SIX STEPS HERE.

>> THE ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MICRO GROWTH.

>> IS THERE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS [OVERLAPPING].

>> IT SEEM TO ME THAT WHAT I HEARD FROM TRUSTEE WILSON, TRUSTEE HENDRICKSON AND TRUSTEE WISINSKI AS WELL.

>> I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE THAT WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH STEP 5.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR ME ANYWAY.

WHAT I DO THINK IS THAT TO PUSH THIS AND OTHER TWO OR THREE MONTHS, WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE OTHER APPLICANTS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN DOING THIS WITHOUT A GROW OPERATION.

THAT'S WHY I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE MOVE FORWARD ON THE GENERAL ORDINANCE WITHOUT THE GROW OPERATION.

THEN I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC TIMELINE IN MIND WHEN TO ADDRESS THE GROW OPERATION.

IT COULD BE A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

IT COULD BE ONCE ALL THE OTHER APPLICANTS HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH ONE THROUGH FIVE.

BUT I HAVEN'T GIVEN IT ENOUGH THOUGHT YET SINCE WE JUST STARTED TALKING ABOUT THIS THIS EVENING TO GIVE YOU A FIRM DEADLINE, FIRM TIMELINE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

>> TREASURE, SO WE GOT YOU.

>> I CONCUR WITH TRUSTEE HENDRICKSON.

>> ARE YOU CLEAR WITH WHAT [OVERLAPPING]

>> CRYSTAL. WE HAVE SOME MINOR CHANGES [LAUGHTER]

>> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> WE HAVE SOME MINOR CHANGES THAT JUDGE [INAUDIBLE] WILL WORK ON TO ADDRESS THE COUPLE OF CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THE LANGUAGE.

WE WILL BRING BACK FOR INTRODUCTION AT THE NEXT MEETING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, THIS ORDINANCE WITH THOSE CHANGES.

>> I THINK WE MAY AGREE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH [NOISE]

[14. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC]

>> WHERE AM I? WE HAVE COME TO ITEM 14; COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. MR. WORLD ROY.

[03:05:01]

>> HERE I AM. [NOISE] LIKE A DEAD BODY, I'M HARD TO GET READY.

>> NAME OF THE ADDRESS AGAIN, PLEASE.

>> IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT YOU CAN'T TAKE INPUT FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCED IN THIS WHILE YOU'RE HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS.

I MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS BEFORE.

I'M THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ADVISORY BOARD FOR MARIJUANA POLICY FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.

I KNOW THIS ISSUE AND I'VE GOT [NOISE] THOUSANDS OF CLIENTS AND I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN DOZENS AND DOZENS OF ORDINANCES, SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THESE ISSUES FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.

FOR EXAMPLE, I DIDN'T MAKE IT CLEAR ENOUGH ON MY EARLIER PRESENTATION.

THAT THE BUILDING THAT IS BEING CONTEMPLATED AND HAS BEEN DESIGNED OVER THERE IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE WHETHER THERE'S A GROWING IT OR NOT.

[BACKGROUND] TO ADD A LITTLE COLOR MARKS HERE, TUCCI, HIM, AND HIS GROUP ARE BEHIND THIS.

HE WAS ALSO THE ENTREPRENEUR BEHIND THE PURPLE CARROT, AND HIS KIDS HAD RED HAVEN.

HE'S A REAL LOCAL BOOSTER, A REAL CREATIVE GUY.

PART OF THE OVERALL PLAN WAS TO HAVE LOCAL PRODUCTS IN A BUILDING THAT WAS ONLY SOLD THERE.

THAT'S THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING.

NOW THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE, NUMBER 1, AND NUMBER 2, IT'S ALREADY UP AND FUNCTIONING IN JACKSON ALONG WITH DOZENS OF OTHERS.

I SAID THE DEBIT AND I MEAN NO OFFENSE AT ALL BY THIS, BUT I'M AN ATTORNEY.

I OPERATE ON FACTS, NOT BELIEFS.

THE FACT IS WHEN YOU SAY THERE'S SMELLS OR ODORS OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING IN JACKSON THAT IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT THAT, NO OFFENSE.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT UNLESS YOU GO DOWN THERE, STAND NEXT TO THE BUILDING AND MEASURE IT.

IT'S NO MEASURABLE SMELL.

THOSE ARE FACTS.

YOUR BELIEFS THAT OLIVE GARDEN HAS SIMILAR IN SOME SENSE TO [NOISE] THINGS THAT ARE SCIENTIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING ARE JUST BELIEFS.

UNTIL YOU GO DOWN THERE AND WE PUT THIS TO BED FIVE YEARS AGO.

THE SMELL DOES NOT ESCAPE THE BUILDING AND UNTIL YOU GO DOWN THERE, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

I'M TALKING ABOUT FACTS THAT YOU CAN ALL GO SEE FOR YOURSELF.

THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT PERCENTAGES, 63% OF THE VOTERS IN [NOISE] MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP VOTED TO AN OPT-IN, AND THEIR ARGUMENT IS JUST SPECIOUS.

SORRY, I WENT OVER IT AGAIN.

BUT YOU'RE ALL WELCOME TO COME DOWN THERE AND CHECK FOR YOURSELF.

THEN FINALLY, IT WILL TAKE NO LONGER, AND I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN DRAFTING ALL OVER THE STATE.

IT WILL NOT DELAY THE PROCESS A BIT, AND THERE'S NO PRACTICAL REASON NOT TO INCLUDE A GROW IN THAT OVERLAY.

>> THANK YOU. THIRTY MINUTES,

[15. OTHER MATTERS AND BOARD MEMBERCOMMENTS]

THEN WE MOVE TO ITEM 15.

OTHER MATTERS AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS, MR. HENDRICKSON.

I'LL GET ON MY SOAPBOX FOR THIRTY SECONDS HERE.

WON'T TAKE UP TOO MUCH TIME.

BUT THIS ISSUE HAS COME BEFORE THIS BODY, PROBABLY IN ABOUT 40-50% OF THE MEETINGS SINCE I [LAUGHTER] JOINED IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT, AND IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY PASSIONATE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE THAT ARE PART OF THIS BOARD.

I THINK THAT WE'RE MOVING TOWARD A GOOD SOLUTION HERE IN OUR NEXT FEW MEETINGS.

WE'RE MOVING TOWARD A SOLUTION BUT I THINK WE'LL SEE.

I THINK WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET THE WHOLE BOARD TO SUPPORT.

I THINK THAT WHILE THERE WAS A VERY CLOSE VOTE ON THIS THAT OCCURRED FROM THOSE VOTERS THAT VOTED ON IT LAST AUGUST.

I THINK ULTIMATELY, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE, OR WHAT I HOPE WE WILL SEE IS THAT, THE COMMUNITY,

[03:10:02]

LIKE THIS BOARD WILL COME TOGETHER AND SUPPORT THE DECISION THAT'S MADE BY US ULTIMATELY OVER THE NEXT MONTH OR SO.

I APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF DISCUSSION.

I'D APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK THAT OUR ATTORNEYS AND THAT OUR STAFF HAS PUT IN AND THAT WE HAVE PUT IN OVER THE LAST YEAR-AND-A-HALF AND GETTING THIS ORDINANCE TO WHERE IT IS TODAY.

THANK YOU, AND I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THAT.

>> YES, GUTHRIE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A THANK YOU AND APPRECIATION AS WELL TO MR. LEMASTER.

[LAUGHTER] I AM GOING TO MISS HIM.

HIS LAST DAY IS NEXT WEDNESDAY ON JUNE 14TH.

I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S COMMENTS EARLIER WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING TREASURE DESCHAINE'S FINANCE CONSULTANT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT, AND THE NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT THIS BOARD GAVE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING AN EXPERT ON BOARD AND A SPECIALIST AND SOMEONE THAT YOU CAN HAVE ON BOARD WHO'S A BACKUP.

MR. LEMASTER KNEW THE EQUIPMENT IN AND OUT.

THAT'S WHY WE STOLE HIM FROM LANSING.

[LAUGHTER] HE PROGRAMMED ALL OF THE IPO BOOKS AND DOWNLOADED ALL OF THE QV OF DATA ONTO THEM.

TO ALL OF THE CHAIRS AND THE CO-CHAIRS, HOW TO USE THE VOTING TABULATORS AT 22 PRECINCTS? HE PROGRAMMED ALL OF THE VOTER ASSIST TERMINALS.

WE HAVE 23 LAPTOPS, 23 TABULATORS, 20 VAT MACHINES, WE HAVE TWO HIGH-SPEED SCANNERS, WE HAVE AN ADJUDICATOR MACHINE.

WE'VE NEVER HAD THAT BEFORE, 20 PRINTERS.

WE HAVE 44 VAT CARDS, TWO FROM EACH PRECINCT THAT HE WORKS WITH THE COUNTY ON.

ALL OF THIS INFORMATION HAS TO GO TO THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE IN THE EVENING AND THE SECURITY OF IT AND THE ENCRYPTION AND THE FLASH DRIVES, ALL OF THE STUFF THAT MR. LEMASTER DID.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH ELECTIONS WITHOUT HIS EXPERTISE AND HIS KNOWLEDGE IN ELECTION EQUIPMENT.

THEN JUST ALL OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT MR. LEMASTER HAS HELPED THIS BOARD OUT WITH ROLL-CALL [LAUGHTER] VERSUS [BACKGROUND] VOICE POLL AND JUST THE NUMBER OF LITTLE THINGS THAT YOU DID TO ASSIST WITH THIS TOWNSHIP BOARD.

EVEN THOUGH WHEN YOU WERE PROMOTED TO DEPUTY CLERK, YOU STAYED ON AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE BOARD EVEN THOUGH IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DUTY, AND SO I JUST REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME HERE WITH THE TOWNSHIP AND I'M GLAD I WAS ABLE TO HAVE YOU SHARE MY TEMPORARY OFFICE WITH ME FOR THIS LAST WEEK.

[LAUGHTER] I TOLD HIM I WAS GOING TO SHOOT SPIT WADS DURING THE DAY. [LAUGHTER]

>> YOU SHOULD MAKE HIM ROLL CALL THE GERMAN PUBLIC, JUST FOR ONE MORE [OVERLAPPING]

>> YEAH, JUST FOR ONE MORE TIME.

>> I WOULD JUST ADD THAT WE WILL MISS YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE OPERATION OF THIS BOARD, [NOISE] AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE, AND WE HOPE THE FUTURE IS AS BRIGHT AS EVER FOR YOU.

>> THANK YOU. IT HAS [NOISE] BEEN AN HONOR TO SERVE THE BOARD AND THIS COMMUNITY. [NOISE]

>> IF THERE IS NO OTHER BUSINESS, TRUSTEE WISINSKI.

>> THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE]

>> I'LL MOVE TO ADJOURN.

>> SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WILSON.

MR. LEMASTER, WOULD YOU GIVE US A ROLL CALL [LAUGHTER] AND A ROLL CALL VOTE? [LAUGHTER]

>> SUPERVISOR, JACKSON.

>> TREASURER DESCHAINE.

>> TRUSTEE HENDRICKSON.

>> MOTION CARRIED 7-0.