Feb 17, 2026 Township Board

[00:00:37]

LET ME HELP YOU NOT MAKE PROMISES YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO BREAK.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER ]

WE WILL CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN TO ORDER.

FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

WILL THOSE WHO ARE ABLE PLEASE RISE AND JOIN US FOR THE PLEDGE? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

OKAY. OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WOULD BE A ROLL CALL.

HOWEVER, AS WE WILL NOTICE, WE ARE WITHOUT A CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL THIS EVENING.

MICHIGAN COMPILED LAW REQUIRES US TO APPOINT A TEMPORARY CLERK FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS MEETING.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE WILLING TO SERVE AS OUR TEMPORARY CLERK THIS EVENING? TRUSTEE LENTZ. HAPPY TO DO IT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

CAN WE GET A MOTION TO APPOINT TRUSTEE LENTZ AS TEMPORARY CLERK? SO MOVED. SUPPORT. BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. MAKE SURE YOU RECORD THAT MOTION.

YEAH. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. TEMPORARY CLERK LENTZ WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YES. SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON. HERE. CLERK DEMAS, TREASURER BURGHARDT.

HERE. TRUSTEE LENTZ, HERE. TRUSTEE SUNDLAND. HERE.

TRUSTEE TREZISE. HERE. TRUSTEE WILSON. HERE. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE SIX BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS A PRESENTATION.

[4. PRESENTATION ]

CHIEF GRILLO, WELCOME. THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON.

THANK YOU TO THE BOARD FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COME TALK TO YOU TODAY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART, AND THAT'S POLICE ACCREDITATION. YOU PROBABLY AREN'T GOING TO HEAR MANY PEOPLE SAY THAT BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF A BORING TOPIC, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN EVER SINCE WE BECAME AN ACCREDITED AGENCY. SO JUST LIKE OTHER INDUSTRIES HAVE ACCREDITATION, HOSPITALS, UNIVERSITIES POLICE AGENCIES ALSO HAVE ACCREDITATION. AND WHAT IT IS, IS JUST A VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE WITH THE BEST STANDARDS, BEST PRACTICES IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. IN 2016, THE STATE OF MICHIGAN FORMED A BOARD CALLED THE MICHIGAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCREDITATION COMMISSION. THEIR JOB WAS TO COME UP WITH A LIST OF THE BEST STANDARDS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TO START THIS PROGRAM.

SO WHEN I WAS PROMOTED IN 2018 TO LIEUTENANT, CHIEF PLAGA AT THE TIME SAID, CONGRATULATIONS, RICK. YOU ARE NOW IN CHARGE OF ACCREDITATION.

[LAUGHTER] I SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, BUT I'M GOING TO FIGURE IT OUT. WE WENT THROUGH OUR INITIAL PROCESS THROUGHOUT 2019.

AT THE TIME, THERE WERE 108 STANDARDS THAT WE HAD TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH.

SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE HAVE TO DO FOR ACCREDITATION IS WE NEED TO WRITE POLICIES THAT MEET THE STANDARDS THAT ARE PROVIDED BY THE [INAUDIBLE].

AND THEN WE NEED TO PROVE THAT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THESE STANDARDS.

OF THOSE 108 STANDARDS, THERE'S ABOUT 700 DIFFERENT BULLET POINTS THAT WE HAVE TO PROVE ANNUALLY WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH.

IN FEBRUARY OF 2020, WE BECAME THE 19TH AGENCY IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN TO BECOME ACCREDITED.

I GUESS FOR SOME PERSPECTIVE, THERE ARE OVER 400 POLICE AGENCIES IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.

WE WENT THROUGH OUR REACCREDITATION PROCESS IN 2022.

AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS EVERY THREE YEARS AFTER YOUR INITIAL ACCREDITATION, THE ASSESSORS COME BACK AND YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEM THAT YOU ARE STILL IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THESE STANDARDS. THE SECOND ONE WAS A LITTLE BIT ROUGH.

THIS LAST ONE WENT VERY, VERY SMOOTHLY. AND I WILL SAY THIS IS A TEAM EFFORT.

[00:05:05]

THE LINE OFFICERS HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THESE STANDARDS AND SHOW THAT THEY'RE DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.

THE SERGEANTS HAVE TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO THESE STANDARDS AS WELL.

AND THEN EVEN MY EVEN MY NON-SWORN PERSONNEL, THEY ALSO ARE HELD TO THESE SAME STANDARDS TOO.

SO THIS IS A TOTAL TEAM EFFORT. I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT WHEN THE ASSESSORS CAME, I KNOW THAT THEY SPOKE TO SEVERAL OF YOU.

AND BY THE TIME THEY WERE DONE, THEY WERE VERY IMPRESSED.

THEY FOUND US IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH NO APPLIED DISCRETIONS, MEANING THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WE NEEDED TO CHANGE.

SO MOVING FORWARD, WE WILL CONTINUE THIS PROCESS AS LONG AS I AM THE CHIEF.

AS OF TODAY, THERE ARE OVER 100 AGENCIES NOW THAT ARE FULLY ACCREDITED.

MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP IS VIEWED STATEWIDE AS ONE OF THE LEADERS IN ACCREDITATION, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M VERY PROUD OF.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS OF CHIEF GRILLO? WELL, WE CERTAINLY HAVE NOTHING BUT GOOD THINGS TO SAY ABOUT ABOUT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THE CONTINUED LEADERSHIP THAT YOU BRING TO THAT DEPARTMENT.

AND I THINK THE LACK OF NOTES ON THE ACCREDITATION REALLY IS, REALLY QUITE TELLING.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANKS FOR COMING AND TELLING US ABOUT IT TODAY. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.

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

THOSE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD MUST COMPLETE A CARD WHICH YOU CAN FIND ON THE TABLE BY THE DOOR.

I'M TOLD THAT THEY'RE GREEN AND WHITE TODAY BECAUSE THE SPARTANS ARE PLAYING THIS EVENING.

AND YOU CAN PRESENT THAT CARD TO THE BOARD OR A MEMBER OF THE TOWNSHIP STAFF DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN, I'LL CALL YOU UP TO THE PODIUM TO SPEAK TO THE TOPICS INDICATED.

WHILE IT'S NOT REQUIRED, IT IS HELPFUL FOR THE SAKE OF OUR MEETING MINUTES IF YOU COULD PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS. CITIZENS ARE REQUIRED TO LIMIT COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES. AN AUTOMATED SYSTEM WILL KEEP TRACK OF THE TIME, AND AN INDICATOR LIGHT AND AUDIBLE BEEP WILL ALERT YOU WHEN YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD VALUE PUBLIC COMMENT.

THE MEETING FORMAT AND RULES, HOWEVER, DO RESTRICT US FROM ENGAGING IN CONVERSATION WITH COMMENTERS OR ANSWERING QUESTIONS DIRECTLY.

QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS MAY BE ADDRESSED BY BOARD MEMBERS AT A LATER TIME, OR MAY BE REFERRED TO A MEMBER OF THE TOWNSHIP STAFF TO FOLLOW UP ON.

PLEASE MAKE SURE TO ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS TO THE BOARD OR THE BOARD'S CHAIR, AND NOT TO INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS, OR TO OTHERS IN THE AUDIENCE. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CARDS THIS EVENING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

FIRST UP WILL BE GOVINDARAJAN MURALI, AND THEN JOHN DIEHL YOU'RE ON DECK.

GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS MURALI.

I AM THE RESIDENT OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. I STAND HERE TONIGHT TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE THE ITC ONEIDA'S SABINE LAKE TRANSMISSION LINE THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY. THE INDEPENDENT EXPERT REPORT IN TONIGHT'S PACKET CONFIRMS WHAT MANY OF US FEARED.

THE SEGMENT 64 IS OBJECTIVELY THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE PIECE OF THIS ENTIRE 62 SEGMENT PROJECT.

IT IS THE NUMBER ONE WORST FOR WETLANDS AND NUMBER ONE WORST FOR STREAM CROSSINGS AND IMPACTING OUR VITAL FLOODPLAINS AND THE [INAUDIBLE].

IT IS ALSO THE NUMBER ONE WAS FOR THE AS THE TECHNICAL DATA SOURCE THERE IS NO TRADE OFF REQUIRED TO AVOID OUR TOWNSHIP.

ITC ALREADY HAS A BYPASS SEGMENT, 60, 63 AND 74 THAT IS 0.31 MILES SHORTER AND REDUCES THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BY 46%. IN FACT, OUT OF OVER 313,000 POSSIBLE ROUTES ANALYZED, THE SIX MOST OPTIMAL PATHS ALL BYPASS MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP ENTIRELY. CHOOSING SEGMENT 64 IS CHOOSING A PATH THAT IS LONGER, MORE DESTRUCTIVE, AND TECHNICALLY DOMINATED BY A SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE.

HOWEVER, WHILE I SUPPORT THIS OPPOSITION, I MUST GO ON RECORD REGARDING THE DATA WE ARE STILL MISSING.

TO DATE, ITC HAS NOT BEEN TRANSPARENT ABOUT BOTH THEIR INTERNAL RATING METRICS.

WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH WEIGHT THEY ARE GIVING TO CONSTRUCTION COSTS VERSUS OUR PROPERTY VALUES.

WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR THE I-96 CORRIDOR OR OTHER DISTURBED LANDS.

EARLIER THIS WEEK, I FORMALLY REQUESTED THIS DATA FROM THE ITC PROJECT TEAM.

WE NEED TO KNOW IF ITC IS PRIORITIZING THEIR BOTTOM LINE OVER OUR COMMUNITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC HEALTH.

[00:10:01]

WE MUST ENSURE THAT THE FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE STANDARD OF ACT 20, I MEAN ACT 30 IS APPLIED WITH FULL TRANSPARENCY, NOT JUST UTILIZE UTILITY PREFERENCE. LET'S MAKE SURE OUR OPPOSITION IS NOT JUST LOUD, BUT TECHNICALLY BULLETPROOF.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JOHN DIEHL, FOLLOWED BY VINCENT TAMANIKA.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. BEFORE THE BOARD HERE.

MY NAME IS JOHN DIEHL, A RESIDENT OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

AND WHAT I WANT TO SPEAK ON TONIGHT IS JUST A VERY BRIEF TALK ABOUT THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS PUSH FOR CONGRESS TO ENACT NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION FOR TOWER INSTALLATION APPLICATION.

LET ME EXPLAIN THIS A LITTLE BIT. THE US HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE WILL BE VOTING ON H.R.

2289, A CONSOLIDATION OF SEVERAL FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION BILLS.

H.R. 2289 STRIPS AWAY ALL LOCAL CONTROL AND WILL ALLOW CELL TOWERS TO BE INSTALLED WHEREVER THE TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANIES WANT. THIS WILL END THE LOCAL CONTROL FOR CELL TOWERS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES.

NOW, HERE'S WHAT THE PROPOSAL RULES MEAN. I'M JUST GOING TO MENTION FIVE OF THEM.

FIRST OF ALL, THEY'LL SILENCE HR 2289 WILL SILENCE COMMUNITY VOICES, PUBLIC HEARINGS WOULD DISAPPEAR.

CONDITIONS AND SPECIAL USE PERMITS WOULD VANISH.

DECISIONS ABOUT LOCAL STREETS, SCHOOLS AND SAFETY WOULD BE MADE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND NOT HERE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

ANOTHER ONE WOULD BE AUTOMATIC TOWER APPROVAL AFTER 150 DAYS.

THE FCC CALLS LOCAL REVIEW UNREASONABLE, AND IF CITIES DON'T RUBBERSTAMP A TOWER APPLICATION TIME ITS APPROVAL, IT'S APPROVED AUTOMATICALLY. ANOTHER ONE WOULD BE NO INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

THE FCC WANTS TO BAR LOCALITIES FROM HIRING THEIR OWN EXPERTS TO TEST RADIATION SAFETY, WHICH THEY DO ALL THE TIME.

INSTEAD, THE INDUSTRY WOULD POLICE ITSELF AND COMMUNITIES WOULD BE FORCED TO TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT.

ALSO, TELECOM COMPANIES CAN DECLARE A GAP. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THEY COME INTO AN AREA AND THEY SAY, OH, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH COMMUNICATION. WE NEED TO PUT A CELL TOWER HERE.

WELL, THEY HAVE TO RIGHT NOW, ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE WE HAVE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, THEY HAVE TO PROVE THERE'S REASONABLE COMMUNICATION GOING ON.

WITH THESE NEW RULES THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING. ANOTHER ONE WOULD BE LOSS OF.

LOSE EXTENDING PROTECTION. THE FCC WANTS TO FORCE TOWERS IN THE MIDDLE OF QUIET RESIDENTIAL STREETS, ON PLAYGROUNDS, OVER CLASSROOMS, ON SCENIC HILLTOPS, PASTORAL FARMS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS.

AND OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD HAVE NO POWER TO STOP IT.

AND ANOTHER ONE WOULD BE THREATENING PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LOCAL BUDGETS.

FAMILIES COULD SEE THEIR BIGGEST INVESTMENTS THEIR HOMES LOSE VALUE OVERNIGHT, WITH NO COMPENSATION AND NO REMORSE FOR WHAT THE PROPOSAL MEANS THE RULES MEAN FOR THE COMMUNITY WITH THE PLACEMENT OF A TOWER IN FRONT OF THEIR HOME. WITHIN MERIDIAN.

DOES THAT MEAN I'M DONE? THAT'S ALL. SIR? YES.

THAT WAS YOUR TIME. OH, OKAY. I GOT A MINUTE OR TWO MORE.

NO, NO, THAT WAS ALL. OH. THAT'S ALL. OKAY. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SUBMIT THE WRITTEN STATEMENT, YOU CAN HAND THAT TO OUR STAFF. AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THAT GETS PRINTED IN OUR THE NEXT PACKET THAT COMES OUT.

OKAY. AND THERE'S ALSO A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT THE END OF THE MEETING IF YOU'D LIKE TO STICK AROUND UNTIL THE END.

YEAH. MIGHT MIGHT I JUST SAY REAL QUICK? I'M NOT AGAINST OR AGAINST 5G CELL TOWERS BEING PUT UP.

WE NEED THEM. BUT YOU HAVE A GREAT ORDINANCE THAT PREVENTS CERTAIN THINGS FROM HAPPENING THAT ARE PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN, OUR FOREST, OUR ANIMALS AND SO FORTH IN OUR COMMUNITY.

AND SO THESE RESTRICTIONS WILL BE TAKEN AWAY BY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IF THIS LEGISLATION PASSES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND. THIS IS WHAT I JUST SAID TO YOU AS WELL.

ON THE BACKSIDE THERE'S TWO SHEETS. THERE'S A SHEET THAT TALKS. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE YOUR POINTS AND SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS THE SECOND SHEET TALKS ABOUT THAT AND SHOWS YOU HOW TO DO THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. VINCENT TAMANIKA . AND THEN MARK KLAUS IS ON DECK.

VINCENT TAMANIKA, CENTRAL PARK ESTATES RECENT LETTERS AND SITE MAPS REGARDING AUTHENTIC OKEMOS PAGES 195 THROUGH 221 OF THE CURRENT MEETING PACKET.

[00:15:10]

IT'S UNCLEAR WHY IT'S BACK ON TODAY'S AGENDA.

CONTINENTAL'S RENEWED PROPOSAL DOES NOT ADDRESS THE WELL CONSIDERED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OFFERED IN DECEMBER 2025.

SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON APPLIED HONEST MATH USING THE ACTUAL USABLE LAND FOR BUILDING TO ARRIVE AT A MAXIMUM UNIT COUNT PER ZONING OF 206.

HE CALLED FOR A CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO SERVE AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE APARTMENTS AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OF CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, CPE. TRUSTEE SUNDLAND ASKED FOR THE REMOVAL OF BUILDINGS FIVE AND SIX, WHICH BACK UP CLOSELY TO THE BACKYARDS OF HOUSES ALONG NASSAU STREET.

TRUSTEE DEMAS CALLED FOR AFFORDABLE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BECAUSE THAT IS THE ULTIMATE DREAM OF THE GREAT MAJORITY, NOT APARTMENTS. CONTINENTAL'S LETTER DOES NOT ADDRESS THOSE FIRST THREE THAT I MENTIONED WHICH I SEE AS IN EFFECT, COUNTERPROPOSALS BY THE TRUSTEES. HOMEOWNERS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA HAVE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE CERTAINTY OF TRAFFIC ISSUES ON NARROW, WINDING, FAST PACED AND CONGESTED CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.

WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT DRAINAGE AND THE PROJECT SIGNIFICANTLY VIOLATING THE TOWNSHIP'S OWN MASTER PLAN.

THE PROJECT WOULD DESTROY THE CHARACTER OF ADJOINING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WHILE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IN THE AREA ARE AVOIDING MIXING APARTMENT COMPLEXES WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOODS FOR THAT REASON. WE ASKED MERIDIAN TO SIMILARLY RESPECT THE INVESTMENT AND TRUST HOMEOWNERS HAVE PLACED IN THIS TOWNSHIP.

WE FELT LIKE MICE IN A CIRCULAR MAZE FOR THE PAST 7 OR 8 MONTHS, GOING AROUND AND AROUND DISCUSSING THE SAME PROPOSAL.

PAGE 38 AND 39 OF THE CURRENT MEETING PACKET IN THAT THIS SHOWS A NEW IDEA SUBMITTED BY A CPE RESIDENT THAT OFFERS A POSSIBLE OFF RAMP FROM THAT MAZE. THIS LETTER DISCUSSES WHY MULTIFAMILY ZONING FOR THIS PARCEL IS OBSOLETE.

MUCH HAS CHANGED IN THE LOCATION IN THE DECADE SINCE THE ZONING WAS MADE.

MANY RETAIL, RESTAURANTS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, WALMART, ETC.

HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED, INCLUDING CPE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND OKEMOS GRAND RESERVE CONDOS.

THE AREA, ESPECIALLY CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, IS NO LONGER SUITABLE FOR A BIG INCREASE IN POPULATION AND TRAFFIC.

WITH REZONING TO SINGLE FAMILY, ALL LOCAL PARTIES COULD COME OUT OF WINTER.

AFTER DECADES, THE REMAINING PARCEL OF LAND COULD FINALLY BE SOLD IN A PROFIT, REALIZED THE TOWNSHIP COULD MOVE ON TO OTHER PRESSING BUSINESS WHILE GAINING INCREASED TAX REVENUE FROM DOZENS OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THE CHARACTER OF CPE COULD BE PRESERVED. WE URGE THE TOWNSHIP TO EXPLORE THIS REZONING PROPOSAL ON PAGE 38 OF THE PACKET AND DETERMINE TO WHAT DEGREE IT IS VIABLE OR REQUIRES TWEAKING. THE AUTHOR CALLS FOR INCENTIVES TO BE OFFERED IF NEEDED.

THE PRICE FOR WHICH WOULD BE WELL WORTH IT TO AVOID THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THESE APARTMENT BUILDINGS AT THIS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE SITE.

IT'S TIME TO COME TO THE TABLE WITH A COMPROMISE THAT WORKS FOR ALL LOCAL PARTIES.

EVERYONE GIVES AND EVERYONE GAINS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

MARK KLAUS.

THAT'S FINE. AND THEN NATHANIEL IDE.

GOOD EVENING, NATHANIEL IDE HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF CONTINENTAL AND THEIR PROPOSED 288 UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT THE CENTRAL PARK LAND, AND TO FURTHERMORE URGE THE BOARD AND RECOMMEND THAT IT BE APPROVED AT THE FULL 288 UNITS AND NOT LESS.

THE BEST PERSONS TO ENUMERATE THIS ARGUMENT WITH DATA DRIVEN REASONS WILL BE SPEAKING LATER.

THAT WILL BE ERIK HAHN OF CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES, AND IT WILL BE MARK KLAUS, GENERAL COUNSEL AND COO OF IDE DEVELOPMENT.

THEY CAN SPEAK FROM A DATA DRIVEN STANDPOINT ABOUT THAT EXCELLENT PLAN BY CENTRAL PARK.

THE LAND USE THE RESPECTFUL DISTANCE AND SETBACKS AND THE VARYING DENSITY THEY WILL DO THAT FROM A DATA DRIVEN STANDPOINT.

WHAT I'M HERE TO DO TONIGHT IS TO SPEAK FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE.

THAT ANGLE IS IN REACTION TO THE COMMENTS OF THE RESIDENTS OF CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, WHICH I CANNOT LET STAND IN MEETINGS IN THE SUMMER AND MEETINGS IN THIS ROOM. I HEARD, PARAPHRASED AND I HEARD WORD FOR WORD.

WE DO NOT WANT THOSE PEOPLE LIVING NEAR US. I CAN'T LET THAT STAND.

THERE WERE OTHER WORDS, LIKE TRANSIENTS USED.

I WASN'T RAISED WITH THOSE VALUES IN MIND TO SPEAK ABOUT OTHERS IN THAT WAY.

MY DAD HAD A SAYING. HE SAID, NATHANIEL, I NEVER LOOK UP TO ANYONE.

[00:20:03]

THERE'S BEEN TALK ABOUT REDUCING THE DENSITY TO APPEASE THE RESIDENTS OF CENTRAL PARK ESTATES WHO HAVE SPOKEN IN SUCH A WAY, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE FOR THREE REASONS ONE WELL, FROM A DATA DRIVEN STANDPOINT, IT MAKES THE PROJECT BELOW 288 VERY DIFFICULT ECONOMICALLY.

NUMBER TWO, IT DOES NOT MEET THE HOUSING DEMAND AS ENUMERATED BY THE TRI COUNTY STUDY.

AND NUMBER THREE, PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON IS THOSE WHO HAVE SPOKEN IN SUCH A WAY TO REWARD AND APPEASE THAT MESSAGING IS A MAJOR MISTAKE.

AND IT'S A BAD PRECEDENT FOR DEVELOPMENTS OR FOR BEHAVIOR.

HENCE, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND AND STRONGLY URGE THAT THIS BE APPROVED.

AND AT THE 288 AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? THAT WAS OUR LAST CARD. SEEING NO ONE RUSHING TO THE TABLE FOR CARDS.

OKAY. THAT'S FINE. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE FILL OUT A CARD AT THE CONCLUSION OF YOUR REMARKS AND HAND THAT TO STAFF.

SO WE HAVE THAT AVAILABLE FOR THE RECORD. YOU CAN SPEAK FIRST AND THEN DO THE CARD AFTER.

OKAY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO. SORRY GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YES SORRY. MY NAME IS ROMAN AND WE ARE FROM I AM FROM CENTRAL PARK ESTATE.

AND I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS PROPOSAL, BASED ON THE DATA, HAS ALREADY BEEN LOOKED AT BY PLANNING COMMISSION, BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. AND BOTH THE BODIES HAVE FOUND THAT PROPOSAL TO BE INADEQUATE OR NOT FIT FOR MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

SO USING EMOTIONAL LANGUAGE AND TRYING TO SWAY THE BOARD BASED ON THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE.

THE DATA ITSELF SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT IF 1 OR 2 RESIDENTS HAVE SPOKEN OR USED INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL OF THE 80 FAMILIES LIVING OVER THERE SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR IT.

SO THIS FRAMING OF THE CASE THAT WE SHOULD PUNISH THOSE PEOPLE, THOSE PEOPLE WHO SPEAK BAD WORDS OR USE BAD LANGUAGE IS REALLY REALLY NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

PEOPLE IN THEIR EMOTIONS OR WHEN THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS, THEY GET EXCITED AND THEY USE WRONG WORDS.

I PERSONALLY HAVE NOT USED ANY OF THOSE WORDS AND I WOULD NEVER USE THOSE WORDS.

SO I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THE FACTS. AND THE FACTS ARE THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT FIT FOR MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY PLANNING COMMISSION. IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

AND, WE HAVE SENT A LOT OF LETTERS. THERE IS A LOT OF DATA IN THEM.

THIS PLAN DOES NOT EVEN FIT WITH THE MASTER PLAN.

SO IT'S ACTUALLY VIOLATING THE MASTER PLAN ITSELF.

SO THERE ARE SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS PLAN, AND STILL IT'S BEING PUSHED AS IF THIS IS A WAY TO PUNISH THE PEOPLE WHO SPEAK BAD. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY OF LOOKING AT THE PROBLEM.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ZARI.

GOOD EVENING. I'M [INAUDIBLE] MY FAMILY IS LIVING AT 4855 BUTTERCUP LANE OKEMOS.

MY HOME WOULD BE 75FT NEXT TO THE PROPOSED POWER LINE.

I HAVE CONDUCTED A COMPREHENSIVE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF RESEARCH FROM 1979 TO 2023 ON HIGH VOLTAGE POWER LINES AND HEALTH EFFECTS. AFTER REVIEWING THESE STUDIES, I BELIEVE THIS ISSUE DESERVES SERIOUS ATTENTION.

FIRST, MULTIPLE STUDIES CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATE AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE TO EMF AND CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA. ELEVATED RISKS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED AT MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTHS OF 0.3 TO 0.4 MICROTESLA AND ABOVE. SOME RESEARCH PAPER SAID AT THE CENTER LINE, THE FIELD

[00:25:06]

WE DO NOT HAVE CLEAR PUBLICLY DISCLOSE THE DATA ABOUT THE EXACT MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTHS THAT THIS PROPOSED POWER LINE WILL GENERATE AT VARIOUS DISTANCE.

SECOND, OCCUPATIONAL STUDIES OF ELECTRICAL AND UTILITY WORKERS HAVE SO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN LONG TERM ELL EMF EXPOSURE AND THE INCREASED RISKS OF NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASE, INCLUDING ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, PARKINSON'S DISEASE, AND ALS. WHILE THESE FINDINGS DO NOT PROVE CAUSATION BUT RAISES CONCERNS.

THIRD, LARGE COHORT STUDIES OF MORE THAN 130,000 US ELECTRIC UTILITY WORKERS HAVE REPORTED INCREASED ARRHYTHMIA RELATED MORTALITY AND HIGHER RATES OF ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION.

ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO RESEARCH REGARDING IMPLANTED PACEMAKERS OR DEFIBRILLATORS, THE LACK OF DATA SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS PROOF OF SAFETY. FIRST SOME STUDIES SUGGEST A POSSIBLE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ELL EMF EXPOSURE AND ADULT SOLID TUMORS, INCLUDING BRAIN AND BREAST CANCER.

THE EVIDENCE IS LIMITED, BUT CONCERNING ENOUGH TO WARRANT CAUTION.

IN ADDITION, HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRIC FIELDS MAY INCREASE EXPOSURE TO CHARGED AIRBORNE PARTICLES.

I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. AND IMPORTANTLY, THE W.H.O.

HAS CLASSIFIED THE ELF MAGNETIC FIELDS AS A GROUP TO BE POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS.

WE NEED A CLEAR ANSWER. ANSWERS FROM ITC. WHAT EXACT PROJECTED MAGNETIC FIELD LEVELS AT VARIOUS DISTANCE. THANK YOU, MA'AM. THANK YOU. IF YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE THOSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO OUR TOWNSHIP MANAGER, WE CAN MAKE SURE THOSE APPEAR IN OUR PACKET. YES, I CAN.

THANK YOU. PRAVEEN [INAUDIBLE]. HI. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

HOPE EVERYBODY IS DOING GOOD AFTER LONG WEEKEND.

MY NAME IS PRAVEEN. I LIVE AT 156 BELVEDERE, OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.

ALREADY WE HAVE EXPRESSED A LOT OF TIMES OUR CONCERNS RELATED TO THE BUILDING APARTMENTS.

INITIALLY, I DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE ALREADY EXPRESSED OUR CONCERNS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE SITUATIONS, YOU KNOW, IT IS THE SITUATION CAME TO THAT. WE HAVE TO KEEP ON REQUEST THAT WHAT IS OUR CONCERNS? LIKE MOST OF OUR COLLEAGUES AND NEIGHBORHOOD, EVERYBODY IS SAYING WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

WE ARE NOT A RICH PEOPLE. WE ARE A COMMON PEOPLE.

SO WE NEED A JUSTICE HERE. SO PLEASE THINK ABOUT IT.

WHAT CONCERNS WE HAVE HERE IS WE CAME TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THINKING THAT IT'S A VERY GREENERY NEIGHBORHOOD, VERY CLEAR, VERY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS VERY GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS IN THE GREENERY AREA.

IF YOU START CUTTING OFF THE TREES AND TRYING TO BUILD APARTMENTS, WE ARE GOING TO LOSE OUR SECURITY.

OUR KIDS ARE NOT SAFE. WOULD THEY? THE WHOEVER, THE [INAUDIBLE] THEY DIDN'T TELL THAT IT'S GOING TO BE APARTMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

NOW COMING AND DOING, GIVING PERMISSION BACK AND FORTH.

IT'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO RISK OUR LIFE.

SO PLEASE REQUEST AND HELP THE POOR PEOPLE, COMMON PEOPLE.

SO AS AN ELECTED PEOPLE, YOU GUYS NEED TO THINK ABOUT OUR REQUEST SINCERELY.

AND PLEASE CONSIDER OUR COMMON PEOPLE REQUEST.

AND MOST OF THE PROBLEMS EVERYBODY EXPLAINED I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT ANYTHING.

TRAFFIC IS A BIG PROBLEM AND A LOT OF APARTMENTS ARE VACANT.

WHY DO YOU NEED NEW APARTMENTS? A LOT OF APARTMENTS ARE VACANT HERE.

WE DON'T NEED NEW APARTMENTS AT ALL IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT TRAFFIC IN THAT EXACTLY OPPOSITE.

WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO ENTER ON CENTRAL PARK. SO PLEASE CONSIDER AS A COMMON MAN REQUEST AS ELECTED PEOPLE.

PLEASE CONSIDER OUR EMOTIONS. DEFINITELY WHO WE ARE HOPING THAT YOU WILL GIVE A FAVORABLE DECISION TO OUR.

AND PLEASE DO THE WIN WIN SITUATION. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LISA NOWAK.

AND THEN THAT'S THE LAST CARD WE HAVE THIS EVENING. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD PLEASE MAKE SURE TO FILL OUT A CARD AT THIS TIME. LISA.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. I AM REACHING OUT TONIGHT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER ASSISTANCE YOU CAN DO TO GET THE WORD OUT.

[00:30:02]

HERE'S THE SURVEY. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO SEND A NEWSLETTER OUT OR ADD SOMETHING IN.

THERE ARE TWO DAYS LEFT FOR PEOPLE TO FILL THAT OUT AND OPPOSE THE LINE THAT'S COMING DOWN THROUGH MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

I WENT DOOR KNOCKING AGAIN TODAY. I DID MEET WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS ON THE AFFECTED LINE.

THEY KNEW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THIS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE SOME SORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION EMAIL LIST THAT YOU COULD LET THE HEADS OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS KNOW SO THEY COULD LET THEIR NEIGHBORS KNOW. I STOPPED BY ANOTHER LOCATION TODAY NEAR A SCHOOL.

HAVE ANY IDEA THIS WAS POTENTIALLY COMING NEAR THEM? SO YOU DID A GREAT JOB RESEARCHING AND PUTTING A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT IN AND GETTING A LETTER WRITTEN.

WE GOT TWO DAYS LEFT TO STILL MAKE NOISE FOR ITC AND LET THEM KNOW WE DON'T WANT THAT LINE HERE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE. PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED AT 6:30 P.M..

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS THE TOWNSHIP MANAGER REPORT. MANAGER DEMPSEY. YES.

[6. TOWNSHIP MANAGER REPORT ]

SO THE FIRST ONE IS RELATED TO ITC ONEIDA TO SABINE LAKE PROJECT.

SO A FEW UPDATES THERE. WE DID SUBMIT THE LETTER AND THE RESOLUTION DIRECTLY TO ITC STAFF ELECTRONICALLY.

THEY'VE CONFIRMED RECEIPT. WE ALSO SUBMITTED IT VIA THEIR PORTAL SEEKING INPUT.

WE WILL ALSO SUBMIT ALL OF THE LETTERS AND EMAILS THAT WE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION TO THAT COLLECTIVELY.

THOSE ONES, AGAIN, THAT CAME DIRECTLY TO THE TOWNSHIP THAT WILL GO TO ITC AS WELL TOMORROW.

IN TERMS OF SORT OF GETTING THE WORD OUT, WE DID DO ADDITIONAL SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS ON FRIDAY TO GET THE WORD OUT.

WE DID PUT IT IN OUR ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER AS WELL FOR THE TOWNSHIP THAT WENT OUT LAST WEEK IN ADDITION TO THAT.

SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO WRAP THOSE THINGS UP HERE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS AND GET THEM ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE RECEIVED.

WITH RESPECT TO THE EARLIER COMMENTS REGARDING H.R.

2289 AND FCC RULES. I DID SPEAK WITH JUDY ALLEN AT THE MICHIGAN TOWNSHIPS ASSOCIATION.

THEY ARE MONITORING THAT SITUATION CLOSELY. THEY EXPECT A CALL TO ACTION TO COME UP SHORTLY.

THEY'RE TRYING TO TIME THAT APPROPRIATELY WITH WHERE THEY THINK IT WOULD BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE IN TERMS OF THE LEGISLATION'S TIMING AND THE RULEMAKING.

SO WE ARE CONTINUING TO FOLLOW THAT ISSUE, AND WE'LL KEEP THE BOARD UPDATED ON THAT.

AND THEN A COUPLE OF THINGS RELATED. WELL, ONE RELATED TO OUR EVENT THIS SUNDAY.

SO THE POLAR DASH AND SPLASH, WHICH WAS RESCHEDULED BECAUSE IT WAS TOO COLD IN JANUARY.

WE'LL SEE WHAT THE TEMPERATURE IS LIKE ON SUNDAY.

MIGHT BE CONSIDERABLY WARMER, BUT THAT IS THIS SUNDAY AT A VARIETY OF TIMES, PEOPLE CAN GO ON OUR WEBSITE TO LEARN MORE DETAILS.

AS FAR AS WHEN EVERYTHING IS HAPPENING WITH RESPECT TO THE 5K AND THE FAMILY WALK AND THE POLAR PLUNGE AS WELL.

AND THEN JUST A SHOUT OUT TO OUR TREASURER'S OFFICE AND OUR UTILITY BILLING STAFF.

IT WAS A NONSTOP PARADE OF PEOPLE COMING INTO THE TOWNSHIP TODAY TO MEET THEIR WINTER TAX DEADLINE.

SO WE APPRECIATE ALL OF THE FRONT OFFICE STAFF WHO WORKED TOGETHER TO PROCESS ALL THOSE PAYMENTS FOR TAX DAY.

AND FOR ANYBODY THAT IS GOING TO COME IN LATE YOU KNOW, THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY A LATE FEE THAT'S STATE MANDATED.

SO WE DO COMMUNICATE THAT TO OUR RESIDENTS. WE ARE NOT IN CONTROL OF THAT.

THAT IS A STATE MANDATE. BUT WE APPRECIATE EVERYBODY THAT CAME IN TODAY AND PAID ON TIME AND AGAIN, APPRECIATE ALL THE STAFF'S EFFORT DOING THAT. SO WITH THAT, THAT WRAPS UP MY UPDATES.

OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS OF MANAGER DEMPSEY? SEEING NONE WE MOVE ON TO BOARD MEMBER REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.

[7. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ]

YEAH. LAST WEDNESDAY MORNING, I GOT TO ATTEND THE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT BOARD'S ANNUAL BREAKFAST.

A ROOM FULL OF WONKS WHO REALLY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE INTERSECTIONS BETWEEN ALL OF OUR MUNICIPALITIES.

AS WE KNOW WATER DOES NOT CARE WHAT MUNICIPALITY YOU ARE IN.

MERIDIAN IS IT WAS IN THAT MEETING AND IS REGULARLY HERALDED FOR OUR USE OF GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT IN OUR BUILDING CODES. SO, YOU KNOW, KUDOS TO THE MANY PEOPLE WHO WORK HERE WHO HAVE MADE THAT.

SO, I MEAN, WITH OVER 30% OF OUR TOWNSHIP BEING CONSIDERED AT LEAST BY SOME GOVERNMENT BODY WETLAND, I THINK IT IS A NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO BUILD IN THE WAY WE DO AND RESPECT GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT.

I REALLY JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT FOR A SHOUT OUT TO THE STAFF, WHO I'M SURE KNOW A LOT MORE OF THE SCIENCE THAN I DO FROM THAT MORNING WHEN I WAS TAKING

[00:35:02]

OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WITH ACTIVITIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS TO REPORT. SEEING NONE, WE MOVE ON.

NEXT UP ON OUR AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA THIS EVENING.

[8. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ]

CLERK DEMAS HAS THE CLOSED SESSION MINUTES IN HER POSSESSION.

AS IS REQUIRED. AND SO WE WILL NEED TO REMOVE THOSE OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, ELIMINATING ITEM 9B2.

SO IF WE COULD HAVE THAT BE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION, WE WOULD CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT.

TRUSTEE WILSON. MOVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE REGULAR AGENDA.

I'M SORRY. MOVE THE AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF.

OR DO WE DO IT NOW? NO.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 9B2 FEBRUARY 3, 2026. CLOSED SESSION MINUTES.

IT'S BEEN MOVED BY TRUSTEE WILSON. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY TREASURER BURGHARDT.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

[9. CONSENT AGENDA ]

THE BILLS, THE 2026 ASPHALT SPOT REPAIR CONTRACT, THE BRIGHTLINE IT HPE ALLETRA SAAS CONTRACT RENEWAL FROM OUR IT DEPARTMENT, THE DISPOSAL OF SOME SURPLUS EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES AS WE HAVE SOMETIMES AND AN APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FROM DALMAC, WHICH IS A GREAT NEW ACRONYM, I LEARNED. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING? SO MOVED. MOVED BY TREASURER BURGHARDT. SUPPORT.

SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE TREZISE. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE, WILL TEMPORARY CLERK LENTZ PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

YES, I WILL. TREASURER BURGHARDT. YES. TRUSTEE LENTZ, YES.

TRUSTEE SUNDLAND. YES. TRUSTEE TREZISE. YES. TRUSTEE WILSON.

YES. TRUSTEE. EXCUSE ME. SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON.

YES. MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS OUR FIRST ACTION ITEM OF THE

[10.A. Village of Okemos Brownfield Plan Termination ]

WITH US THIS EVENING TO GIVE US A BRIEF INTRODUCTION.

WE HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, AMBER CLARK.

DIRECTOR CLARK. GOOD EVENING. HOPE YOU ALL ARE HAVING A GREAT DAY.

CLOSE TO THE DAY. AT OUR FEBRUARY 6TH MEETING, WE HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE ACT FOR TERMINATING A BROWNFIELD PLAN AS WELL AS HELD A DISCUSSION. NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE WE LAST MET TO DISCUSS THAT.

WE HAD HAVE AN APPROVED BROWNFIELD PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS PROJECT THAT'S CONNECTED TO AN MUPUD THAT SEVERAL OF YOU ARE VERY WELL AWARE OF.

AND THE PROJECT HAS HIT SEVERAL SNAGS THAT VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT OCCURRED.

THE TWO YEARS OF NO ACTIVITY FOR APPROVED ELIGIBLE PLAN ACTIVITIES BASED ON THE PLAN HAS NOT OCCURRED.

IN YOUR PACKET TONIGHT IS A RESOLUTION THAT, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO APPROVE, WOULD TERMINATE THE PLAN.

AND ALSO THERE IS A SECTION MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE TERMINATED ANY AGREEMENTS AS WELL.

SO THE ACT OF REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT CLEARLY REMOVES THE PLAN AND THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FROM THE SITE AND FROM THE TOWNSHIP.

SHOULD A FUTURE PROJECT COME FORWARD, THEY COULD COME FORWARD TO THE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE BOARD TO GET AN APPROVED PLAN.

HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. SIMPLE TERMINATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TRUSTEE TREZISE. WELL, I THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS AT THE LAST REGULAR BOARD MEETING.

AND IN EFFECT, THIS BROWNFIELD AGREEMENT IS DEFUNCT BY NONUSE, AND THEY'D HAVE TO START ALL OVER AGAIN IN ORDER TO BUILD THERE ANYWAY, BECAUSE THE MUPUD HAS EXPIRED.

CORRECT. SO LEAVING THIS ON THE BOOKS DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.

SO I WOULD MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS BROWNFIELD PLAN, AS APPROVED BY THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP BOARD ON OCTOBER 24TH, 2022, AND AS AMENDED SUBSEQUENTLY.

I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME CHANGES TO IT. TO THE PLAN? WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THE VILLAGE PLAN.

OKAY I'M SORRY I'M THINKING OF A DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS TO THIS PLAN. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY TRUSTEE TREZISE.

SECOND. SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WILSON. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO TERMINATE THE PLAN?

[00:40:05]

THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO US WITH MOST LIKELY A DIFFERENT PLAN ANYWAY, CONSIDERING THAT THE LAST TIME WE SPOKE, WE ASKED THEM TO COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT PLAN. AND SO THE TENANTS OF IT, THE NONUSE OF IT, ALL THE STARS ARE ALIGNING FOR US TO NEED TO, YOU KNOW, DO THIS AND GET THEM BACK ON THE RIGHT TRACK, HOPEFULLY SO THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING COMING IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE, WE WILL SEE.

BUT FOR NOW, WE MUST GET RID OF THIS ONE IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD.

SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT THIS EVENING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WILL THE TEMPORARY CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YES. TRUSTEE LENTZ. YES. TRUSTEE SUNDLAND. YES.

TRUSTEE TREZISE. YES. TRUSTEE WILSON. YES. SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON.

YES. TREASURER BURGHARDT. YES. PASSES SIX ZERO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM 10.B.

[10.B. 2026-2027 TPOAM Professional Supervisory Association Tentative Agreement ]

WE HAVE MANAGER DEMPSEY HERE TO TELL US A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT.

YES. THANK YOU. AND GOOD EVENING AGAIN. SO BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF TO APPROVE THE 2026 2027 AGREEMENT WITH THE PROFESSIONAL SUPERVISORY ASSOCIATION.

SO AFTER A FEW MONTHS OF BACK AND FORTH NEGOTIATIONS, I THINK WE CAME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT BOTH PARTIES SEEM TO HAVE ACCEPTED AS REASONABLE THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR EMPLOYEES WHILE ALSO MEETING THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TOWNSHIP BOARD IN TERMS OF HAVING, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, LOOKING AT LONG TERM FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY.

SO THE OVERALL AGREEMENT PROVIDES 3% INCREASES FOR EACH OF THE TWO YEARS OF THE AGREEMENT.

WE DO HAVE SOME STEP INCREASES FOR SELECT POSITIONS, SORT OF RECOGNIZING THAT A NUMBER OF OUR PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS, PARTICULARLY AS THEY RELATE TO THE OVERALL MARKET FOR CERTAIN POSITIONS AS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED IN RECENT YEARS.

SO TRYING TO MOVE THE DIAL A LITTLE BIT THERE AND THEN PROVIDING SOME ADDITIONAL CASH PAYMENTS TO HELP ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS RELATED TO THE IMPACTS OF INFLATION RELATIVE TO SALARIES AND RELATIVE TO 3% INCREASES COMPARED TO SEEING COSTS GO UP 4 OR 5, 6 OR HIGHER IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGES. AND THEN THE OTHER ASPECT HERE WAS TRYING TO CHANGE SOME OF THE OTHER BENEFITS THAT DON'T HAVE NECESSARILY A SIGNIFICANT FISCAL IMPACT, BUT PROVIDE SOME GREATER FLEXIBILITY TO OUR EMPLOYEES.

SO ADJUSTING THINGS LIKE BEREAVEMENT LEAVE, SMALL TWEAKS TOO, SICK LEAVE BUYBACKS, AS WELL AS PROVIDING SOME ADDITIONAL LONGEVITY PAY. SO AGAIN, ENHANCEMENTS THAT HOPEFULLY PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT BETTER BENEFIT TO OUR EMPLOYEES WITHOUT, AGAIN, SORT OF BREAKING THE BANK, SO TO SPEAK.

SO WITH THAT, AGAIN, IT'S STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT.

WE DID, OF COURSE, RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT IN THIS CASE.

AND THEN I ALSO JUST FOR SORT OF A LOOK AHEAD HERE, PROVIDED THE REMAINDER OF THE CONTRACTS AND THEIR EXPIRATION DATES.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE SEVERAL ADDITIONAL CONTRACTS THAT ARE COMING UP AT THE END OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR, AND THE BALANCE OF THOSE WILL BE NEXT CALENDAR YEAR.

SO THIS WILL BE AN ONGOING PROCESS FOR THE BOARD HERE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.

BUT WITH THAT, I'LL STOP RIGHT THERE AND OPEN IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS? SO THIS THEN JOINS THE CONTRACTS THAT WILL EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31ST, 2027 BECAUSE THIS IS A TWO YEAR AGREEMENT NOW, NOT A THREE YEAR AGREEMENT. YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT.

SO WE HAVE TYPICALLY BEEN DOING THREE YEARS AS OF LATE.

BUT THIS ONE THAT WAS ONE OF THE POINTS OF GOING BACK AND FORTH.

WE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT TIMELINES AND I THINK THE UNION FELT THIS WAS THE MOST COMFORTABLE.

I THINK THE OTHER ASPECT OF IT IS CERTAINLY, AS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLANNING, AS WE GET INTO DOING THE FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL FORECAST, THAT WILL HELP ILLUMINATE SORT OF OUR ISSUES AS WE GO FORWARD AS WELL.

SO THAT'LL BE BENEFICIAL, I THINK, FOR BOTH PARTIES IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT OUR CURRENT OBLIGATIONS ARE, BUT ALSO WHAT CHANGES THE FUTURE OBLIGATIONS WOULD LOOK LIKE.

AND SO HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE WITHIN THIS UNION? SO I BELIEVE WE HAVE A DOZEN POSITIONS. I THINK WE HAVE 11 RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE 2 IN 1 POSITION.

AND THEN I THINK WE HAVE TWO. WE HAVE ONE OPENING.

THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS STILL AN OPEN POSITION THAT WE HAVE.

[00:45:01]

AND THAT'S DEFINITELY ONE OF THOSE ONES WHERE WE'VE SEEN SALARIES INCREASE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANTLY ACROSS THE REGION AND THE STATE.

CERTAINLY NOT HAVING MANY QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO DO THAT JOB WOULD CAUSE THAT TO HAPPEN.

AND THEN WHEN WE PASSED OUR ANNUAL BUDGET FOR 2026, WE PASSED IT WITH THE 3% EXPECTED IN THAT, RIGHT? CORRECT. YES. THE PRESUMPTION ACROSS THE BOARD WAS 3%.

OKAY. WELL I'LL THEN SAY THAT I COMMEND YOU AND DIRECTOR TITHOF AND THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEYS FOR WORKING TO KEEP US WITHIN OUR BUDGET. AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, NEGOTIATING THESE AGREEMENTS IS NEVER AN EASY TASK. BUT I THINK WHEN WE ARE ABLE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT EVERYONE CAN BE HAPPY ABOUT, WE'VE DONE WELL. AND SO THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU PUT IN, THAT DIRECTOR TITHOF PUT IN, THAT EVERYONE ON THE UNION SIDE PUT IN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAME TO AN EQUITABLE AGREEMENT THAT EVERYONE CAN WALK AWAY HAPPY WITH.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT AND APPRECIATE OUR EMPLOYEES WHO PUT IN THE HARD WORK DAY AFTER DAY.

ABSOLUTELY. TRUSTEE WILSON. GIVEN YOUR POINTS THAT YOU'VE MADE, WHICH I ALSO CONCUR WITH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE 2026-2027 TPOAM PROFESSIONAL SUPERVISORY ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT, AS OUTLINED IN THE MEDIATOR'S RECOMMENDED SETTLEMENT AND REVISED WAGE SCALE.

BEEN MOVED BY TRUSTEE WILSON. SUPPORT. SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE LENTZ.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC? JUST AS SOMEONE WHO'S GOING THROUGH THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME READING THESE, I'M ENCOURAGED TO SEE THAT WE'RE TREATING OUR STAFF HERE WITH RESPECT AND GIVING THEM A COST OF LIVING RAISES TO SHOW THAT WE DO APPRECIATE WHAT THEY DO. AND IT FEELS, CONSIDERING WE WERE STICKING IN BUDGET, THAT YOU KNOW, IT'S COMMENDABLE. AND I ALSO THANK YOU FOR FORMATTING IT IN A WAY THAT WAS EASY FOR ME WITH THAT FIRST TIME LOOKING THROUGH IT. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? TRUSTEE TREZISE. I'VE BEEN THROUGH A BUNCH OF THESE TYPES OF NEGOTIATIONS.

NOT WITH THE TOWNSHIP, BUT THEY'RE DIFFICULT ON BOTH SIDES.

ESPECIALLY WITH PUBLIC FUNDING. I USUALLY START MY NEGOTIATIONS BY TELLING THE OTHER SIDE, I CAN'T PAY YOU WHAT YOU'RE WORTH, AND YOU CAN'T TAKE WHAT I OFFER, OR YOU HAVE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE. AND I CONGRATULATE THE EFFORTS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY FINAL COMMENTS? SEEING NONE.

TRUSTEE LENTZ, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YES.

TRUSTEE SUNDLAND. YES. TRUSTEE TREZISE. YES. TRUSTEE WILSON.

YES. SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON. YES. TREASURER BURGHARDT.

YES. TRUSTEE LENTZ. YES. SIX ZERO PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 11.A. AUTHENTIC PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS.

[11.A. Authentix-Proposed Settlement Agreement Modification ]

MR. SCHMITT. MR. SUPERVISOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BRIEFLY. I GOT THE WRONG GLASSES ON.

SO JUST AS A REMINDER TO EVERYONE SINCE IT HAS BEEN A COUPLE MONTHS SINCE WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROPOSAL, THIS IS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL FOR THE. THANK YOU.

FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, TO THE NORTH SORT OF SLIDING OFF OF THE PAGE THERE TO THE NORTH, TIMES SQUARE BELVEDERE IN THE CENTER AND THEN COLUMBUS TO THE SOUTH.

DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT OCCUR ON THE SOUTHERN PARCEL, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF WETLAND ON IT.

MAJORITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE IN THE MIDDLE PARCEL WITH A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL AS WELL, AGAIN, LARGELY AVOIDING ALL THE WETLANDS ON THE SITE.

BUT I WILL TOUCH ON THAT IN A SECOND. AS EVERYONE'S AWARE, THE SITE IS SUBJECT TO A CONSENT JUDGMENT, WHICH CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY USES.

ALONG THE CENTRAL PARK NEIGHBORHOOD BORDER AND COMMERCIAL USES ALONG CENTRAL PARK DRIVE AND TOWN SQUARE

[00:50:01]

I JUST WANT TO GO OVER A FEW THINGS THAT THE BOARD HAD BROUGHT UP AT THEIR LAST MEETING.

AND THEN I KNOW THE DEVELOPER IS HERE AS WELL THIS EVENING, ALONG WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, TO DISCUSS THINGS WITH THE BOARD. AND SO, YOU KNOW, FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT QUESTION, CERTAINLY VERY EASILY DONE. I THINK WE'VE NOTED THAT OBVIOUSLY THIS AREA WILL BE PRIMED FOR THAT AS LONG AS WELL AS THIS AREA AND THE AREA ALONG CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, ALONG WITH PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN AREA.

ULTIMATELY, THE SCOPE AND SCALE OF THAT I CAN'T NAIL DOWN FOR YOU UNTIL WE HAVE FULL GRADING RIGHT ONCE, UNTIL WE GET FURTHER ALONG IN THE PROCESS, I CAN'T TELL YOU IT'S GOING TO BE 7.2 ACRES OR 4.3 ACRES, BUT CERTAINLY I THINK THE INTENTION IS THAT SHOULD THIS GO FORWARD, THAT ANY UNDEVELOPED AREAS WILL BE PUT INTO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT.

THAT'S A RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD ONE. STAFF DID REACH OUT TO THE ROAD DEPARTMENT AND THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE AND BOTH, YOU KNOW, HAVE SEEN IT. DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENT YET UNTIL WE GET FURTHER ALONG IN THE ENGINEERING.

I WILL NOTE THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE HAS HAD SOME INITIAL DISCUSSIONS WITH RESPECT TO A DRAIN THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PUT ON THIS PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY. AND SO THEY'VE GOT SOME HISTORY THAT THEY'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE DEVELOPER.

AND SO AGAIN, UNTIL WE GET INTO A FULL ENGINEERING, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF FEEDBACK ON THIS.

THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS, BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS YOU'LL RECALL, MADE NO RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OTHER THAN, YES, IT SHOULD BE REZONED. WE'VE INCLUDED WHAT WAS THE DRAFT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE, SO YOU CAN SEE THE CONDITIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WERE DISCUSSING. CERTAINLY, ALL OF THOSE ARE ABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN ANY AMENDMENT SHOULD THE BOARD CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD. OBVIOUSLY, WE'LL NEED TO TWEAK SOME OF THE NUMBERS, I THINK, BECAUSE, AS YOU'LL NOTE, THAT DOES REPRESENT PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPER MAKING SORT OF THEIR MOST RECENT CHANGE TO GET IT TO THE UNIT NUMBERS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE ONE THING I DO WANT TO TOUCH ON BRIEFLY IS THERE ARE THREE SMALL WETLANDS THAT PURSUANT TO OUR CONSULTANT´S REVIEW OF THEIR CONSULTANTS REPORT ARE SMALL ENOUGH THAT THEY ARE NOT REGULATED BY EITHER THE STATE OR THE TOWNSHIP.

THEY ARE UNDER THE THRESHOLD IN OUR ORDINANCE.

TYPICALLY, WHAT WE WOULD DO IN THIS CASE, IF THEY ARE BEING FILLED IN, IS WE WOULD DETERMINE THEM TO BE NON ESSENTIAL BECAUSE THEY DO NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD UNDER THE ORDINANCE TO BE CONSIDERED REGULATED.

AND SO SHOULD WE CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF IS GOING TO RECOMMEND.

WE INCLUDE AGAIN, WANTED TO CALL IT OUT NOW BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE PAST.

CURRENTLY THE CURRENT PLANS DO SHOW A SMALL IMPACT TO ONE OF THE REGULATED WETLANDS.

THEY RECOGNIZE THE PROCESS THAT THAT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH, AND THEY FULLY INTEND ON ELIMINATING THAT.

BUT WE WILL. SHOULD THEY HAVE A WETLAND IMPACT THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH EGLE AND THROUGH THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY IF IT STAYS ON THE PLANS.

BUT THEY HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO THE FINAL NUTS AND BOLTS OF HOW TO AVOID THAT YET.

AND THEN LASTLY, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS COME UP IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS IS THIS IDEA OF THE DENSITY PER PARCEL PER ZONING.

AND SO THE VERSION OF THE QUESTION THAT THE BOARD ASKED, WHICH WAS ONE THAT HADN'T BEEN ANSWERED YET, WAS WHAT DOES THE DENSITY FOR EACH PARCEL LOOK LIKE UNDER EACH SCENARIO? RIGHT? THE RG ZONING VERSUS THE RC ZONING.

AND SO WE HAVE INCLUDED THAT IN THE ORDINANCE.

I WILL AGAIN REITERATE THIS IS NOT THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE UNDER THE CURRENT SETUP.

SO EITHER OF THESE NUMBERS WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BECAUSE THIS ASSUMES THE CURRENT ACREAGE IS ALL MULTIFAMILY ZONING. THESE NUMBERS ASSUME NO COMMERCIAL ZONING.

AND YES, ODDLY ENOUGH, IN NORTHERN IN THE CENTRAL PARCEL ARE EQUAL.

I'VE DONE THE MATH SIX TIMES, LITERALLY TO MAKE SURE.

BUT THE WAY OUR ORDINANCE WORKS IS YOU ESSENTIALLY TAKE OUT THE WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAIN, AND THEN YOU GET A CREDIT FOR IT ON THE BACK END.

AND THE MATH JUST HAPPENS TO MATH IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY'RE EQUAL BASED ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE WETLANDS.

I LITERALLY DID IT SIX TIMES. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IT'S NOT A TYPO.

AND SO THAT'S SORT OF THE THEORETICAL NUMBER BASED ON THE ACREAGE OF THE THREE PARCELS, THE WETLANDS ON EACH OF THE THREE PARCELS,

[00:55:01]

THEY I THINK, HAD ONE SLIGHT CHANGE TO ONE OF THE WETLANDS.

I BELIEVE IT WAS THIS ONE WHERE THEY SORT OF ADDED A LITTLE PIECE.

IT HAS NO TANGIBLE IMPACT ON THE PROJECT. AND THEN TO ADD ON TO THAT, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED THIS MAP IN THEIR PACKET, WHICH I'M SURE THEY'LL SPEAK ABOUT FURTHER.

I JUST WANT TO TOUCH BRIEFLY ON THIS. FROM A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE, THIS STAFF HAS NOT DONE A FULL REVIEW OF THIS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT IT INVOLVES A ZONING DISTRICT THAT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.

BUT IT APPEARS TO BE FEASIBLE. THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS JUMPING OUT AT US FROM A SCALE PERSPECTIVE THAT TELLS ME THAT THIS IS OBVIOUSLY MORE THAN WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING.

I'M SURE THERE WILL BE SOME TWEAK IF THIS WERE TO GO FORWARD, WOULD BE SOME TWEAKS HERE AND THERE TO MEET THE UNDERLYING CODE REQUIREMENTS.

BUT THIS IS ROUGHLY FUNCTIONALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT WE HAVE DONE A FULL REVIEW, DONE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF IT, AND IT LOOKS FEASIBLE. AND SO AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STILL AT A POINT WHERE WE WOULD SEEK FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD ON HOW TO PROCEED. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT REGARDLESS OF THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD AT THIS POINT, IT WILL BE BENEFICIAL FOR STAFF IN DETERMINING WHAT TO BRING FORWARD TO YOU AND THE DETAILS TO BRING FORWARD TO YOU IF THE BOARD IS CLEAR ON WHAT THEY EXPECT TO SEE IN AN APPROVAL AND WHAT THE REASONS BEHIND WHY THEY WOULD EXPECT TO SEE A DENIAL.

AND SO CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, AFTER THIS MEETING, WE'LL REGROUP AND DETERMINE HOW, AS STAFF, WE NEED TO BRING THIS FORWARD TO SORT OF TRY AND PUT A BOW ON THE END OF THIS PROJECT, AT LEAST THIS STAGE OF IT.

AND WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BOARD MEMBERS, I THINK WE'LL SAVE QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

MR. KLAUS, WELCOME BACK. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS MARK KLAUS. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, ISLAND DEVELOPMENT.

I'M GONNA TRY TO DO THIS CONCISELY AS I CAN. THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW ME, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM WITH THAT SOMETIMES, SO BEAR WITH ME. AS I'VE GONE THROUGH THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETINGS, BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND REVIEWED COMMUNICATION COMING IN FROM PREDOMINANTLY OUR NEIGHBORS. THERE SEEMS TO BE A ONGOING CONFUSION OR SOME LEVEL OF CONFUSION AS TO THE REQUEST THAT IS ACTUALLY BEFORE THE TOWNSHIP RIGHT NOW.

WE CAME ALONG WITH CONTINENTAL ASKING THAT AN AGREEMENT THAT WAS REACHED I THINK NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO AMENDING A JUDGMENT OR AN AGREEMENT ON A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE MODIFY THAT AGREEMENT.

IT IS NOT A REZONING REQUEST. I THINK MANY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE BEEN WRITING LETTERS SAYING, WHY DON'T YOU DO IT ALL THIS WAY? THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL. WHY DON'T WE DO IT ALL THIS WAY? AND IT'S REALLY AN OCCASION IN WHICH THERE NEEDS TO BE.

AND WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE KNOW TO DO TO ENCOURAGE DIALOG BETWEEN THE TOWNSHIP.

THE TOWNSHIP BOARD OURSELVES TO HAVE DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC.

BECAUSE IT'S AN IDEA THAT WE HAVE TO AGREE WITH EACH OTHER TO MAKE ANY CHANGE.

IF WE DON'T AGREE, THEN IT JUST STAYS THE WAY IT IS.

SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN A TYPICAL REZONING COMING BEFORE YOU WHERE YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES TO IT, VOTE ON IT. AND THEN THE LANDOWNERS STUCK WITH WHAT THAT DECISION WAS.

IN THIS SITUATION, THE ONLY THING WOULD BE STUCK WITH IS WHAT WE ALL AGREED TO 20 YEARS AGO.

I JUST KNOW, AGAIN, READING THE COMMENTS AND SO ON, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

WE ALL NEED TO AGREE OR WE JUST STAYS WHERE IT IS.

SO WE'RE REALLY ON SETTLEMENT OR LEAVING IT ALONE.

THE CURRENT COMMERCIAL ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE BLUE AREA ON THE MAP THAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS AN AREA THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ZONED IN RC MULTIPLE FAMILY CATEGORY.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BOTH AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL AND A LITTLE BIT HERE.

AND THE FACT THAT WE SEE THIS AREA. THE POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPING THIS IN THE COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE MAP,

[01:00:02]

WE SEE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP THE TOWNSHIP CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN HASLETT AND DOWNTOWN OKEMOS, AS OPPOSED TO INCREASING THE DENSITY OF COMMERCIAL IN THE CENTRAL CORE OF THE OVERALL TOWNSHIP.

SO WE SEE THIS AS A PLUS FOR THE COMMUNITY. WE SEE THIS AS A PLUS FOR THE TRAFFIC SITUATION BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE. AND WE ALSO SEE THIS AS A PLUS FOR ACCESS THE USE OF BELVIDERE AND OR COLUMBUS DRIVE HAS BEEN ISSUED OR MENTIONED NUMEROUS TIMES, BOTH VERBALLY AND IN LETTERS FROM THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOOD. THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE NOW WITH THIS AMENDMENT IS TO SET FORTH A LAYOUT, A DESIGN, A PLAN THAT BOTH THE LANDOWNER, THE DEVELOPER AND THE TOWNSHIP CAN AGREE UPON.

ONE OF THE BIG POINTS IS DON'T DRIVE ON COLUMBUS AND DON'T DRIVE ON BELVIDERE.

DON'T BRING TRAFFIC THERE. PUT YOUR TRAFFIC OUT ONTO CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.

IF WE WERE TO DEVELOP IT AS THE PLAN THAT TIM HAS SHARED WITH YOU, THAT WE ACTUALLY SHARED WITH THE TOWNSHIP.

AGAIN, HE'S NOT GONE THROUGH IT. AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT'S THE PLAN THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT, BUT THAT IS A GOOD CONCEPT OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE'S 98 APARTMENT UNITS. THEY ARE CLOSER TO THE SUBDIVISION.

THEY HAVE ACCESS OUT ONTO THE STREETS, BOTH BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS.

AND THEN THE COMMERCIAL WOULD HAVE THE SAME. VERSUS IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN THAT WAS ON THE SCREEN BEFORE THAT, THE ONE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, WE'VE ELIMINATED THE STREET, CUTS OUT TO BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS.

WE'VE MOVED THE BUILDINGS AT LEAST 110FT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. SO THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT.

AND KNOWING WHAT WILL BE DEVELOPED AND HAVING YOUR STAMP OF APPROVAL ON THAT.

THERE'S ALSO BEEN CRITICISM AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL, PERHAPS NOT AT THE BOARD LEVEL, BUT ALSO FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THESE APARTMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT BEFORE THE SINGLE FAMILY.

SHOULD HAVE DONE THE APARTMENTS FIRST. IT WASN'T OUR DECISION TO DO IT IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS.

THE TOWNSHIP WITHIN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE REACHED BEFORE REQUIRED THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION BE COMPLETED FIRST.

SO THAT CRITICISM IS REALLY BACK TO WHAT WAS REQUIRED WITH THE PREVIOUS BOARD WITH THE TOWNSHIP AS TO THE ORDER OF EVENTS THAT HAPPENED.

THE SINGLE FAMILY HAD TO BE BUILT FIRST. OUR GOAL WITH YOU AS A TOWNSHIP BOARD IS TO HAVE DIALOG ON THIS TOPIC. IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT TOUGH. IT'S HARD IF WE SIT DOWN AT A TABLE AND HAVE A CONVERSATION, IT WORKS REALLY WELL, HAVING IT, ME STANDING HERE AND YOU THERE AND OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH THIS AT DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE ROOM, IT'S HARD TO HAVE THAT. WE'VE TRIED OUR BEST TO COMMUNICATE TO YOU WHAT OUR GOALS ARE WITH THE PROPERTY, WHY WE SEE THIS BENEFICIAL, WHY WE SEE THIS AS A BETTER PLAN THAN WHAT WE ALL AGREED TO 20 YEARS AGO.

THINGS HAVE CHANGED. THE NEED FOR DIVERSITY IN HOUSING HAS CHANGED, AND WE THINK THIS IS A METHOD IN WHICH WE CAN ALL COME OUT AHEAD. WE WANT TO HAVE THOUGHTFUL, MEANINGFUL DIALOG WITH YOU ON THIS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO DO IT OTHER THAN TO STAND HERE. AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TALKING WITH ONE ANOTHER.

I'M SPEAKING AND THEN I GO SIT DOWN AND THEN YOU TALK AND IT'S HARD TO DO IT THAT WAY.

BUT WHATEVER YOU CAN DO, WE WILL DO WITH YOU.

WE ENCOURAGE THAT. WE WANT TO MAKE THIS WORK.

WE THINK IT'S THE BEST THING FOR THE TOWNSHIP.

AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IT COME THROUGH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE MR. HAHN HERE FROM CONTINENTAL AS WELL.

GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS. EXCUSE ME.

ERIC HAHN WITH CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES. ADDRESS IS W 134 AND 8675 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY AND MENOMONEE FALLS, WISCONSIN. SO FIRST, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE SPEAKING WITH YOU ALL AGAIN AFTER OUR FIRST VISIT IN DECEMBER AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK TIM SCHMITT AND THE PLANNING STAFF FOR PRODUCING THE LATEST STAFF REPORT ISSUED TO ALL FOR THIS EVENING.

[01:05:01]

THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR ME AS THE DEVELOPER TO ADDRESS EACH OF THOSE ITEMS AND EXPRESS OUR COMMITMENT.

BUT FIRST I THINK SOMETHING THAT'S MAYBE OVERARCHING AND IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT WOULD BE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE KEY CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS AND SOME OF THE MISCONCEPTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

THE FIRST PLACE I'D LIKE TO BEGIN, WHICH WAS IN SOME OF THE CORRESPONDENCE THROUGH THE WEEKEND, IS THE DEMAND FOR RENTAL HOUSING AS INDICATED BY THE TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY.

SO I THINK THE MAIN PIECE THERE, IF YOU SAW IT WAS IT EXPRESSES A FIGURE OF 492 RENTAL UNITS, WHICH IS THE DEMAND OVER FIVE YEARS FOR RENTAL.

IT'S NOT A CAP ON DEVELOPMENT. THAT JUST IS A GOOD INDICATION OF THE DEMAND.

THAT EQUALS ABOUT 98 UNITS A YEAR. I THINK ONE OF THE LETTERS FROM THE NEIGHBOR STATED, WELL, THIS IS ROUGHLY 300 UNITS. THAT'S WAY MORE THAN WHAT'S NEEDED.

BUT YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT IF THIS PROJECT WERE TO MOVE FORWARD AFTER THE SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT, WHICH WE FULLY INTEND, THE FIRST DELIVERIES WOULDN'T BE UNTIL MID TO LATE 2027.

OUR LEASE UP PACE WITH 288 UNITS, FOR INSTANCE WOULD BE ABOUT MAYBE 13 TO 17 UNITS A MONTH.

THAT TOTAL LEASE UP TIMELINE WOULD BE ABOUT 22 MONTHS.

SO THAT WOULD RANGE ALMOST TWO YEARS. SO THAT DOES COVER THE PENT UP DEMAND.

AND WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING IN THE OKEMOS HASLETT SUBMARKET IS IDENTIFIED BY THE TRI COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION IS THAT GEOGRAPHIC AREA WITH ITS DEMAND, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SUPPLY, MEANING THAT I THINK THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT, WHERE THIS HOUSING TYPE AS A MODERATE TO HIGH DENSITY HOUSING TYPE, THERE ARE SO FEW SITES IN THE TOWNSHIP THAT ARE GEARED TOWARDS THIS. AND THE ISSUES ABOUND WITH NEIGHBORS AS WE'VE SEEN, WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS WITH A VERY GENEROUS SETBACK AND SO ON.

BUT NONETHELESS, THAT DEMAND WILL CONTINUE UNLESS MORE PROJECTS LIKE THIS ARE BUILT AND THIS WILL SATISFY THE DEMAND ONLY MOMENTARILY.

FOR INSTANCE, IN SPEAKING WITH STAFF LAST YEAR, IN 2025, THERE WERE ROUGHLY 80 MULTIFAMILY PERMITS FOR NEWTON POINT AND HASLETT SQUARE.

THE 98 UNITS PER YEAR IS STILL OUTSTRIPPING. THAT DEMAND IS OUTSTRIPPING THE SUPPLY, AND THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE.

SO THAT'S JUST A BIT OF FEEDBACK ON THE REALITIES.

AND THE DEMAND IS REAL. OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T BE HERE.

THE SECOND MISCONCEPTION I'D REALLY LIKE TO ADDRESS IS THE PROPERTY VALUES, ESPECIALLY FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND AND ALSO WHO ARE OUR RESIDENTS AND THE QUALITY.

THIS WILL BE A MARKET RATE, PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED COMMUNITY EXPECTED TO GROW IN VALUE EVERY YEAR.

WILL BE A CORPORATE TAXPAYER, FOR INSTANCE. AND WHAT WE INTEND TO SERVE LOCAL PROFESSIONALS, RETIREES AND SMALL FAMILIES. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AN ASSET TYPE LIKE THIS, A CLASS A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WILL REDUCE NEARBY PROPERTY VALUES. IT'S A MISCONCEPTION.

THERE'S A LOT OF DATA ON IT WITH THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE AS IT RELATES TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, ESPECIALLY IN THIS ASSET CATEGORY WHERE IT'S BRAND NEW, WE'RE PUTTING ROUGHLY 50 MILLION IN CAPITAL INTO THIS ASSET, AS SEEN BEFORE YOU. SO THIS SITE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT AS WELL, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME QUALITIES OF THIS SITE, BECAUSE IT SAT VACANT FOR SO LONG THAT ADD TO THE QUALITY, INCLUDING THE STANDS OF FORESTED TREES, THE WETLANDS WHICH I'M SURE HAVE GROWN OVER TIME WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE ROADWAYS THAT CUT OFF THOSE DRAINAGE WAYS.

IT'S BEEN A REALLY CHALLENGING SITE TO PLAN OUT, AND WE'RE PRESERVING ALMOST ALL OF THAT WITH THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL.

SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT'S A HIGH QUALITY RESIDENTIAL INVESTMENT, AND CONTINENTAL WILL BE BEHIND THAT FOR YEARS TO COME, IF WE GET THROUGH THE SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT AND ITS APPROVAL.

THE LAST TALKING POINT I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS BEFORE GETTING INTO THE KEY ELEMENTS OF THE STAFF REPORT IS WHY NOT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES INSTEAD? IT'S AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN RAISED BY THE NEIGHBORS. I THINK, AS MARK MENTIONED, THE SITE ZONING ALLOWS MULTI-FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL AND VIA THE SETTLEMENT, THAT'S NOT LIKELY SOMETHING THAT I DEVELOPMENT WILL ACCEPT.

EVEN IF THE TOWNSHIP AS THE GOVERNING BODY HAD THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

MOREOVER, IT WOULD EXACERBATE THE HOUSING SUPPLY ISSUE.

IT WOULDN'T ADDRESS THE ROUGHLY 1000 UNITS THAT ARE NEEDED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY CATEGORY.

FURTHERMORE, A PROPOSAL IN SINGLE FAMILY WOULD LIKELY ELIMINATE A LOT OF THE SAFEGUARDS THAT WE'VE PROPOSED IN OUR PLAN TO DATE.

[01:10:01]

THEY LIKELY WOULD ABUT THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ADJACENT.

AND AS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, I THINK WE'RE HEARING THAT CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS, BUT THEY WOULD LIKELY BE GREATER IF THEY HAD THOSE UNITS IMMEDIATELY IN THEIR BACKYARDS, WHICH IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN IN THE ONE AREA SHOWN IN THE CENTRAL PARCEL.

SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO GET BACK TO THE PROPOSAL ITSELF AND ADDRESS OUR COMMITMENTS BASED ON THE LAST MEETING.

SO THE FIRST THE FIRST ITEM IS RELATED TO THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.

WE ARE 100% IN SUPPORT OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT VIA DEED RESTRICTION.

IS MR. SCHMITT MENTIONED. AFTER WE GET THROUGH GRADING, THOSE AREAS WOULD BE PRESERVED IN PERPETUITY.

WE THINK THAT'S A GREAT TOOL THAT WE'VE USED IN THE PAST.

AS I MENTIONED IN THE LAST MEETING AND GRAND RAPIDS CHARTER TOWNSHIP, WE HAVE A VERY LARGE PRESERVATION EASEMENT THERE THAT'LL THAT'LL REMAIN THAT WAY.

SO THOSE TREES CAN CONTINUE TO GROW. IT'S A, YOU KNOW, CONTINUALLY AN AMENITY.

THE SECOND ITEM IS THE VEHICULAR ACCESS WE'VE MADE, AGAIN, MADE THE GREATEST STRIDES POSSIBLE WITH OUR CURRENT PLAN TO, NUMBER ONE, ELIMINATE THE DAILY VEHICULAR CONNECTIONS ON BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS.

BUT WE'RE ALSO CONSTRAINED BY THE ROADWAY COMMISSION. AS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, THEY ONLY WANT, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT AS FEW DRIVEWAYS AS POSSIBLE ON CENTRAL PARK.

SO WE'RE BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE. THE BEST OPTION WE STILL SEE WITH THIS 288 UNIT PLAN WOULD BE TO INCLUDE ONE ACCESS POINT ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, WITH EMERGENCY CONNECTIONS ELSEWHERE, AND THEN WE WOULD USE THE EXISTING CUT OR SOMETHING LIKE IT ON TIMES SQUARE DRIVE.

ONE MOMENT. THE NEXT PIECE ARE THE PLAN COMMISSION CONDITIONS.

WHILE THEY VOTED THREE THREE IN A TIE FOR FOR CERTAIN ITEMS AND DIDN'T MAKE AN OVERALL RECOMMENDATION.

THEY LISTED MANY CONDITIONS THAT MR. SCHMITT MENTIONED THAT WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH TWO STORY RESTRICTION AND HEIGHT LIMIT ALONG CENTRAL PARK ESTATES WERE FULLY COMMITTED TO THAT VIA THE PLAN COMMISSION REVIEW AND SUBSEQUENT BOARD REVIEW.

THE LARGE 110 FOOT SETBACK, FROM THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE FOR THE CENTRAL PARCEL.

WE'RE COMMITTED TO THAT. THAT'S ROUGHLY THE DEPTH OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WILL REMAIN ENTIRELY VACANT.

AN EIGHT FOOT PATH ON BELVEDERE. WE'RE COMMITTED TO THAT PUBLIC BENEFIT.

AND THE OTHER SIDEWALK AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS THAT WE PLAN TO MAKE ALONG WITH A PARKING RATIO RESTRICTION.

THAT WAS SOMETHING ELSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION CARED ABOUT. WE ALSO ARE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT LESS PAVING AND RIGHT SIZING OUR PARKING LOTS.

SO THEY SUGGESTED A ONE AND THREE QUARTER SPACE PER UNIT RATIO, WHICH WE AGREE WITH.

DOWN SHIELDING OF LIGHTING. THAT'S A STATUS QUO ITEM FOR CONTINENTAL ON ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES.

AND THEN THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL BUFFERS, THAT'S ALL IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL.

WOULD LIKE THE BOARD'S FEEDBACK ON THE WETLAND ESSENTIALITY DETERMINATION FOR THE SMALL NON-REGULATED WETLANDS.

IT WOULD MAKE THE PLAN EASIER IF WE COULD. IF WE COULD FILL THOSE AREAS, WE COULD OBVIOUSLY WORK AROUND THEM AS WELL.

THEY'RE JUST SMALL AND NOT A VERY HIGH QUALITY.

APPRECIATE THE DENSITY AND ZONING CLARIFICATION WITH THE TWO CATEGORIES.

AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO MATCH INTENSITY OF USE.

TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED ON THE SITE OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, WITH THE WETLANDS AND THE FORESTED AREAS.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT DOOR, WHICH WAS PROBABLY JUST BEING BUILT AT THE TIME THE SETTLEMENT WAS AGREED UPON.

SO WE'RE VIEWING THIS MORE OR LESS AS ZONED COMMERCIAL AND PARTIAL MULTIFAMILY USES.

IF THIS WERE BUILT, WE COULD BE COMING IN WITH THIS PROPOSAL TODAY.

IF THE RETAIL WERE VACANT, LOOKING TO REDEVELOP IT.

AND THERE ARE MANY BENEFITS OF OUR PROPOSAL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS COMPARED TO THE ALTERNATIVES.

SO IN TERMS OF THE RESPONSE, THE MODIFICATIONS TO DATE.

I'M JUST GOING TO RUN THROUGH THOSE BRIEFLY AND THEN I'LL I'LL WRAP UP HERE.

REDUCED DENSITY FROM 312 TO 288. WE EXPLAINED THE CHALLENGES IN WITH COSTS AND IN THE MARKETPLACE FOR MARKET RATE MULTIFAMILY WITHOUT SUBSIDY.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR SUBSIDIES OR INCENTIVES OR TAX ABATEMENTS, WHICH IS ALL GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.

THE SETBACKS, AS I MENTIONED, INCREASED TO 110FT.

THE LIMITATION OF TWO STORY EMERGENCY ONLY ACCESS ON BELVEDERE, THE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS, THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENTS INCLUDING THE WETLAND PRESERVATION, THE BUFFERS, STORMWATER CONTROLS THAT WILL BE GOING THROUGH ALL THE REGULATORY PROCESS SO

[01:15:08]

WE CAN AGREE TO ALL OF THOSE MODIFICATIONS VIA THE SETTLEMENT.

CORE BENEFITS. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY. WE FULLY INTEND TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSAL.

288 UNITS. WE HAVE THE EQUITY TO DO SO. WHEREAS THAT GETS MUCH MORE CHALLENGING FROM A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE.

OUR GOAL FOLLOWING APPROVAL WOULD BE TO MOVE SWIFTLY INTO DEVELOPMENT, AND THEREFORE THIS SETTLEMENT MATTER WOULD WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING ON THE BOARD OR SUBSEQUENT BOARDS PLATES IN THE FUTURE.

IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH, WITH THE QUALITY DEVELOPMENT BASED ON WHAT WE'RE OFFERING HERE.

TRAFFIC REDUCTION, ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE AMENDMENT WE'RE OFFERING HERE, 30 TO 70% FEWER TRIPS.

I KNOW THERE WAS SOME CONTENTION ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

WE'RE HAPPY TO PROVIDE MORE DATA ON THAT OR SUPPORT THE TOWNSHIP IN PURSUING ITS OWN TRAFFIC STUDY BASED ON THE USE DIFFERENTIAL.

AND THEN AGAIN, WE FOCUS THE ACCESS IT ALIGNS WITH THE MASTER PLAN WITH THE RENTAL DEMAND.

THERE ARE A FEW OTHER LARGE SITES FOR INSTITUTIONAL GRADE CLASS A MULTI-FAMILY WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.

THE OTHER SITES WOULD WOULD CHALLENGE ALL OF ALL OF THOSE NOTIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, FISCAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS. $50 MILLION INVESTMENT AT 288 UNITS.

NO PUBLIC SUBSIDIES. AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY INCREASE THE TAX REVENUE FOR THE TOWNSHIP AND CREATE HUNDREDS OF JOBS THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION.

SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WE HIGHLIGHTED, BUT THE APPROXIMATE CAGE WITH DIFFERENT SOURCES IS THIS INVESTMENT WILL SUPPORT APPROXIMATELY 700 JOBS OVER THE TERM OF ITS EXISTENCE. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE PRESENTATION I'D LIKE TO MAKE TO YOU ALL.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMENT THAT TRUSTEE SUNDLAND MADE REGARDING THE TWO BUILDINGS.

IF WE COULD JUST MOVE THEM. I THINK IT WAS YOUR CHRISTMAS WISH, AS I RECALL, WE STUDIED THAT, AND I'M SAYING WE'RE COMMITTED TO THE CONDITIONS WE DISCUSSED HERE IN ORDER TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS.

WE'D HAVE TO BACKTRACK ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

ONE BEING THE WETLAND IMPACTS. WE PROBABLY COULDN'T DO THAT WITHOUT FINDING WAYS TO MOVE THOSE BUILDINGS, AND WE WOULD IMPACT WETLANDS. ANOTHER ONE, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SOUTHERN PARCEL HERE, WHERE THE SMALL RETAIL BUILDING IS, WE'VE EVALUATED PUTTING THE SECOND BUILDING THERE THAT WOULD REQUIRE CURB CUTS ON COLUMBUS.

SO WE'D HAVE TO BACKTRACK ON THAT CONDITION THAT WE'VE SELF-IMPOSED SO.

AND ALSO IT WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER CURB CUT ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, WHICH AGAIN, WE'RE BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE WITH THE ROADWAY CONDITION.

SO THOSE ARE A FEW. AND WITH ALL OF THAT, WE COULD ELIMINATE THOSE TWO BUILDINGS.

BUT AS WE'VE TRIED TO LAY OUT FOR THE BOARD, WE WOULD NEED SUBSIDIES.

THERE'S THERE'S NO REALM OF COST REDUCTION THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE.

BECAUSE THIS IS OUR BUSINESS. MY TEAM, WE'RE TYPICALLY BUILDING BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PROJECTS OF THIS MAGNITUDE EVERY YEAR, AND ALL OF THEM ARE STRAINED FROM FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE.

AND THAT REALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, THE SCALE.

IT'S ALL ABOUT TRYING TO DRIVE DOWN THE STATIC COSTS, LIKE THE CLUBHOUSE AND POOL AND A LOT OF, IN THIS CASE, WORKING AROUND THE WETLANDS. IT'S NOT EASY WORK TO KEEP THAT GRADING COMPACT VERSUS A GREENFIELD SITE THAT WAS A FARM FIELD.

WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE ALL THOSE ELEMENTS. IT DOES ADD COST.

SO THAT'S MY PRESENTATION. I'M DEFINITELY HERE FOR QUESTIONS.

I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BOARD MEMBERS COMES BACK TO US. WE HAVE MR. HOLLAND, MR. KLAUS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM AND THE OWNERSHIP GROUP HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE.

WE CERTAINLY HAVE DIRECTOR SCHMITT AS WELL FOR ANY TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE OR COMPLIANCE RELATED QUESTIONS.

MR. SCHMITT. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD AT THIS TIME? NO, SIR. WELL, THEN WE OPEN IT UP FOR SOME DISCUSSION.

AND I'LL KICK THINGS OFF. MR. HAHN, DO YOU ALL DO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? CONTINENTAL STARTED AS A RETAIL DEVELOPER, SO.

YES, WE USED TO. WE'VE GOTTEN OUT OF THE BUSINESS AND WE MAY HAVE STATED THIS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

CONTINENTAL ITS ROOTS. WE WE BEGAN AS THE COMPANY BEGAN BEFORE I WAS THERE AS A KMART DEVELOPER IN THE 80S.

WE WERE A PREFERRED DEVELOPER FOR KOHL'S. OUR CHAIRMAN OF RETAIL LOOKED AT THE SITE WHERE YOUR KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE IS TODAY,

[01:20:05]

WE NO LONGER DEVELOP RETAIL. THERE'S JUST NOT THE DEMAND FROM LARGE SCALE TENANTS THAT WE'D SEE ANY LONGER.

THERE ARE USUALLY MANY IN AREAS LIKE THIS WHERE IT'S NOT OUR HOME MARKET.

THERE ARE PLENTY OF LOCAL RETAIL DEVELOPERS THAT WORK IN THAT SPACE.

THANK YOU. MR. SCHMITT WHAT'S THE OCCUPANCY RATE OF COMMERCIAL IN THE TOWNSHIP BALLPARK? YOU KNOW, LARGELY, YOU KNOW, I HAVE THE MOST RECENT INFORMATION FROM THE MALL.

THE MALL IS DOING SURPRISINGLY BETTER, AND I THINK PEOPLE MIGHT THINK FROM THE OUTSIDE.

THERE'S A LOT OF NEW BUSINESSES MOVING IN THERE.

THE THE MAIN LARGE SCALE VACANCIES AT THIS POINT REALLY ARE THE BIG LOTS.

THAT'S THE BIG, PARDON THE PUN, THE BIG VACANCY AT THIS POINT.

AND, YOU KNOW, WITHIN WEEKS OF THEM ANNOUNCING THE CLOSURE, WE HAD ALREADY MET WITH THE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

AND THEY HAVE A PLAN. AND THEY I EXPECT AT SOME POINT THIS YEAR WILL BRING FORWARD THE PROPOSAL TO RE REOCCUPY THAT SPACE WITH NEW USERS. SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, AND ADDITIONALLY, GIVEN THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE HASLETT VILLAGE SQUARE PROJECT DEMOLISHED, TOOK OFF THE MARKET, YOU KNOW, 50, 70,000 ISH SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE. YOU KNOW, OUR VACANCY HAS HAS DROPPED OVER THE YEARS, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S STILL SOME PERSISTENT VACANCIES OUT THERE. THE OLD AT&T STORE HAS BEEN VACANT FOR AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN HERE.

THE THE THE FORMER OLD CHICAGO IS STILL VACANT.

RIGHT. THERE'S THEY'RE STILL OUT THERE BUT WE DON'T HAVE WIDE SCALE VACANCIES.

I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE, AND I THINK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CLARK WOULD REITERATE, OUR COMMERCIAL FOCUS REALLY SHOULD BE ON THE GRAND RIVER CORRIDOR AND THE OKEMOS ROAD CORRIDOR.

MARSH ROAD CORRIDOR, THOSE THOSE SORT OF AREAS WHERE THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING STRONG RETAIL TRAFFIC.

AND WE BUILD OFF OF THAT. ONCE YOU START TO GET OFF OF THOSE BEATEN PATHS, THAT'S WHERE YOU START TO RUN INTO PROBLEMS. SURE. I ASK BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IN RESPONSE TO THE BOARD'S COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS AT OUR DECEMBER MEETING, WE'VE BEEN SENT A RUDIMENTARY DIAGRAM WITH A BUNCH OF NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND VERY FEW ANSWERS TO OUR ACTUAL QUESTIONS. AND SO I'M LEFT TO WONDER, DOES THIS DEVELOPER ACTUALLY DO COMMERCIAL? IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ANSWER IS NO. AND IS THERE EVEN A NEED FOR COMMERCIAL SUCH THAT A PROPERTY OWNER AND DEVELOPER TEAM WOULD BE INTERESTED IN ACTUALLY MOVING FORWARD WITH CREATING COMMERCIAL IN THIS SPACE, AND CONSIDERING HOW DIFFICULT IT WAS TO FILL THE HASLETT PLAZA, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH COMMERCIAL FOR THE BETTER PART OF TWO 2 TO 3 DECADES.

CONSIDERING HOW WE WATCHED THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS PROJECT GO FROM TWO FLOORS OF COMMERCIAL TO ONE FLOOR OF COMMERCIAL, TO HALF A FLOOR OF COMMERCIAL TO NO COMMERCIAL OVER THE SPAN OF THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

THIS, TO ME DOESN'T RING AS A SERIOUS PROPOSAL, DOESN'T MEET THE SMELL TEST FOR ME.

MR.. KLAUS IS JUMPING TO HIS FEET TO TELL ME HOW WRONG I AM.

BUT TO ME, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE KIND OF PROPOSAL THAT I ACTUALLY EXPECT WOULD ACTUALLY GET DONE.

DOES IT MEET THAT SMELL TEST FOR YOU? MR. SCHMITT.

CERTAINLY IT'S PERMITTED UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE.

AND SO THAT'S FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE. WE VERY MUCH STAY OUT OF THE MARKET.

THEY SHOULD THEY WOULD THEY UNDERSTOOD. WE'VE HISTORICALLY ALWAYS STAYED OUT OF THE MARKET QUESTIONS.

BUT IT IS A PLAN THAT IS FEASIBLE UNDER THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

CORRECT. AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS HOW REAL, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH ESSENTIALLY A LEGAL NEGOTIATION.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT BOTH SIDES HERE IN A PUBLIC MEETING IN THE ROOM HAVING THAT CONVERSATION.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, SORT OF THEY'VE GOT THEIR STARTING POSITION.

WE'VE GOT OUR POSITION WHERE WE WERE AT. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW LEGITIMATE AND HOW REAL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

MR. KLAUS, FEEL FREE TO WEIGH IN. I THE AND I THINK YOU AND I HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THE THE PLAN THAT WAS SHOWN TO

[01:25:07]

IS ERIC AND HIS GROUP. THE GROUP THAT WOULD BUILD IT? NO. ARE WE POSSIBLY. ARE THERE OTHERS THAT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING IT? AND YOU REALIZE THAT THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY JUST STRIP RETAIL.

IT'S ALL TYPES OF THINGS THAT CAN BE PLACED INTO THE OLD ZONING.

THERE'S THAT LIST IS IS QUITE EXTREME. IT WAS NOW MADE UP INTO LIKE I THINK THREE DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES INSTEAD OF JUST ONE AS IT WAS, YOU KNOW, 25 YEARS AGO. SO IT WAS DEMONSTRATED FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE IS TO SHOW YOU THAT THERE COULD BE AND WOULD BE MULTIFAMILY BUILT ADJACENT TO CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY ZONED THAT WAY. AND WE WANTED TO SHOW WHAT COULD BE DONE ON THE COMMERCIAL.

IS IT GOING TO BE DONE TOMORROW? PROBABLY NOT.

IS IT GOING TO BE DONE OVER? WOULD IT BE DONE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME? YES. WILL IT LOOKED LIKE THAT DRAWING THAT WAS UP THERE.

PROBABLY NOT. BUT THAT'S WAS SHOWN WHAT YOU WHAT COULD THE SQUARE FOOT THAT COULD BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY.

GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT KIND OF TRAFFIC COULD BE THERE AND THE USE OF THE SITE AS FAR AS HOW IT WOULD BE DONE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL.

IT WASN'T. AND AS MUCH AS YOU MAY WANT TO SEE IT AS SOME KIND OF A, YOU KNOW, BANGING THE TABLE TYPE OF THING, IT WAS JUST TO DEMONSTRATE WHAT CAN BE DONE, BECAUSE WE SAID THIS THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WE SAID IT HERE, BUT WE NEVER REALLY SHOWED YOU WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY WANTED TO DO IS TO SHOW WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE.

AND THE WEATHER CONTINENTAL WOULD WANT TO BUILD.

IN FACT, I KNOW THEY WOULDN'T, 98 UNITS, BUT WE DO.

WE HAVE YOU KNOW, WE HAVE WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE FROM OUR STANDPOINT TO DO A COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT AS THEY DO.

THEY NEED TO HAVE THAT 288 UNITS TO MAKE IT VIABLE FINANCIALLY, TO HAVE A CLUBHOUSE AND DO THAT CLASS A TYPE OF FACILITY.

COULD WE BUILD 98 UNITS ON THE SITE AND DO JUST THE BUILDINGS? NOT HAVE A CLUBHOUSE AND MANAGE IT FROM OUR OFFICES HERE AND HERE IN THE COMMUNITY? YES, WE COULD DO THAT AND WE HAVE DONE THAT AT OTHER LOCATIONS.

WE HAVE THE KNAPP CENTER WHERE WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, JUST 20, 21 UNITS, AND WE'VE DONE IT WHERE WE'VE HAD 23 UNITS ACROSS THE STREET OVER HERE WHEN WE DID BUY ALDI'S. SO WE CAN DO THAT AND WE PERHAPS WOULD DO THAT OR WE'LL FIND SOMEONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO.

BUT THE COMMERCIAL IS AGAIN, IT WOULDN'T ALL BE RETAIL, IT WOULDN'T BE BIG BOX RETAIL BECAUSE WE REALIZE THAT.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE PLACES LIKE HANA PLAZA. WE HAVE WOODLAND.

WOODLAND SQUARE WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP THAT ARE HAVE HIGH OCCUPANCY.

WE'RE APPROACHING 100% OF BOTH OF THOSE LOCATIONS.

SO THE RETAIL IN CERTAIN AREAS ARE VERY STRONG.

WOULD IT COMPETE WITH OTHER PIECES OF THE TOWNSHIP? IT WOULD. BUT SO I'M CURIOUS, WHILE YOU'RE AT THE MICROPHONE.

YOU SAID IN YOUR COMMENTS EARLIER THAT YOU WERE HOPING FOR RC ZONING WHEN THE COMMERCIAL AREAS.

IS THAT ACCURATE? YES, THE RC, BUT WITH LIMITING IT TO THE TOTAL OF 288 UNITS ACROSS THE SITE, SO IT WOULD LIMIT IT DOWN TO THE TEN ABOUT TEN UNITS PER ACRE.

SO I ASK THAT BECAUSE THE ACTUAL UNITS AVAILABLE, AS OUTLINED IN OUR STAFF MEMO UNDER RC ZONING WOULD BE 230.

I THINK THAT'S REVERSED. I DON'T THINK IT'S 400.

WE'LL HEAR EVERY KEYSTROKE. WELL, WHILE TIM IS LOOKING THAT UP, I THINK HE HAS THE RC AND RD FLIP FLOPPED.

WELL, I'LL LET HIM. OKAY. OKAY. SO OUR OUR C IS 402.

OUR D IS 230. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT IS THAT IS IMPORTANT.

I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE YOU BACK UP IN A MINUTE. I WILL BE GLAD TO POP UP WHENEVER YOU NEED ME.

THANK YOU. MAYBE WHEN YOU DON'T. YEAH. TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE EARLIER TONIGHT, I FEEL LIKE I'D BE REMISS IN NOT MENTIONING THAT, YOU KNOW, I TO LISTEN TO A NUMBER OF THE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND HAVE LISTENED TO ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT'S BEEN MADE CERTAINLY BEFORE THIS BOARD.

AND, YOU KNOW, I SHARE SOME OF THE DISAPPOINTMENT IN SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED.

I THINK THAT IT'S IT CAN BE A SCARY THING WHEN A PROPOSAL LIKE THIS COMES TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT YOU NEED TO USE INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE, THAT YOU NEED TO USE DEMEANING LANGUAGE.

[01:30:06]

AND WHEN TENSIONS ARE HIGH AND EMOTIONS ARE HIGH, I THINK WE CAN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME THINGS SAID THAT WERE NOT MEANT WHILE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT WERE SAID WERE INAPPROPRIATE AND IN SOME CASES DISRESPECTFUL.

ULTIMATELY, IT COMES BEFORE US TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IN CONCERT WITH THE, THE APPLICANT HERE.

YOU KNOW, AS WE HAVE TO BOTH AGREE AS OUT IN HIS REMARKS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE THE AGENDA ITEM HERE YOU KNOW, BUT WE ARE ALSO CHARGED WITH DOING WHAT WE CAN TO PROVIDE THE BEST POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR BOTH OUR CURRENT RESIDENTS AND THE ECONOMIC WELL-BEING AND FUTURE OF THE TOWNSHIP.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, TO ME, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS.

I DISAGREE WITH MANY OF THEM. YOU KNOW, SOMEONE AT ONE POINT ASKED ME, WELL, WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF THERE WAS AN APARTMENT BUILDING IN YOUR, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN YOU AND THE MAIN ROAD? AND I SAID, WELL, THERE IS AS A MATTER OF FACT, IN MY SUBDIVISION THERE IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX BETWEEN ME AND THE MAIN ROAD. AND THE ANSWER IS IT'S FINE.

YOU KNOW, I HAVE ISSUES WITH THE DENSITY THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

EVEN STILL I DON'T HAVE ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH RENTAL UNITS.

WE CLEARLY NEED THEM IN THE TOWNSHIP. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH OWNER OCCUPIED EITHER.

WE CLEARLY NEED THOSE AS WELL. BUT THE ASK THIS EVENING AND, AND, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN FOR MULTIFAMILY.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE OWE AN ANSWER ON THAT. MY CONCERN WAS THAT LARGELY THE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FINANCIALLY, IT'S INFEASIBLE.

THERE DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK IN THE RESPONSE THAT WE RECEIVED FROM CONTINENTAL ABOUT THE 288 PROPOSAL VERSUS ANY POTENTIAL LOWER DENSITY.

AND SO. THE THE ONLY SEEMING REQUEST OR OFFER OF ANY KIND IN THERE WAS.

WELL, WE DIDN'T ASK FOR ANY SUBSIDY AS A RESULT.

SO I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO DIRECTOR SCHMITT HERE AND SAY, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU GIVE US A BRIEF HISTORY OF WHAT SUBSIDIES THIS BOARD OR PREVIOUS BOARDS HAVE OFFERED FOR THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT. SO CERTAINLY EVERY PROJECT IS DIFFERENT, RIGHT? I MEAN, WE'RE LOOKING AT TRYING TO COMPARE ACROSS ACROSS DIFFERENT PROJECTS.

IT'S CHALLENGING, BUT I MEAN, THE MOST RECENT COMPARABLE REALLY IS JUST THE HASLETT VILLAGE SQUARE PROJECT, WHICH ISN'T A GREAT COMPARABLE, BUT IT IS A COMPARABLE.

RIGHT. THERE WAS BROWNFIELD FOR HOUSING IS IN PROCESS FOR THAT SITE, AND THERE WAS A CRA APPROVED FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT. BUT AGAIN, THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF OUR CORE SORT OF DOWNTOWN GOALS FOR MULTIPLE MASTER PLANS.

IT'S SAFE TO SAY THE TOWNSHIP HAS NEVER OR NOT TO NOT IN RECENT HISTORY.

OFFERED A DIRECT MONETARY SUBSIDY TO A DEVELOPER TO DEVELOP FOR A MARKET RATE PROJECT AND NOT ONE IS NOT COMING TO FRONT OF MIND.

OKAY. AND THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT, RIGHT? WE'RE A DESIRABLE PLACE TO BUILD.

WE'RE A DESIRABLE PLACE TO LOCATE. AND BY AND LARGE, THE RENTS AND THE MORTGAGE THAT ONE MIGHT RENTS IN THE SALES PRICES THAT ONE MIGHT CHARGE IN OUR COMMUNITY OFTEN ARE ABLE TO COVER THE FINANCIAL COSTS OF THOSE.

IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT? MORE OR LESS. IT'S A FAIR STATEMENT. SO, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ALL OF US, RIGHT? IT'S THERE'S SEVEN OF US ON THE BOARD, BUT I'M NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ANY KIND OF FINANCIAL DIRECT SUBSIDY FOR ONE OF MANY REASONS IS THE TOWNSHIP CAN'T AFFORD TO DO SO.

WE CAN'T. AND WE DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE BUSINESS OF DOING THAT.

SUCH THAT IT BECOMES AN EXPECTED PIECE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS COMING IN HERE.

I THINK IT'S A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO SET, AND FRANKLY, ONE THAT WE COULDN'T AFFORD TO DO EVEN IF WE WANTED TO.

I'M GOING TO TAKE A PAUSE, CATCH MY BREATH AND DRINK SOME WATER, AND I'LL LET MY COLLEAGUES SORT OF TALK THROUGH WHAT THE QUESTIONS THEY HAVE.

TRUSTEE LENTZ. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR SCHMITT. TAKING A STEP BACK IN THIS PROCESS.

[01:35:04]

IS THAT ACCURATE TO SAY? YEAH, THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT.

I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S SOME NUANCE AS IT RELATES TO HOW THE ORDINANCE HAS CHANGED SINCE THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS PUT INTO PLACE, AND STAFF REALLY HASN'T FULLY FLESHED THAT OUT.

BUT FUNCTIONALLY, I THINK FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING THAT COMES FORWARD UNDER THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING IS PROBABLY A USE BY RIGHT. WHETHER WE ACCEPT WHETHER WHETHER THE PROCESS HAS CHANGED OR NOT SINCE THEN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ARE THERE MANY MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS IN THE TOWNSHIP AROUND THAT SIZE? LIKE 80 TO 110 PURE RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT YOU COULD POINT TO AS TYPICAL OR A MODEL FOR AT LEAST MENTALLY THAT WE COULD LOOK AT.

AND, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'M CURIOUS HOW CLOSE THEY MIGHT BE TO OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

YEAH. SO FROM A FROM A RECENT. SO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT QUESTIONS THERE.

YEAH. GO AHEAD. THAT YOU'RE GETTING AT. SO FROM A RECENT PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT, MOST OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE SEEN HAVE BEEN 250 TO 300 IN TERMS OF UNITS.

THAT SEEMS TO BE THE SWEET SPOT FROM WITH CURRENT EVERYTHING BEING EQUAL CURRENTLY WITH FINANCING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND ALL THAT.

OBVIOUSLY THE THE GRAND, THE GRAND RESERVE PROJECT JUST TO THE SOUTH IS SMALLER, BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL.

THEY'RE ATTACKING A VERY SPECIFIC MARKET. SO I THINK FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT, IN CURRENT THE CURRENT SITUATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN, THAT'S A CHALLENGING NUMBER TO HIT.

IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT DOABLE. IT'S JUST YOU'RE GOING TO ATTRACT A DIFFERENT KIND OF DEVELOPER THAN CONTINENTAL BECAUSE I THINK TO, AS THEY'VE POINTED OUT, RIGHT, SOME OF THOSE FIXED COSTS. THE CLUBHOUSE AND THE AMENITIES GENERALLY GO AWAY WHEN YOU HAVE A SMALLER PROJECTS, RIGHT? YOU SAW ENOUGH PEOPLE TO SUPPORT IT. I THINK TO THE OTHER PART OF YOUR QUESTION, I THINK YOU'RE ASKING IS SORT OF WHAT HAVE WE SEEN ADJACENT WITH MULTIFAMILY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL RECENTLY? YOU KNOW, THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLE IS THE TWO MOST RECENT EXAMPLES ARE NEWTON POINT, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE FOURTH PHASE OF SIERRA RIDGE AND THE WOODWARD WAY PROJECT BEHIND WHOLE FOODS, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY'RE IN THE WOODCLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD DIRECTLY BUTTS UP AGAINST A SERIES OF DUPLEXES AND HOUSES ON THE NORTH SIDE.

THOSE ARE THE TWO EXAMPLES THAT JUMP OUT AT ME.

I'VE PREVIOUSLY KIND OF GONE THROUGH THE TOWN.

MY STAFF AND I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE TOWNSHIP. WE FOUND OTHER EXAMPLES OF WHERE YOU SORT OF ARE NEARBY.

AND THE SUPERVISOR POINTS OUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX IN FRONT OF HIS NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT IS SEPARATED BY A CERTAIN DISTANCE. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE CEDAR CREEK KIND OF BUTTS UP AGAINST OTHER RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO THEY IT EXISTS. IT'S THIS IS A BIT OF A UNIQUE BIRD, JUST IN THAT YOU HAVE THE TWO ROADS THAT KIND OF PASS BY THE VACANT PROPERTY. GOTCHA. THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT'S JUST CURIOUS.

I, YOU KNOW, I LOVE LOOKING AT MAPS OF THE TOWNSHIPS, AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO SEE ANYTHING THAT I THOUGHT REALLY LIKE.

OH, THIS IS THE SAME AS THIS. OR EVEN IN EAST LANSING.

DIDN'T SEE TOO MANY 100 UNIT AROUND THEIR PROPERTIES.

YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S FUNNY HOW OFTEN TRUSTEE SUNDLAND COMMENTS ABOUT MOVING BUILDINGS FOUR AND FIVE HAVE BROUGHT UP HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP.

AND SO THERE WAS THERE WAS TALK ABOUT ELIMINATING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL WETLAND REGULATIONS THAT BYE. I'M SO SORRY. NOT MR.. MR. HINES, I APOLOGIZE, BUT MR. HAHN. WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE FROM A TOWNSHIP PERSPECTIVE ON, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THESE REGULATIONS IN PLACE, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IF WE WANTED TO GO DOWN THAT PATH OF ELIMINATING THE WETLAND PROTECTIONS, WE WOULD JUST ASK FOR IT TO BE INCLUDED, AND IT WOULD SO BE DONE. OR IS THERE APPROVAL THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE BY THE STATE BECAUSE OF THEIR WETLAND PROTECTIONS?

[01:40:10]

SO THERE WAS SORT OF FURTHER, FURTHER BUFFER.

SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS ONE OF A SERIES OF THINGS WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN IF IF WE'RE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS STAYS THE SAME.

OKAY. SO I'M MAKING A COUPLE OF ASSUMPTIONS HERE.

SO ONE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE WOULD BE A WETLAND PERMIT INVOLVED.

WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, ISSUE A PERMIT.

IT'S LIKELY EGLE WOULD BE INVOLVED. I ALSO STRONGLY SUSPECT THAT THE DRAIN COMMISSION IS GOING TO HAVE SOME SAY IN THAT, GIVEN THE UNRESOLVED ISSUE WITH A PREVIOUS DRAIN NEAR WETLAND B2, SO NEAR BELVEDERE AND CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, I WOULD SAY THAT YOUR OTHER OPTION ENDS UP BEING THREE STORY BUILDINGS ACROSS THE ENTIRE SITE.

SO INSTEAD OF DOING TWO STORY BUILDINGS IN THE MIDDLE, YOU DO THREE STORY BUILDINGS.

I KNOW THAT THAT HAS A FINANCIAL IMPACT. ON THE PRO FORMA TO THE EXTENT OF WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FEASIBLE, I DO. MR. HAHN ALSO POINTED OUT, AND I APOLOGIZE, I JUST SKIPPED PAGES THE WRONG DIRECTION.

THAT. THERE WOULD BE POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SOUTHERN PARCEL AS WELL.

THAT WOULD. IT WOULD BE TIGHT, BUT IT'D BE DOABLE, I THINK.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL.

THERE'S THERE ARE WAYS TO GET AT THAT. THE WETLAND ISSUE IS PROBABLY THE MOST CHALLENGING ONE.

AND CANDIDLY, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE WERE, WE WERE RUNNING, I THINK WE'D TRY TO AVOID THAT ONE.

AS MUCH AS WE COULD. GOTCHA. I UNDERSTAND YEAH.

NO, I CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS BOARDS I'VE BEEN APPOINTED TO THROUGH THIS BOARD.

I DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO SEE MORE BUILDING ON WETLANDS WHEN WE CAN HELP IT.

I WAS MERELY CURIOUS WHAT THAT PROCESS WOULD LOOK LIKE.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALKED LATE LAST YEAR ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND LOOKING AT UNITS PER ACRE.

MR.. SUPERVISOR YOU CAME FORWARD WITH THE IDEA OF YOU KNOW, EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE WHILE ELIMINATING THAT SOUTHERN PARCEL FROM THE EQUATION? I THINK THAT PUT US AT RIGHT AROUND 26 ACRES TIMES EIGHT.

THAT'S WHERE WE GOT THAT 208 NUMBER, RIGHT AROUND 200 OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.

I, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE APPLICANT HAS REFERENCED YOU KNOW, NOT WANTING TO DIVERT FROM THEIR 288 NUMBER. I'M CURIOUS IF, YOU KNOW, THIS BOARD WOULD BE INTERESTED IN MAYBE CONSIDERING THAT SOUTHERN PORTION IN THE EQUATION, SO THAT PUTTING IT AT 30 TOTAL ACRES AND THEREFORE THAT THAT NUMBER BEING RIGHT AROUND 240. I KNOW IT IS MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY IN THIS LETTER HERE THAT THAT IS NOT THE I'VE OF CONTINENTAL.

I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A MIDDLE GROUND THAT COULD ELIMINATE SOME OF THOSE THAT BUILDING FOUR AND FIVE POTENTIALLY.

I'M NOT SURE THE MATH NECESSARILY, BUT INCREASING THAT OVERALL SETBACK.

AND WHILE TRYING TO PRESERVE CENTRAL PARK ESTATE NEIGHBORS DESIRE TO NOT SEE A VERY LARGE PROPERTY BUILT ON THIS. SO I'M, I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING I AM PROPOSING BUILDING ON THAT SOUTHERN PORTION. I'M IF WE'RE I WANT TO HEAR THE REST OF THE BOARD'S THOUGHTS ON THIS.

I'M NOT ENCOURAGED BY THE CURRENT PROPOSAL OF 288 UNITS.

I THINK THAT THAT CONCEPT IS NOT GOING TO WORK BASED ON WHAT WE'VE SAID AS A BOARD.

AND SO TRYING TO FIND AN AREA OF MAYBE COMMON GROUND AND YOU KNOW, TRUSTEE TREZISE, I'M LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION AND TRYING TO MULL OVER THIS.

I THINK I AGREE WITH SUPERVISOR THAT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO RENTAL UNITS IN HERE.

[01:45:03]

WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS WE TALK ABOUT NUMBERS OF UNITS AND SEE WHAT COULD BE WORKED OUT BETWEEN OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE BUILDER THAT WOULD FIT WITHIN THAT, CONTINUE THE SETBACKS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND SOME OTHER DETAILS THAT WOULD GIVE THEM FLEXIBILITY.

BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT A DESIGN THAT'S ON PAPER, NOT APPROVED WHICH COULD CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY. AND I'M THINKING IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DENSITY, MAYBE WE'LL LOOK AT THE DENSITY SINCE IT IS SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION AND GIVE SOME GUIDANCE TO OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON THAT BASIS.

JUST IF I COULD, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, AS WE BEFORE WE DIVE INTO A LENGTHY DISCUSSION ON DENSITY AND MIDDLE GROUNDS AND ALL THAT MR. HAHN. YOU SEEM TO HAVE MADE IT RELATIVELY CLEAR IN THE FINANCIAL DISCUSSION OF ON, YOU KNOW, YOUR EXHIBIT C, THE FEASIBILITY INFORMATION THAT ANYTHING BELOW 288 WOULD BE FINANCIALLY UNVIABLE TO YOU AS A DEVELOPMENT TEAM AND WOULD REQUIRE TOWNSHIP SUBSIDIES OF SOME KIND. I GUESS, BEFORE WE START TALKING ABOUT 240 VERSUS 260 VERSUS WHATEVER.

CERTAINLY. SO WHAT WE'RE CHALLENGED WITH IS THE COST BASIS, REALLY.

SO I THINK IT'S WORTH SHARING. THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN US AND HIDES.

THE LAND COST FLUCTUATES DEPENDING ON UNITS. SO WE HAVE A FLOATING SCALE THERE.

SO IT HAS REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LAND VALUE BEFORE ANYBODY GOES THERE.

THE WAYS THAT WE SOLVE THESE CHALLENGES, THOUGH, ON THE COST SIDE, WOULD TAKE A LOT OF WORK ON OUR END TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SAVE THOSE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. WE'RE ABLE TO SOLVE COST CHALLENGES THAT ARE 8% OF TOTAL PROJECT FROM TIME TO TIME.

I THINK I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND SEE WHAT CONDITIONS WE'D NEED TO ALTER, WHAT TOTAL SCOPE ITEMS, BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE SEEN, WOULD NEED TO ALTER MUCH, WOULD NEED TO CHANGE TO SAVE, TO SAVE THAT MUCH PER UNIT ON A PER UNIT BASIS.

IT'S IT'S A LOT. AND YOU KNOW IN TERMS OF OF WHAT WE COULD DO.

SO I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS. IF WE'RE LESS THAN 288 I WOULD I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT I WANTED TO EXPLAIN HERE.

THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE IS LESS THAN THIS.

I DON'T HAVE A LINE OF SIGHT TO BUILDING IN SHORT ORDER WITHOUT ROLLING UP OUR SLEEVES, PROBABLY IN COOPERATION WITH THE TOWNSHIP SOMEWHERE KNOWING THAT THE PROCESS FOR HOUSING BROWNFIELD OR OTHERS, THEY'RE VERY LONG TERM PURSUITS AS WELL.

SO WE CAN'T MEET THE IMMEDIATE HOUSING NEED AND, AND AND THAT WOULD CONTINUE TO GROW THAT THAT GAP THAT WITH WHERE THE DEMAND IS STRIPPING AWAY SUPPLY. SO I GUESS WHAT IT MEANS TO US IS WE'D HAVE TO REVISIT SOME OF SOME OF THE FINISH LEVELS.

DO WE REVISIT HOW THE PARKING LOTS ARE CONFIGURED? DO WE REVISIT WHERE WE'RE PUTTING BUILDINGS? I MEAN, IT KIND OF REOPENS A LOT OF THE DIALOG WE HAD WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, LIKE, SHOULD WE BE PUTTING OUR, LIKE YOU GUYS MENTIONED, SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT THREE STORY BUILDING HEIGHTS ON THE CENTRAL PARCEL? WHICH AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO HONOR WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS AS BEST WE CAN GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS.

SO I THINK WE WOULD NEED TO REOPEN A LOT OF THE CONDITIONS THAT I'M COMMITTED TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT, THE SETBACK THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE OFFERING AT THIS TIME.

WE'D HAVE TO LOOK PROBABLY AT THE ACCESS POINTS.

IF WE'RE LOOKING AT DEVELOPING SOME OTHER PORTIONS OF THIS, WE JUST NEED TO FIND WAYS TO CUT COSTS.

AND A LOT OF THAT IS IN SITE WORK. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THE VERTICAL COST. ONE OTHER THING I WANT TO SHARE WHILE WE'RE ON THIS TOPIC.

THE VERTICAL COSTS ARE RELATIVELY STATIC. WE'VE SO WE'VE, WE'VE, WE SEE WE'RE LOOKING AT BUILDINGS WE BUILT ELSEWHERE.

SO WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA OF THE COST. WE HAVE OUR GENERAL CONTRACTOR THAT IS PRE-SELECTED.

THEY'RE HOLDING THEIR COSTS WITHIN A PERCENT.

SO THOSE TYPICALLY AREN'T THE AREAS I CAN MODIFY OR, OR WORK TOWARDS COST SAVINGS TOO MUCH.

[01:50:02]

SO IF THAT'S IF WE'RE LOOKING AT DENSITY, IT'S LIKELY THAT WE'D COME BACK WITH A VERY DIFFERENT PLAN, AND WE'D HAVE TO PROBABLY RESCIND SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'VE SUGGESTED FOR THE NEIGHBORS.

THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. TRUSTEE WILSON, DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED? TREASURER BURGHARDT. OKAY. I'M A GREENSPACE PERSON.

I WASN'T CRAZY TO SEE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CENTRAL PARK ESTATES OFF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.

I TAKE THAT DRIVE EVERY DAY TO WORK. SO MY CONCERNS HAVE TO DO WITH THE DEMAND ON SERVICES THAT THESE ADDITIONAL RENTAL UNITS ARE GOING TO CREATE SERVICES FROM THE TOWNSHIP. WELL, JUST A WHOLE VARIETY OF SERVICES.

I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE ON WATER AND SEWER.

I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC PATTERNS. THE IDEA OF RUNNING EVERYTHING INTO CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, AS OPPOSED TO SOME OF THESE OTHER ROADS, IS OF CONCERN TO ME.

AND THE OTHER ISSUE IS I SEE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS GOING UP ALL OVER MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, AND I'VE SEEN APARTMENT BUILDING COMPLEXES GOING UP. I'M THINKING OF THE COMPLEX BEHIND JOE'S ON JOLLY AND THE, I GUESS, MIXED USE COMPLEXES BEHIND THE I'D BUILDING OF HAGEDORN.

SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THE HOUSING DEMAND IS COMING FROM.

THERE'S BEEN. AND I'M NEW TO THE TO THE BOARD HERE.

SO MAYBE ALL THESE CONVERSATIONS HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE I JOINED THE BOARD.

BUT I HEAR REPORTS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A HOUSING ISSUE AND THAT WE HAVE A RENTAL HOUSING ISSUE, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN THE REPORT AND I DON'T KNOW THE BASIS FOR THE REPORTS.

I MEAN, DO WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE GOING TO THE GREATER LANSING REALTORS ASSOCIATION SAYING, I CAN'T AFFORD A HOUSE BUYING ME AN APARTMENT IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

I WANT TO KNOW WHERE ALL THAT DATA IS COMING FROM.

TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT WE DO NEED MORE RENTAL HOUSING IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

SO I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND A LOT OF CONCERNS CONCERNING THIS WHOLE THE WHOLE PROJECT TO BEGIN WITH.

OKAY. THANK YOU. TRUSTEE. WILSON. WHEN WE HAD OUR LAST BIG DISCUSSION ON THIS A MONTH AGO.

IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT GIVEN AN ARGUMENT BY SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON THAT WE CONCURRED WITH WAS THAT THE ZONING SHOULD NOT BE. LET ME REPHRASE THAT, THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE COURT SETTLEMENT SHOULD NOT BE TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO RC, EVEN CONDITIONALLY. AND WE AGAIN, SUPERVISOR HENDERSON PUT FORWARD A NUMBER ON DH AT ABOUT 206 UNITS. AND THEN TONIGHT, OF COURSE, WE'VE HEARD THAT IT COULD BE BUILT OUT CONSIDERING ALL THREE PARCELS AT AROUND 230.

SO WE SENT YOU BACK WITH THAT INFORMATION. AND MY EXPECTATION WAS THAT IN TERMS OF NEGOTIATION IS THAT WE WOULD SEE SOME MODIFICATION FROM THE HIGHEST DENSITY THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING AT TEN UNITS PER ACRE TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE NEGOTIATED AND WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE BOARD AND TO OUR COMMUNITY.

BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED. YOU ARE STILL AT THE 288 UNITS THAT YOU BROUGHT FORWARD AT THE BEGINNING OF THE.

I'M SORRY. YOU DID GO DOWN FROM 312 TO 288, BUT IT'S THE SAME 288 UNITS THAT ARE STILL IN PLAY.

AND WHAT I WOULD SAY TO YOU IS IT'S TOO DENSE.

SO IF YOU'RE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT A CHANGE IN THE WAY YOU LOOK AT THESE RENTAL UNITS, THAT THERE IS SOME MIDDLE GROUND THERE, THEN BRING IT FORWARD BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK OUR COMMUNITY IS CALLING FOR AND WHAT WE'RE CALLING FOR.

[01:55:02]

AND SO WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO IS HAVE WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT IS TO DISCUSS THIS AND UNDERSTAND THAT AND TO HEAR THE CONCERNS AND BE ABLE TO ALLOW US TO RESPOND TO THOSE. I THINK THE THE CONCEPT ABOUT THE NEED FOR HOUSING FOR THE TREASURER, I'M HOPING THAT YOUR PERSON SITTING NEXT TO YOU FROM THE TRI COUNTY PLANNING WILL SHARE WITH YOU THE REPORT THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE TOWNSHIP SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE NEEDS ARE.

AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WE DIDN'T HAVE WE HEARD THE CONVERSATION OF.

DON'T YOU DON'T YOU CAN'T COUNT CERTAIN PARCEL, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE A CONVERSATION AS TO WHY YOU CAN'T CUT OR USE THAT PARCEL.

I HEAR TONIGHT THE DESIRE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT PERHAPS IS BETWEEN THERE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO. WE CAN GO BACK AND DISCUSS THAT.

HEARING YOUR CONCERNS AND MAKE THE DECISION AS TO.

NO, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DO SOMETHING LESS THAN THE 288 OR THAT THERE IS A NUMBER THAT WE CAN MAKE WORK AND THAT THE DEVELOPER CAN MAKE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AND BRING THE NEEDED HOUSING TO THE COMMUNITY.

SO I THINK THE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AND BRING IT BACK BEFORE YOUR NEXT MEETING IS SOMETHING THAT WE ALL CERTAINLY ARE WILLING TO DO. CERTAINLY. ADDED TO THAT. SO I THINK WE'RE ON BROADCASTING AT HOME TO YOU.

YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S VERY FAIR.

MARK'S REQUEST FOR A DIALOG. IT WAS VERY APPROPRIATE.

THE THE THING THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO US AND TO THE DEVELOPER IS WE'VE HEARD, WELL, THERE NEEDS TO BE LESS DENSITY. WE'VE HEARD THAT.

BUT ONE THING THAT WOULD BE INSTRUCTED TO BE INSTRUCTIVE TO US AND I'VE TOLD TOLD WE'VE GIVEN THE Y THE 288 IS IMPORTANT BUT POSSIBLY ESSENTIAL COST, COST OF PROJECT DEMAND. THIS DOESN'T THERE'S A CASE THAT THIS MEETS THE DEMAND.

THIS DOES NOT MEET THE DEMAND. IT PUTS A DENT IN THE DEMAND, COST, DEMAND.

AND THE THIRD IS AND IT'S MY BELIEF THAT OR AT LEAST MY SUSPICION THAT, THAT THE DESIRE TO REDUCE UNITS WAS APPEASEMENT.

I'M NOT SO SURE THAT THAT THAT THIS BOARD IS LOOKING TO APPEASE.

ANYONE. BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW WHY. 288 IS TOO DENSE.

WHY IS IT TOO DENSE? IT DOES NOT MEET THE DEMAND.

IT WOULD HELP US IN GOING BACK IN DEAL MAKING BECAUSE THIS THAT'S WHAT THIS IS 288 TO 2 DENSE.

IT'S SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN. WHY? ESPECIALLY IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE DEMAND.

TRUSTEE WILSON. MAYBE THAT'S NOT ONE TO BE ANSWERED RIGHT NOW.

MAYBE IT'S ONE TO TAKE HOME. WE HAVE PUT ON THE RECORD A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY WE THINK THAT IT'S TOO DENSE.

TRAFFIC AND ACCESS TO THE ROADWAYS AND HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS AND THERE'S JUST A NUMBER OF THEM, AND I CAN'T REITERATE EVERY ONE OF THEM AT THIS TIME, BUT THEY'RE ALL IN THE RECORD.

AND MORE WERE ADDED TONIGHT BY OUR SUPERVISOR AND MY OTHER ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES.

SO I THINK ALL ALONG WE'VE BEEN SENDING A VERY CLEAR MESSAGE THAT THIS IS NOT FEASIBLE ON THIS PARCEL, AND THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE A CHANGE IN THE REZONING TO TAKE IT TO OUR SEAT.

WE'VE OFFERED A COUPLE OF IDEAS RELATED TO OUR ZONING, AND THAT IS A MORE TRANSITIONAL ZONING TO THE USES THAT ARE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, BECAUSE I WOULD ARGUE THAT AT THE END OF MR. HAHN'S LETTER, HE SAYS, WE BELIEVE THE BALANCE OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND COMMUNITY COMPATIBILITY MAKES A COMPELLING CASE FOR 288 UNITS.

I DON'T SEE THAT. THAT'S YOUR ECONOMIC FACILITY FEASIBILITY TO BUILD THE UNITS.

BUT IS IT ADDING TO THE COMMUNITY'S ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY TO HAVE ALL THESE UNITS THERE?

[02:00:05]

AND I QUESTION, BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT THE MR. SCHMITT ABOUT WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RENTAL UNITS, MARKET RATE, RENTAL UNITS. YEAH. SO, I MEAN, I THINK FUNDAMENTALLY THAT THE HOUSING DRIVE STUDY THAT EVERYONE'S BEEN REFERENCING PROJECTS OUT POTENTIAL SHORTFALL OF HOUSING UNITS. CANDIDLY, THROUGHOUT THE TRI COUNTY REGION WE ARE NO DIFFERENT WE THAN ANYONE, ALMOST ANYONE IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THAT THERE IS A DEMAND FLOATING AROUND, I THINK, IN THE. THE PIPELINE FROM THE PIPELINES PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE KNOW WHAT'S.

GENERALLY WHAT'S COMING FROM A FROM A MULTIFAMILY PERSPECTIVE.

YOU HAVE THE. OTHER THE NEXT PHASES OF THE HASLETT VILLAGE SQUARE PROJECT.

BUT AGAIN PART OF. THAT ALSO CONVERTED TO FOR SALE.

YOU'VE GOT THE REMAINDER OF THE NEWTON POINT PROJECT.

YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF THE LAST PHASE OF ELEVATION, ALTHOUGH THAT PROJECT HAS LANGUISHED FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW.

AND SO THERE'S NOT A TON IN THE PIPELINE ON THAT SIDE, I WOULD ARGUE, ACTUALLY, OUR PIPELINE IS STRONGER ON THE SINGLE FAMILY SIDE, BUT IT'S ALL MORE EXPENSIVE THAN WE'D LIKE IT TO BE.

JUST GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE MARKET. SO THE, THE DEMAND IS CERTAINLY THERE'S NOT TO BE CLEAR, THERE'S NO HIDDEN PIPELINE OF UNITS COMING. I MEAN, TRI COUNTY HAS INDICATED IT'S ABOUT 98 UNITS ANNUALLY, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE WITH THE RENT BETWEEN 1000 AND 2000 UNITS, OR 1000 TO $2000.

YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU GET ABOVE 2000, THE DEMAND DROPS OFF PRECIPITOUSLY.

ONCE YOU GET BELOW 1000, IT'S A FAIRLY STEADY SORT OF PROJECTED NEED.

IN OUR COMMUNITY, JUST THE WAY THEY PROJECT THESE OUT, I'D HAVE TO GET INTO THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF HOW THEY PROJECTED THEM.

BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S BASED ON FUNCTIONALLY, WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY TRIED TO PROJECT DEMAND FROM A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITIES BASED ON YOUR SHARE OF SORT OF THE EXISTING POPULATION AND THE EXISTING HOUSEHOLDS.

AND SO PROJECTING THAT OUT OVER TIME, THIS IS WHAT WE GET.

CANDIDLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYONE'S GOING TO MEET IT BECAUSE THE STATE IS JUST BEHIND.

WE HAVE BEEN BEHIND SINCE THE GREAT RECESSION, AND WE LOST A LOT OF TALENT.

AND I NOT TO GET OFF TOO FAR OF A TANGENT, BUT I WOULD ARGUE PART OF THE PROBLEM IN GETTING A BUILDING OFFICIAL IS BECAUSE OF THE GREAT RECESSION, AND YOU JUST LOST A GROUP OF POPULATION THAT HISTORICALLY LIKE THAT, THE PERSON THAT WOULD BE BECOMING OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL RIGHT NOW WAS PROBABLY JUST GETTING STARTED IN 0607. AND THEY MOVED SOUTH AND THEY'RE GONE.

THEY'RE NOT COMING BACK. AND THAT'S WE'VE JUST BEEN BEHIND SINCE THEN, I THINK AS A STATE AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET CAUGHT UP.

SO I APOLOGIZE. I WENT ON A BIT OF A TANGENT THERE, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE TRI COUNTY HOUSING DRIVE STUDY IS WHAT'S, WHAT'S DRIVING, I THINK, A LOT OF THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE INDICATED THROUGHOUT THE REGION THERE'S A SHORTAGE. AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN SO IT'S CLEAR WHAT THIS 98 UNIT NUMBER IS. YEAH. SO THEY THEY DID FIVE YEAR DEMAND PROJECTIONS FOR EVERY COMMUNITY IN THE REGION FROM MASON ALL THE WAY UP TO THE CITY OF LANSING. RIGHT. AND THE 98 IS THE AVERAGE PER YEAR NUMBER OF RENTAL UNITS THAT THEY BELIEVE IS NEEDED TO START GETTING US BACK TO WHERE WE HAVE A STABLE MARKET.

THAT'S A PRETTY SMALL NUMBER. GO AHEAD. SORRY.

I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IS JUST FOR MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

I DO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR, AS THE PERSON WHO SEEMS TO HAVE BROUGHT THAT, BROUGHT THIS INTO THE FOLD MOST READILY IS SPECIFICALLY PAGE 45 OF THE HOUSING DRIVE. HOUSING DRIVES REPORT PUT OUT BY TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING THAT I CAN HAPPILY SEND THAT TO YOU.

TREASURER BURGHARDT. I WOULD OF COURSE MENTION AS DIRECTOR SCHMITT DID, THAT NO COMMUNITY IS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR INCREASED HOUSING.

AND I DO AGREE WITH TRUSTEE WILSON THAT WE DO THAT IT IS NOT SOLELY ON US TO BUILD THE LARGEST PROJECTS POSSIBLE TO FILL THE NEED OF THE ENTIRE REGION. THAT SAID, I DO THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DIALOG THERE, AND SO I AM ENCOURAGED TO HEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE SOME VERSION OF A COMPROMISE THAT MAKES PARTIES HAPPY.

I CANDIDLY DO NOT WANT TO SEE THE RC ZONING THAT IS CURRENTLY PART OF THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

[02:05:04]

YOU KNOW, THERE'S TALK OF THE MASTER PLAN MENTIONED.

MY UNDERSTANDING FROM DIRECTOR SCHMITT IS THAT THE ONLY REASON WHY THAT MASTER PLAN HASN'T BEEN UPDATED AND IS JUST BASICALLY LEFT IN PERPETUITY IS BECAUSE OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. SO I WOULD WANT TO SEE MORE HOUSING.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, THOUGH, I WANT TO SEE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

AND IN THIS CASE, I WOULD AGREE THAT 288 IS NOT THE ANSWER.

BUT IT IS A, YOU KNOW, A PLACE TO PIVOT OFF OF.

SO APOLOGIES FOR OPENING THE CAN OF WORMS. THAT IS THE STUDY PUT TOGETHER BY TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING.

I AM THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS BOARD ON THAT BODY, AND I DO BELIEVE IN THE WORK THEY DO THAT.

BUT AGAIN, THAT ISN'T TO SAY THAT WE ARE BEHOLDEN TO ANY NUMBERS PUT FORWARD BY A BODY THAT IS NOT, YOU KNOW INFLUENCING OUR DIRECT DECISION THIS EVENING.

TRUSTEE. WILSON. I WOULD CONCUR WITH TRUSTEE LENTZ THAT I MY PERSONAL POSITION IS THAT I AM NOT INTERESTED IN DOING A COURT A MODIFICATION TO THE COURT SETTLEMENT TO TAKE THE UNITS UP TO RC.

WE HAVE MADE AN OFFER FROM THIS BODY TO CONSIDER ASKING THE DEVELOPER TO CONSIDER R.D., AND THAT WE WOULD BE OPEN TO SOME KIND OF PROPOSAL WHERE G COULD BE ACROSS ALL THREE PARCELS.

SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND RIGHT NOW AND I'M DONE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OTHERS WISHING TO WEIGH IN.

ULTIMATELY I THE MORE I'VE. I'VE MULLED AND STEWED AND CONSIDERED THIS BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AN EASY AN EASY DISCUSSION.

RIGHT. I THINK WE'VE DEVOTED A LOT OF TIME. WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF RESIDENT INPUT TO THIS.

YOU KNOW, SOMEONE SAID EARLIER AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS THAT THIS ISN'T A ZONING DECISION.

WELL, IT IS. RIGHT. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT IS.

CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT. IT'S NOT A TRADITIONAL ZONING DECISION, CERTAINLY, BUT ULTIMATELY WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THIS BASED ON THE DENSITY OF THE UNITS AND WHAT BOTH SIDES WILL EVENTUALLY COME TO SOME KIND OF AN AGREEMENT.

AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN I CONSIDER A ZONING DECISION, AS HAS COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING ZONING, WE LOOK AT HOW THAT IMPACTS THE NEIGHBORS.

IN OTHER IN OTHER AREAS, WE LOOK AT HOW THE TRAFFIC WILL IMPACT, HOW THE WATER WILL IMPACT ALL OF THAT INFORMATION.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT TO ME IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ALSO SHOULD BE CONSIDERING EQUALLY IN THIS KIND OF DECISION.

YOU KNOW, I NOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE IS REMAINING CS ZONING, YOU KNOW, TO THE IN THE NORTHERN SECTION OF THIS, DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF THAT IS RD CENTRAL PARK APARTMENTS IN A TRANSITIONAL STATE BETWEEN THAT AND OLD ENGLISH ESTATES TO THE NORTH.

AND SO I THINK THERE'S THERE'S PRECEDENT HERE FOR HOW WE ADDRESS THIS KIND OF DENSITY QUESTION.

AND SO YEAH, TO ME IT'S A QUESTION OF IT'S NOT SIMPLY APPEASEMENT, RIGHT.

WE LOOK TO WHAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE ALSO AS GUIDES FOR HOW WE HANDLE ZONING DECISIONS.

YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY'RE BROUGHT BEFORE US AS WELL.

AND SORT OF CREATING THAT TRANSITIONAL NATURE BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AREA AND A RESIDENTIAL AREA, I THINK IS IMPORTANT. AND I THINK WE HAVE SOME PRECEDENT BEFORE US IN THAT AREA.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE DO RESPOND TO OUR RESIDENTS CONCERNS.

AND WE'VE HAD CERTAINLY LOTS OF THEM COME OUT ABOUT THIS.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO MEASURE THAT AGAINST OUR ROLES AS FIDUCIARIES AND HOW WE HANDLE THE, YOU KNOW, THE ZONING DECISIONS THAT WE TAKE UP ON A REGULAR BASIS BEFORE THIS BODY.

AND SO I UNDERSTAND AS YOU DO, THAT THIS IS NOT A TRADITIONAL REZONING REQUEST.

AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR COLLEAGUES, MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SHARED SOME THOUGHTS AS TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT MIGHT BE A MORE AMENABLE POSITION AS WE MOVE FORWARD HERE.

I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S POSSIBLE.

BUT I CONCUR WITH THEM AS I DID AT OUR LAST TIME WE SPOKE, THAT THE SUGGESTED 288 IS IS TOO DENSE FOR WHAT THIS

[02:10:08]

ANY OTHERS? WELL, WE FIND OURSELVES HERE AGAIN WHERE WE HAVE NOT COME TO A DECISION THAT I CAN OFFER AS YOU KNOW, ACTIONABLE DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

HOW HOW CAN WE FIND OUR PATH FORWARD HERE? SO WE WILL OBVIOUSLY HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM AS TO THOUGHTS ON PROCEEDING, AND WITH THAT CONVERSATION, THEN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH OUR THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEYS TO DISCUSS WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE COMING BACK TO THE BOARD.

SO WE'VE GOT A FEW PHONE CALLS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS AND WE WILL BRING SOMETHING BACK TO PUT A BOW ON THIS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING TO DISCUSS, THEN LET'S HAVE IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT FEASIBLE OPPORTUNITY. AND IF WE APPEAR TO HAVE REACHED SOME KIND OF AN IMPASSE, WELL, THEN WE'LL SEE THAT IN SOME WAY, TOO, I SUSPECT.

ABSOLUTELY. MR. KLAUS, THANK YOU. JUST BECAUSE OF THE SITE AND THE WETLANDS AND THE COMPARISONS THAT MR. SCHMITT DID FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.

AND INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON WHETHER WE CALL IT RC OR RD OR A HYBRID OR SOMETHING.

AND I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW EVEN IF HOW THIS WOULD WORK, BUT SO THAT WE CAN FOCUS ON A SITE, A PLAN AND A NUMBER OF UNITS RATHER THAN TRYING TO FIT IT INTO SOMETHING, BECAUSE, I MEAN, I'M HEARING THAT 288 ISN'T GOING TO DO IT. WE WANT SOMETHING LESS.

WE WANT IT TO BE ARDI. COME BACK AND SHOW US SOMETHING, WHICH IS WHAT I WANT.

I WANT US TO DO. BUT IT MAY NOT FIT WITHIN THAT BOX.

AND SO IF WE WERE TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT IS LESS THAN THE 288 AND SHOW YOU ON THE PLAN HOW IT WORKS.

CAN WE TALK ABOUT NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE OVERALL 30 ACRES VERSUS TALKING ABOUT RD OR RC OR DC OR WHATEVER THE HECK IT WOULD BE IN BETWEEN? IS THAT ARE YOU OPEN TO THAT CONCEPT? I'M GOING TO LOOK AROUND FOR NODDING OR SHAKING HEADS AT THIS POINT.

YES. TRUSTEE WILSON THE ZONING DRIVES THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO WE NEED TO HAVE A ZONING CATEGORY THAT WE CAN RECOGNIZE AND APPROVE BEFORE WE START DOING SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING HERE. THEN MAYBE WHAT I GUESS I'M THINKING IS, OKAY, IF IT'S 200 AND AND I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THIS, BUT I SAY 275 OR 250 OR WHATEVER THAT NUMBER HAPPENS TO BE, THAT WE CAN WORK AND MAKE IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE TO DO AND WORKS ON THE SITE. IT MAY NOT FIT THE DH, AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO BE 14 UNITS PER ACRE IN THE RC, BUT IT MAY BE SOMETHING IN THE HYBRID AND I KEEP I GUESS.

MARNA I'M HEARING YOU SAY THE MORE DIRECTLY I'M NOT GOING TO DO RC, BUT IF WE DO RC AND YOU LIMIT IT TO 8.5 UNITS PER ACRE OR WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS OR NOT, WHATEVER THAT NUMBER HAPPENS TO BE, IT'S REALLY THERE.

AND IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE ANYBODY. IT'S GOING TO BE CONDITIONED ON THAT UNIT.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOMEONE CAN COME BACK AND DO 14 UNITS ON IT.

IT'S GOING TO BE WHAT THAT SAYS. I GUESS IF I COULD DIRECTLY, YOU KNOW, PROPOSE THAT TO YOU, UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A CONDITIONAL AGREEMENT WHEREIN THE UNIT COUNT DOESN'T EXCEED X. RIGHT. EVEN IF IT DOESN'T FIT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO A TRADITIONAL RD ZONING, WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO THAT CONCEPT? I THINK. I'M A PURIST BECAUSE IT COMES DOWN TO THE ZONING AND CONDITIONAL ZONING. TO GO UP A HALF A UNIT, FOR INSTANCE, MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

[02:15:05]

THAT'S, WHAT, 15 MORE UNITS IN TOTAL. SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN COME BACK AND WORK CLOSELY WITH CONTINENTAL TO BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT I.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO FEEL AS THOUGH WE'RE WASTING YOUR TIME, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY NOBODY'S INTENTION HERE.

WE TRIED TO PUT TOGETHER AND TRIED TO HEAR EVERYTHING YOU WERE SAYING AT THE LAST MEETING. WE WENT THROUGH ALL THE MINUTES AND TRIED TO UNDERSTAND, AND WE NEEDED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. WE HAVE IT TONIGHT, AND I DON'T WANT TO COME BACK AND JUST HAVE YOU THROW IT BACK AT ME AND SAY, THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS COME UP WITH AN IDEA AND I FEEL LIKE, LET US WORK ON IT AND COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT HOPEFULLY YOU CAN KEEP DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

YOU CAN NOD YOUR HEAD. ONLY ONE PERSON ON A SEVEN MEMBER BOARD.

SO IT'S NOT UP TO ME. YEAH. AND TRUSTEE WILSON, I APPRECIATE THAT.

I DO. I'M JUST YOU WERE THE ONE VOCAL ABOUT THAT.

AND I'M JUST THINKING GETTING YOUR TEMPERATURE, AND THEN I WILL.

WE ALL HEARD WHAT YOU SAID TONIGHT, AND WE'LL GO BACK AND WORK ON IT.

THANK YOU. TRUSTEE TREZISE. I'M LOOKING AT THE MAP, AND PERSONALLY, I'M NOT AVERSE TO ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL ZONING, WHICH SETS A LIMIT AT X. THE OTHER THING I LOOK AT IS THE LAND NORTH OF BELVIDERE PROBABLY COULD SUSTAIN A HIGHER DENSITY AND NOT IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOODS AS OPPOSED TO THE CENTRAL PIECE.

SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IF THEY COME BACK WITH A PROPOSAL THAT HAS TWO DIFFERENT ZONINGS.

THE PROBLEM MIGHT BE WHETHER YOU CAN THEN COUNT THEM AS A UNIT FOR DEVELOPMENT.

AND THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. BUT YOU COULD DO RC AT THE TOP AND D AT THE OTHER AND DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I MEAN, I, I'M WILLING TO LOOK AT.

PROPOSALS AND SEE IF WE CAN LIVE WITH THEM. YEAH.

FUNCTIONALLY, THE LETTERS ON THE MAP MEAN LESS TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE THE NEIGHBORS THAN THE IMPACT ON THE ON THE ON THE NEIGHBORS AND THE RESIDENTS IN THE TOWN.

BETTER WAY TO SAY IT THAN I DID. THANK YOU. AND SO I DON'T MIND AN RC ZONING WITH A CAP, SO LONG AS THE CAP IS MORE REASONABLE.

COMFORTABLE WITH. RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S SORT OF WHERE I WAS.

WHERE I FELT SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT AT THE MOMENT.

OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK THAT'LL GIVE US SOMETHING TO WORK WITH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MUCH.

THANK YOU. WE'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR A COUPLE HOURS.

LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND WE'LL BE BACK FOR THE BALANCE OF OUR AGENDA SHORTLY.

I WILL STAND AT RECESS AT 817. WE'LL BRING OURSELVES BACK TO ORDER AT 826.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM 11 B, THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR LEGAL SERVICES.

[11.B. Request for Proposals-Legal Services ]

YES. THANK YOU. AND GOOD EVENING AGAIN. SO AS I NOTED IN THE MEMO TO ALL OF YOU, THE CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CURRENTLY WITH FAHEY SCHULTZ IS COMING TO AN END HERE.

SO IT WRAPS UP AT THE END OF JUNE. THE CURRENT CONTRACT IS A TWO YEAR EXTENSION FROM THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT THAT WAS PROPOSED.

SO AS PER PAST PRACTICE AND PER SORT OF GOOD GOVERNANCE, IT'S TIME TO LOOK AT ISSUING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. IT'S NOT A COMMENTARY ON OUR CURRENT SERVICES.

WE CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN, I THINK, WELL SERVED BY A LAW FIRM.

THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF GOOD WORK FOR THE TOWNSHIP.

MY YEAR IN WORKING WITH THEM, I THINK HAS GONE WELL IN TERMS OF THAT RELATIONSHIP, AND HOPEFULLY THE BOARD FEELS THE SAME.

HOWEVER THIS IS OUR MOST EXPENSIVE CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE FOR OUTSIDE SERVICES.

IT'S REALLY, IN A LOT OF WAYS THE MOST CRITICAL IN TERMS OF TOWNSHIP OPERATIONS.

SO IT DOES BEHOOVE US TO TO LOOK AT ISSUING AN RFP.

SO GIVEN THAT STAFF HAS PUT TOGETHER A TENTATIVE TIME FRAME HERE STARTING WITH THIS DISCUSSION THIS EVENING AND THEN PROCEEDING THROUGH CONTRACT APPROVAL, LIKELY BY YOUR FIRST MEETING IN JUNE.

AND THE KEY STEPS IN THE PROCESS, OF COURSE, WOULD BE TO REVIEW THOSE PROPOSALS AS THEY COME IN.

[02:20:04]

MY UNDERSTANDING IS AT LEAST IN THE LAST ROUND.

WHEN THIS WAS DONE, THE TOWNSHIP MANAGER WITH THE SUPERVISOR NARROWED THAT LIST DOWN AND PRESENTED THAT SHORT LIST FOR THE BOARD INTERVIEW.

SO WE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF WHO THAT GROUP MIGHT BE TO DO THAT INITIAL REVIEW.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, IT'S ALL ULTIMATELY THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THOSE INTERVIEWS AND THEN MAKE THAT SELECTION.

OF COURSE, WITH INPUT FROM STAFF. AND THEN WE DID ATTACH THE DRAFT RFP, MODELING IT OFF OF THE SAME RFP THAT WAS USED LAST TIME.

WITH A FEW SMALL TWEAKS AND UPDATES. WE THOUGHT TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT CLEARER IN A COUPLE INSTANCES.

BUT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THIS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION.

AND AGAIN, PRIMARY FEEDBACK WOULD BE DETERMINING WHO WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE TO REVIEW THOSE PROPOSALS ONCE THEY COME IN TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SHORT LIST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BOARD MEMBERS.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? RELATIVELY COMFORTABLE WITH THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS.

I CAN'T IMAGINE A REASON TO OPPOSE THIS PROJECT PROPOSAL, SO I ABSOLUTELY DO.

YEAH, I'LL ADD THAT I THINK WE DID LOOK AT THIS IN 2024.

IN ADDITION, AND WE DECIDED TO GIVE AN EXTRA YEAR OR TWO OF OF TIME TO ALLOW THIS BOARD POST THIS BOARD COMING INTO OFFICE TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION WHICH WOULD ULTIMATELY BE LONGER THAN WHAT THE PREVIOUS BOARD HAD BEEN WORKING ON.

SO THIS IS A TIMELY, A TIMELY THING TO BRING UP.

WITH REGARD TO WHO BEST TO REVIEW THE PROPOSALS AND SELECT FINALISTS.

I AM BY NO MEANS A LEGAL EXPERT. AND I WOULD DEFER IF OUR IF OUR LAWYER ON THE IN THE GROUP WOULD LIKE TO VOLUNTEER TO STEP IN AND ASSIST WITH THAT, I WOULD WELCOME THE THE ASSIST.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO. THANK YOU. YEAH, CERTAINLY.

I THINK THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF PLENTY OF QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE SOME UNIQUE INSIGHT TO.

IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO JOIN IN THAT PROCESS, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO. OR YOU CAN BEAR, YOU KNOW, BEAR WITNESS TO THE FRUITS OF THAT AT INTERVIEWS IN APRIL.

IF THAT'S AMENABLE TO EVERYONE. I SEE NODS. THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS I ASSUME THAT WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION EXISTING STAFF THAT HAVE INTERACTIONS WITH COUNSEL AS TO WHAT THEY FIND AS MOST IMPORTANT, MOST HELPFUL GOING FORWARD, SELECTING COUNSEL.

SO I WOULD I WOULD THINK THE TEAM WOULD BE MORE THAN JUST THE MANAGER.

NINE SOURCES FROM EVERYBODY. CERTAINLY GATHERING INPUT FROM FROM OTHERS AS WELL.

CERTAINLY. OKAY, THEN I THINK WE'VE GOT GENERAL APPROVAL FOR THE TIME FRAME.

AND AND TRUSTEE TREZISE WILL ASSIST WITH, WITH YOUR REVIEW OF THE STAFF INQUIRIES, INQUIRIES AND PROPOSALS.

OKAY. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

NEXT UP IS THE 2026 LISTENING SESSIONS. THAT'S ITEM 11 C MANAGER DEMPSEY IS HERE ONCE AGAIN.

[11.C. 2026 Listening Sessions ]

THEY'RE IN YOUR MEMO. TUESDAY, MAY 12TH AT 242 COMMUNITY CENTER.

TUESDAY, MAY JULY 28TH AT THE CENTRAL PARK PAVILION.

THAT WOULD BE OUTDOORS, WEATHER PERMITTING, IF WEATHER WAS NOT AMENABLE FOR WHATEVER REASON, STORM RAIN STORMS, WE WOULD COME IN HERE TO TOWN HALL AND THEN TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27TH AT SAINT LUKE'S CHURCH.

SO SAME LOCATIONS AS LAST YEAR, SAME NOTION, TRYING TO DO ONE SORT OF IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE TOWNSHIP, ONE IN THE CENTRAL PART HERE, AND THEN ONE SORT OF IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE TOWNSHIP AS WELL.

IN TERMS OF FORMAT, WE WOULD PROPOSE A VERY SIMILAR FORMAT TO WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR, WHERE STAFF WILL PROVIDE A OVERVIEW OF SORT OF KEY ISSUES, KEY TOPICS, A SUMMARY OF THINGS VERY BRIEF.

THE ONE SORT OF CHANGE WITH RESPECT TO THAT IS, I THINK IT WOULD BE VALUABLE TO HAVE THE CLERK'S OFFICE PRESENT, ESPECIALLY WITH THREE ELECTIONS THIS YEAR, COULD BE A VALUABLE VALUE.

AND THEN LAST YEAR, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AROUND TAXES AND TAX RELATED ISSUES, I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE THE TREASURER PRESENT AS WELL AS PART OF THAT IF THEY'RE AMENABLE. AND AGAIN, THAT'S THE THE SMALLER THE SMALLER PORTION OF THAT PRESENTATION OR OVERALL LISTENING SESSION IS THE

[02:25:04]

AND THEN WE DO, OF COURSE, THAT SUMMARY OF THE SESSION AND PUT THAT ONLINE.

AND WE ALSO OFFER THE OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENTS TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK AHEAD OF TIME ON THE WEBSITE OR VIA EMAIL.

SO THOSE WOULD BE VERY SIMILAR TO LAST YEAR AS WELL.

SO LOOKING AGAIN FOR BOARD FEEDBACK ON THE DATES GENERALLY LOCATIONS AND OVERALL SORT OF PROCESS TRUSTEE AND THE TIME WILL BE THE TIME WILL BE 6 P.M. IN THE EVENING. SO AGAIN SIMILAR TO LAST YEAR AS WELL.

THANK YOU BOARD MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS CONCERNS.

TRUSTEE LENTZ. YEAH. I THINK WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR WENT REALLY WELL.

AS FAR AS MAKING IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, I'M CURIOUS IF, THERE'S ANY.

I GUESS MAYBE ANOTHER WAY TO PUT IT IS I APPRECIATE THE SUMMARIES SENT AFTERWARD, ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE WHO NORMALLY WANTS TO TAKE EVERY NOTE IN THE WORLD. DID WE RECEIVE ANY NOTES ON THOSE SUMMARIES AFTERWARD? ANY DESIRE BY THE PUBLIC TO CHANGE THOSE IN ANY WAY TO BE MORE ACCOMMODATING, MAYBE TO THOSE WHO AREN'T IN THE ROOM? OR IS IT PRETTY PRETTY MUCH GENERALLY WELL RECEIVED.

THEY, I THINK, ARE RESPONSIVE TO WHAT WE TRY TO GET AFTER YOU KNOW, WE SOMETIMES GET SOMEBODY WHO SAYS, WELL, THIS TOPIC MIGHT HAVE BEEN MISSED. WE'LL TRY TO CATCH THAT IN THE NEXT SESSION.

IF WE DID HAVE THAT, OR SOMETIMES WE'LL RESPOND DIRECTLY.

IF WE DO HEAR FROM A RESIDENT ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WASN'T ON THERE, IT MIGHT BE JUST AN EASY EMAIL RESPONSE OR CLARIFICATION, BUT GENERALLY I THINK THOSE HAVE BEEN WELL RECEIVED IN THE PUBLIC SEEMS TO BE IN FAVOR OF THE FORMAT THAT WE OPERATED WITH LAST YEAR, I TOOK A LOT AWAY FROM IT, TOOK AWAY A LOT FROM THOSE SESSIONS, AND SEE NO REASON TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DATES AS PROPOSED.

WHAT ELSE? I AGREE. YEAH, I THINK THAT WORKED OUT VERY WELL LAST TIME AROUND.

GIVES EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO A SESSION THAT'S CLOSE BY TO THEM.

WILL WE BE DOING ADVERTISING IN A SIMILAR FASHION WHERE THEY EACH WHERE EVERY HOUSEHOLD WILL AT SOME POINT GET A NOTICE THAT THERE'S A SESSION NEAR THEM? YES. WE WOULD LOOK AT SAYING WE'LL DO A NOTICE AHEAD OF THE SESSION THAT IS CLOSEST TO THEM GEOGRAPHICALLY.

SO DIVIDING THE TOWNSHIP UP INTO THIRDS. BECAUSE THE DIRECT MAILERS, WHILE HELPFUL I THINK CAN GET A LITTLE BIT COSTLY.

OF COURSE, WE'LL BE DOING A LOT ONLINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA LIKE WE WOULD TYPICALLY AS WELL.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT SOUNDS ALL RIGHT. YOU'VE BEEN VOLUNTOLD ABOUT A NEW SEGMENT.

I'LL BE TALKING TO MR. DEMPSEY AT LENGTH. SURE.

ABOUT WHAT TO PRESENT AND HOW TO PRESENT IT. TERRIFIC.

SO. ALL RIGHT. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN LASTLY, FOR OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS THIS EVENING STATE AND FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS.

[11.D. FY 2027 State and Federal Appropriations ]

SO THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, I THINK WE HEARD FROM REPRESENTATIVE BROOKS'S OFFICE THAT THEY'RE HOPING TO GET SUBMISSIONS ACTUALLY, BY THE END OF THIS MONTH, THE CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

THOSE APPLICATIONS WILL BE OPENING UP HERE IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO WITH A DEADLINE INTO NEXT MONTH FOR THOSE.

SO THE THREE PROPOSALS THAT WE SUBMITTED LAST YEAR ARE BEFORE YOU FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.

WE WORKED WITH OUR STATE SENATOR AND OUR TWO STATE REPRESENTATIVES WHO REPRESENT THE TOWNSHIP TO SUBMIT FOR THE CENTRAL FIRE STATION DORM EXPANSION, WHICH IS $1 MILLION REQUEST, LOOKING FOR FULL FUNDING FOR THE TWO FEDERAL ONES.

WE SPLIT IT UP WITH SENATOR PETERS. WE SOUGHT THE SOLAR PROJECT HERE FOR THE TOWNSHIP BUILDING AND THE TOWNSHIP CAMPUS TO TRY TO DO MORE SUBSTANTIAL SOLAR PROJECT AS WE MOVE TOWARDS OUR GOAL OF TRYING TO GET OFF OF FOSSIL FUELS, RIGHT, AND USING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TO, TO POWER THE TOWNSHIP'S FACILITIES.

AND THEN WE ALSO PUT A SUBMISSION THROUGH SENATOR SLOTKIN'S OFFICE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND SENIOR CENTER, WHICH WAS A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL ASK RECOGNIZING THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL ALLOCATIONS TEND TO BE IN THE $750,000 MILLION, BUT WE DID SORT OF MAKE A BIG ASK THERE, SETTING THE MINIMAL ON THAT ONE AT 750,000.

[02:30:04]

FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. I THINK ONE OF THE THE CHALLENGES THAT WE SORT OF WRESTLE WITH AT TIMES, PARTICULARLY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, IS ELIGIBILITY BECAUSE THESE DOLLARS FLOW THROUGH SO MANY DIFFERENT FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND SO MANY DIFFERENT FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS, UNLIKE THE STATE, WHICH TENDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF THE THE TYPICAL BUDGET PROCESS WHERE THERE TENDS TO BE GREATER FLEXIBILITY, THE FEDERAL ONES, WE TYPICALLY HAVE TO ADHERE TO A LOT OF THOSE PROGRAMMATIC REQUIREMENTS THE COMMUNITY AND SENIOR CENTER ONE, WE SORT OF WERE WORRIED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ELIGIBILITY, STILL SORT OF HAVE THOSE CONCERNS.

WE HAVE AT TIMES YOU KNOW, HAD TO SORT OF NAVIGATE WHERE DOES THAT REALLY FIT IN AS FAR AS FAR AS AN ELIGIBLE PROJECT? SO AS FAR AS MOVING FORWARD, I THINK IN TERMS OF THE TOWNSHIP'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, I THINK WE'VE ALL RECOGNIZED THE CENTRAL FIRE STATION IS AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.

WE DO HAVE FINAL PLANS READY TO GO ON THAT. THAT IS A SHOVEL READY PROJECT.

WE KNOW THAT THE NEED AT THE STATION IS THERE BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE EQUITY IN TERMS OF THE DORMITORIES AND MAKING SURE WE HAVE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR OUR FIREFIGHTERS THERE. THAT COULD BE A GOOD REQUEST AGAIN.

I THINK THROUGH THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AS FAR AS THE FEDERAL REQUEST CERTAINLY THERE'S A BIT OF A HESITATION WITH ANYTHING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RELATED JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN FROM THE ADMINISTRATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

AND I THINK THERE, TO PUT IT MILDLY, NOT EMBRACING SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS.

HOWEVER, I THINK THAT PROJECT FROM AN INFRASTRUCTURE STANDPOINT AND FROM A, YOU KNOW, VALUE THAT WE COULD RECEIVE AS A TOWNSHIP IS QUITE HIGH.

AND CERTAINLY GIVEN OUR BUDGET CHALLENGES, YOU KNOW, THE THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH AS WE GO FORWARD IS FINDING OUR OWN MONEY FOR THOSE INVESTMENTS. SO THAT COULD BE ANOTHER GOOD OPPORTUNITY.

THE COMMUNITY AND SENIOR CENTER ONE AGAIN, GIVEN WHERE THAT PROPOSAL STANDS, I'M NOT SURE THAT ONE WOULD BE AS HIGH OF A PRIORITY, AT LEAST FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE. BUT CERTAINLY WE'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS WITH THE BOARD, GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON THESE AND THEN OTHER IDEAS THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST.

BOARD MEMBERS, THIS WOULD BE OUR OPPORTUNITY TO TO WEIGH IN ON THAT.

THE DEADLINE FROM REPRESENTATIVE BROOKS'S OFFICE WAS WHEN THEY THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING SUBMITTED BY THE END OF THE MONTH THIS MONTH, THIS FEBRUARY? YES. YEAH. THAT'S THEIR, THEIR PREFERENCE.

SO THEY DO WANT TO MOVE A LITTLE QUICKER ON THAT.

THE FEDERAL ONES AGAIN COMING A LITTLE BIT LATER.

SURE. TRUSTEE TREZISE. WELL, I CAN AGREE WITH MANAGER OF THE THAT THE CENTRAL FIRE STATION ADDITION AND THE SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC ARE PROJECTS WORTH RESUBMITTING.

WE CAN DO SOME EXPLORATION AS FAR AS WHETHER THERE'S ANY PROGRAMS THAT MIGHT SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY CENTER, BUT THAT PROBABLY IS DOWN THE ROAD. IT WOULDN'T COME THIS YEAR UNTIL WE HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHERE WE'RE GOING.

SO IT'S KIND OF HARD TO JUSTIFY IT AT THIS POINT.

WE'VE BEEN APPLYING FOR GRANTS. WE ARE APPLYING FOR A GRANT FOR THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS INFRASTRUCTURE.

WHAT'S THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENT OF THAT? I WONDER IF THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO APPLY FOR THERE.

TO HELP TO MOVE THINGS ALONG IF THERE'S STILL.

LIKE WE HAD HEARD AT SOME POINT THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING BURIED UNDER THE INTERSECTION. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE GAS TANKS? RIGHT? TANKS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION? SOMETHING THAT WE COULD GO TO THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR? YEAH. I'LL HAVE DEPUTY MANAGER OPSOMMER COME UP.

I MEAN, TO TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE KNOW OF ANYTHING DEFINITIVE THERE THAT IS ON SITE.

CERTAINLY THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES. IF WE WERE TO DISCOVER SOMETHING, TO GO START WITH EGLE AND TO LOOK AT THEIR FUNDING.

IF THERE WAS AN UNKNOWN THERE TO PREVENT THE PROJECT.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY CURRENT COST IN THE OVERALL $12 MILLION GRANT REQUEST FOR THAT, BUT I'LL MAKE SURE THAT I'M NOT SPEAKING OUT OF TURN HERE ON THAT.

SO I'LL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM AND DIRECTOR SCHMITT TO SEE IF ANY REMEDIATION WAS DONE.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS WERE BENEATH THE ROAD.

AND THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN REMEDIATED YET, BUT THERE IS DEDICATED STATE FUNDING FOR REMEDIATION SUCH AS THAT.

[02:35:05]

THERE'S OTHER SOURCES. OKAY. THE OTHER THING I'LL MENTION IS, I THINK, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING THE SPLIT NATURE OF THE LEGISLATURE AND HOW HOW CHALLENGING THAT IS TO NAVIGATE.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO CONSIDER HOW POLITICALLY NEUTRAL TO MAKE THESE REQUESTS? YES. WE DON'T WANT TO FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE A PERFECTLY REASONABLE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUEST FOR CAPACITY IN OUR DORMITORIES, GETS MIXED SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S CALLED SOMETHING.

RIGHT. WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING NOT TO TRIP FLAGS.

RIGHT. RIGHT. SO I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE JUST BEING AS CAUTIOUS WITH OUR WORDING AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.

YEAH. AND THAT'S A FAIR POINT. AND I THINK WE DEFINITELY TRIED TO ADDRESS THAT LAST YEAR.

BUT IF WE WERE TO RESUBMIT ON ANY OF THESE, WE'LL CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT WITH A RENEWED VIGOR TO MAKE SURE THAT.

NOW, HAVING SEEN WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE IN THIS LEGISLATURE, I FEEL LIKE IT'S IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE PAY EXTRA SPECIAL ATTENTION TO IT.

ARE WE BEING ASKED BY ANYONE I KNOW REGIONALLY, WE WERE ASKED LAST YEAR FOR THE FIBER OPTIC COMMS. ARE WE BEING ASKED BY OTHER UNITS TO PARTNER ON ANY KIND OF REQUESTS.

YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT HAS, OF COURSE, SORT OF LOOKED AT WHAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO PURSUE IN TERMS OF GRANT DOLLARS ACROSS THE REGION. OUTSIDE OF THAT, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY I HAVEN'T BEEN CONTACTED BY ANYONE ELSE THAT SO I KNOW THAT I KNOW CHIEF HAMMEL STILL TALKING TO HIS REGIONAL PARTNERS AT THE OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENTS, BUT I'VE NOT HEARD AN UPDATE RECENTLY AS TO WHERE THEY'RE AT IN TERMS OF TRYING TO GET A JOINT REGIONAL APPLICATION TOGETHER FOR THE OPTIMUMS. YEAH. AND ACTUALLY FOR THE OPTICOM SPECIFICALLY, I KNOW THAT THE THE MOST RECENT SUBMISSION, AGAIN, THROUGH FEDERAL GRANT DOLLARS, NOT THROUGH THE CDS PROCESS DID NOT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL.

THEY HAD A MUCH LARGER OVERALL REQUEST NATIONALLY.

AND THEY FUNDED, AGAIN, THE SMALLER NUMBER BECAUSE THEY HAD RECEIVED, I THINK, A FUNDING CUT FOR THAT PARTICULAR AVENUE.

NOW, I THINK THEY DO INTEND TO REVISIT THAT AGAIN THROUGH TRADITIONAL GRANT SORT OF PROCESSES, AND NOT NECESSARILY THROUGH THE CDS PROCESS. OKAY.

AND THEN I KNOW THAT WE ALSO WERE IN EARLY CONVERSATIONS AT ONE POINT LAST YEAR WITH ABOUT TRYING TO RELEVEL OKEMOS ROAD NORTH OF WHERE IT FLOODS. AND HAVE WE CONSIDERED THAT AS A POSSIBLE REQUEST FOR FUNDING AS WELL? SO I THINK THE ONE OF THE PRIMARY CHALLENGES WOULD BE DOLLAR AMOUNTS, BECAUSE THE CDS FUNDS ARE NEVER ADEQUATE TO DO A PROJECT OF THAT MAGNITUDE.

THAT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO BE, AGAIN, ONE OF THOSE PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE ROAD DEPARTMENT IN TERMS OF IDENTIFYING PROBABLY A VARIETY OF FUNDING SOURCES TO CONSIDER. YEAH, A SLIGHT ADDITION TO THAT. THE INTERIM MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ROAD DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY REACHED OUT IN RESPONSE TO THE STATE LAWMAKERS BRINGING FORTH REQUESTS. RIGHT. SO COMPTROLLER TODD, AT THE COUNTY LEVEL IS KIND OF FACILITATING THAT DEPARTMENT WIDE FOR THE COUNTY.

SO THE ROAD DEPARTMENT DID ASK US WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS WE MIGHT HAVE.

SO I ASKED THAT THEY CONSIDER APPLYING FOR THAT.

BUT TO MANAGER DEMPSEY POINT, RIGHT. STATE APPROPRIATIONS WOULD PROBABLY BE LUCKY TO GET A MILLION.

AND SO THERE'D HAVE TO BE SOME LOCAL FUNDING OR SOME FEDERAL FUNDING.

THEY COULD MATCH, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT FEDERAL STATE FUNDING THAT'S BEING PUT FORTH FROM OUR STATE LAWMAKERS.

THEY COULD USE FEDERAL FUNDS TO MATCH WITH THE STATE GRANT TO FULLY FUND A PROJECT LIKE THAT.

BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE SHEET PILING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD.

I SUSPECT THE DECHAINE OFFICE WILL WANT TO FULLY REPLACE THE CULVERT, FOR THE PINE LAKE OUTLET CROSSING.

SO IT IS A IT WOULD BE AN EXPENSIVE, ALBEIT FAIRLY NARROW PROJECT LIMITS BUT EXPENSIVE PROJECT GIVEN THE FOOTPRINT.

SO WE ARE KIND OF WORKING ON THAT THROUGH THE COUNTY'S APPLICATION.

I KNOW LAST YEAR ON THE CD, NOT THE CDS SIDE, AND NOT TO CONFUSE WITH ALL THE ACRONYMS THAT SOUND ALIKE, BUT AT THE AT THE HOUSE LEVEL, THE US HOUSE LEVEL, IT'S THE CPF COMMUNITY PROJECT FUND.

[02:40:04]

WE JUST NEVER GOT AN AFFIRMATIVE YES OR NO AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS ELIGIBLE.

ON THE CDS SIDE, I SEEM TO RECALL THAT WE EXPLORED IT AND IT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE.

BUT I'M NOT 100% CERTAIN ON THAT. BUT I KNOW ON BARRETT'S OFFICE, I LOOKED BACK AT THE EMAIL CHAIN IN ANTICIPATION FOR THIS, AND WE JUST NEVER GOT A CONCRETE ANSWER. WE CAN GO BACK AGAIN AND TRY.

BUT THE EMAIL CHAIN JUST DIED WITH HIS STAFF.

WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF WE CAN PURSUE THIS, IT WOULD BE NICE TO TRY IF ONLY BECAUSE, I MEAN, SHOW ME A MORE TRAVELED THOROUGHFARE IN THE COUNTY THAT REGULARLY HAS TO BE SHUT DOWN FOR FLOODING, LIKE, EVERY SINGLE YEAR, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T EXIST.

I CAN TELL YOU THE ANSWER TO THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO PURSUE EVERY POSSIBLE AVENUE OF FUNDING, SOME KIND OF PROJECT SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THAT ROAD OPEN AND, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT EACH SPRING.

YEAH. BUT, YEAH, I BEYOND THAT, I AGREE WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT TRUSTEE TREZISE AND TRUSTEE WILSON TALKED ABOUT, ABOUT THE DORM AND THE PHOTO OF THE SOLAR ARRAYS TO THE STATE.

I THINK THAT'S A FINE WAY TO GO FORWARD. I DON'T IMAGINE, GIVEN THE RANCOR AROUND SOLAR, EVEN AT THE STATE LEVEL, THAT WE'LL SEE ANYTHING THERE. BUT IT'S WORTH ASKING JUST TO TRY.

IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT, YOU KNOW, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STATE FUNDING AND NOT FEDERAL FUNDING, MAYBE WE PICK ONE OF THE SMALLER REMAINING ARRAYS THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT.

THE I THINK WE HAD ONE THAT WAS AT CENTRAL FIRE STATION.

I THINK WE HAD ONE THAT WAS AT THE SERVICE CENTER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT ROAD.

THERE WERE A COUPLE THAT WERE OF SMALLER DOLLAR FIGURES THAT MIGHT BE MORE APT TO BE FUNDED.

AND ANYTHING THAT WE CAN GET IS MONEY WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND.

SO, YEAH, WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT THOSE OTHER SITES AND ALTERNATIVES.

OTHERS. YOU HIT ON THE AREAS THAT I WAS MOST INTERESTED IN THAT THAT BEING THE FLOODING.

SO. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MUCH. WILL THIS BE COMING BACK AT ANY POINT, OR ARE WE? WELL, WE'LL WE'LL JUST UPDATE THE BOARD. NOW THAT WE HAVE GENERAL DIRECTION, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT THAT IN TERMS OF ANY REQUIREMENTS THAT THAT MIGHT NEED.

FORMAL APPROVAL WILL CERTAINLY BRING THOSE BACK.

BUT WE'LL PROCEED AND START TO COMPILE THAT. AND WE'LL BE BACK IF NEED BE.

OTHERWISE, I'LL CERTAINLY KEEP THE BOARD INFORMED ON WHERE WE STAND.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 12 COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.

I DID RECEIVE ONE NEW CARD. IF YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN US.

[12. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ]

AND YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS? YEAH.

MY NAME IS ROBIN, AND I'M FROM CENTRAL PARK ESTATE.

AND FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR SUCH A LIVELY DISCUSSION ON VARIOUS TOPICS, AND I WOULD COME BACK TO THE TOPIC WHICH I AM INTERESTED IN, WHICH IS AUTHENTIC.

AND THEY'RE ALSO. YOU GUYS WERE AMAZING. YOU WERE ASKING GOOD QUESTIONS, DIFFICULT QUESTIONS, WHICH REALLY IS GOOD. SO THAT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE UNBIASED AND YOU ARE TRYING TO GET THE BEST THING DONE FOR THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU GUYS ARE CALLED TRUSTEES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE TRUST IN YOU.

THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MENTION A FEW POINTS.

WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE MODIFICATION TO THE SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THAT WOULD ALLOW THE REZONING TO CHANGE BACK TO US, NOT BACK TO CHANGE TO RC, WHICH WE ARE OPPOSED TO.

RD IS MAXIMUM, WHICH WE ARE IN FAVOR OF. RC IS A NO NO FOR US BECAUSE IT'S IT'S AS TRUSTEE, WILSON AND TRUSTEE LENTZ HAVE EXPLAINED VERY WELL AND ARTICULATED VERY WELL.

THIS IS NOT A GOOD WAY OF DOING DEVELOPMENT ON THREE PARCELS, WHICH ARE SPLIT BY ROADS.

AND THAT'S THE ONLY WAY FOR US CENTRAL PARK ESTATE TO EXIT AND ENTER THEIR RESIDENCE.

SO IN THAT CONTEXT, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD ONE MORE THING.

THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT OTHER MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN TOWNSHIP.

SO WE CANNOT HAVE A ONE SIZE FITS ALL SOLUTION FOR THIS KIND OF AN ISSUE.

THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION BECAUSE THE ROADS WE ARE KIND OF THE CENTRAL ESTATE HAS NO OTHER WAY OF GOING IN AND OUT.

[02:45:01]

SO THAT'S ONE THING. AND THEN THE THE DEVELOPER ITSELF HAS EXPLAINED THAT THEY ARE THEY ARE TRYING VERY HARD TO DO SOME PLANNING.

THE PLANNING FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO IT WELL.

SO MAYBE THEY ARE TRYING TO FIT A SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE.

MAYBE THEY SHOULD STOP TRYING IT. IT'S. IT'S NOT A GOOD.

IT'S NOT A GOOD FIT. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN MULTIPLE TIMES.

IF IT WAS A GOOD FIT, WHY WOULD PLANNING COMMISSION DECLINE TO ACCEPT IT? WHY WOULD A BOARD OF TRUSTEES WOULD DECLINE TO ACCEPT IT? SO IT HAS IT HAS BEEN TESTED THROUGHOUT THESE MONTHS, FROM OCTOBER UNTIL NOW, AND EVERY TIME IT HAS FAILED THE TEST OF A GOOD FIT FOR THE TOWNSHIP. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD FIT FOR THIS.

AND ALSO THE INFILLS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USED FIRST FOR ALL KIND OF DEVELOPMENT.

AND THIS THIS LAND DOESN'T FIT THAT CRITERIA.

IT SHOULD NOT BE OPENED UP FIRST FOR DEVELOPMENT WHEN THERE IS SO MUCH OTHER INFILL LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT.

AND FEASIBILITY VERSUS SUITABILITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

IT MAY BE FEASIBLE AS A PROJECT, BUT IT'S NOT SUITABLE FOR THE TOWNSHIP.

MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. I HAVE MANY OTHER POINTS. SO THE ONE LAST POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT THE DEVELOPER AND THE LANDOWNER, THEY GO, THEY GOT A CHANCE TO HAVE A DIALOG BACK AND FORTH.

THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATE RESIDENTS NEVER GOT A CHANCE.

IF THAT CHANCE IS GIVEN TO RESIDENTS, YOU WILL SEE YOU SEE, YOU WILL SEE THE WHOLE TRUTH BEHIND THIS PROJECT AND YOU CAN MAKE A VERY INFORMED DECISION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING A GUARDIAN OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VINCE.

MONICA. AND THAT'S THE LAST CARD. IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL OUT A CARD AT THIS TIME.

THE THE NUMBER OF CPE RESIDENTS AT THESE HEARINGS DOESN'T ALWAYS FULLY REFLECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SENTIMENT.

HERE'S THE I ASSUME YOU'VE SEEN IT. THIS IS A PETITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AGAINST THE PROJECT AND SIX PAGES OF SIGNATURES.

WELL OVER 100 PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH VARIOUS QUICK THINGS HERE.

THE I HOPEFULLY YOU'VE ALL RECEIVED THIS COPY THAT WAS EMAILED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION LAST YEAR.

IT'S A REFUTATION OF CONTINENTAL'S INCORRECT ASSERTIONS, AND IT GOES ON FOR FOUR PAGES REGARDING TRAFFIC VOLUME, MISCHARACTERIZATIONS, MISCHARACTERIZATION, STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE MINIMIZATION, FRAMING WITHOUT EVIDENCE, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DOWNPLAYING INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITY, AMBIGUITY, DENSITY REPRESENTATION AND UNIT COUNT DISCREPANCY, ETC. AND IF ANYONE WANTS THAT DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT, I CAN DROP IT OFF TO THE DESK AND TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO DISTRIBUTE TO YOU.

JUST JUST LET ME KNOW. AND THE MASTER PLAN CALLS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, AND IT'S ALREADY NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEDESTRIAN TO CROSS CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.

I WALK A LOT. AND I'LL TELL YOU, I'M TAKING MY LIFE IN MY HANDS EVERY TIME I TRY TO CROSS THAT STREET ON FOOT.

AND I'M PRETTY QUICK. AND IT'S GOING TO JUST GET WORSE WITH AUTHENTIC OKEMOS.

THERE'S DIFFERENT NUMBERS THAT ARE PUT OUT THERE FOR INCREASED TRAFFIC AMOUNTS.

I THINK THAT AUTHENTIC SAYS TRAFFIC STUDY SHOWS 1300 STUDY BY AI WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOWED OVER 2000.

I'M NOT SURE WHICH IS ACCURATE, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC. THE MASTER PLAN ALSO CALLS FOR INFILL ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED SITES, NOT DEVELOPMENT IN WETLANDS OR WETLAND ADJACENT BUFFER AREAS.

THE PROPOSED COMPLEX REPLACES WETLANDS AND NATURAL AREAS AND WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVE DRAINAGE, IT'S IN CONFLICT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE, LAND MAP AND POLICY GOALS OF THE MASTER PLAN.

THAT'S JUST A FEW OF THE MASTER PLAN INCOMPATIBILITIES, BUT.

AND NOT TO OPEN A SOURCE WOUND HERE, BUT I'VE ATTENDED MANY OF THESE MEETINGS WITH YOU AND WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND THE ONE INSTANCE I SAW OF A RESIDENT SPEAKING AGAINST APARTMENT DWELLERS HAPPENED IN THE CONTEXT OF MANY ATTEMPTED BREAK INS OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL WEEKS IN CENTRAL PARK ESTATES. THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF FEAR IN CPE.

I WOULD SAY TERROR REALLY ON THE PART OF A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS.

THERE WERE MANY VIDEOS POSTED ON THE CPE APP SHOWING MANY ATTEMPTED HOME INVASIONS OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL WEEKS.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT THAT PUTS IT IN PERSPECTIVE A LITTLE BIT OF WHY THAT ONE PERSON SAID SOMETHING.

THAT'S THAT'S THE ONE INSTANCE I CAN THINK OF AS FAR AS THE WORD TRANSIENT DICTIONARY PORTRAYS IT AS A NEUTRAL WORD.

I THINK IN THIS CONTEXT, IT WAS SPEAKING OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE AS MUCH STAKE IN THE COMMUNITY AS HOMEOWNERS.

[02:50:03]

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM 13. OTHER MATTERS AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS. ANY OTHER MATTERS THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE, WE DO HAVE OUR CLOSED SESSION THIS EVENING. SO WE NEED A MOTION TO ENTER.

[14. CLOSED SESSION-Motion to enter closed session pursuant to MCL 15.268(1)(h) to consult with the Township attorney to consider a confidential written legal opinion regarding a grievance settlement agreement and pursuant to MCL 15.268(1)(d) to discuss the Township’s purchase or lease of property. ]

CLOSED FOR N N H. CLOSED FOR N TO CONSULT WITH THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY TO CONSIDER A CONFIDENTIAL WRITTEN LEGAL OPINION REGARDING A GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND PURSUANT TO MCL 15.268 FOR N ONE CLOSED END FOR N D CLOSED TO DISCUSS THE TOWNSHIP'S PURCHASE OR LEASE OF PROPERTY SUPPORT.

BEEN MOVED BY TRUSTEE TREZISE SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WILSON.

TEMPORARY CLERK. WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YES. TRUSTEE. WILSON. EXCUSE ME. TRUSTEE TREZISE.

YES. TRUSTEE. WILSON. YES. SUPERVISOR. HENDRICKSON.

YES. TREASURER BURGHARDT. YES. TRUSTEE LENTZ.

YES. TRUSTEE. SUNDLAND. YES. SIX ZERO PASSES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS TIME WE'LL ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION.

EVERYONE, PLEASE CLEAR THE ROOM. YEAH, WE GOT MONITORS.

ALL RIGHT. MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP BOARD WILL REOPEN.

OPEN. REENTER OPEN SESSION AT 10 P.M.. WE HAVE A MOTION.

TRUSTEE TREZISE. YES. FOLLOWING OUR MEETING IN CLOSED SESSION, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION EMPLOYEES.

SO TPO RELATED TO GRIEVANCE 24 300 FOR AN FMCS CASE NUMBER 20 (502) 120-3463 AND GRIEVANCES 25, DASH THREE, EIGHT NINE AND 25 391 AND AUTHORIZE THE TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT.

SUPPORT MOVED BY TRUSTEE TREZISE AND SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WILSON.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? SEEING NONE WILL TEMPORARY CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YES. TRUSTEE. WILSON. YES. SUPERVISOR. HENDRICKSON.

YES. TREASURER BURGHARDT. YES. TRUSTEE LENTZ.

YES. TRUSTEE. SUNDLAND. YES. TRUSTEE. TREZISE.

YES. MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MY AGE. I WAS TAKING A NAP. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM 15 FOR ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED. MOVED BY TRUSTEE.

WILSON. SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE LENTZ. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES AND WE STAND ADJOURNED AT 10:02 P.M..

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.