Mar 03, 2026 Township Board

[00:01:34]

THANK YOU. I'LL TAKE THAT GREEN CARD IF YOU'RE ALL SET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI. MAYBE, MAYBE, MAYBE YOU'RE TRYING TO LOG IN. AND WHEN YOU'RE OUT OF THE COUNTRY... IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO MENTION THE STATISTICS? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.

DO YOU REMEMBER A COMMENT FROM AN ADSON? PROBABLY? RIGHT. YEAH. THANK YOU. GOOD

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS A ROLL CALL.

WILL CLERK DEMAS PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON? HERE. CLERK DEMAS? HERE. TREASURER BURKHART? HERE. TRUSTEE LENTZ? HERE. TRUSTEE SUNLAND? HERE. TRUSTEE TREZISE? HERE.

TRUSTEE WILSON? HERE. AND BOARD MEMBERS' COVENANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL GET EVERYONE

[4. PRESENTATIONS]

THE FIRST WILL BRING CHIEF GRILLO UP. WE HAVE AN INTRODUCTION OF A NEW POLICE OFFICER, SPENCER MANDERNACK. CHIEF, WELCOME BACK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE TONIGHT.

WITH MORE GOOD NEWS, WE HAVE HIRED ANOTHER OFFICER.

OFFICER SPENCER MANDERNACK SWORE IN WITH US YESTERDAY.

SPENCER IS ACTUALLY THE BROTHER OF ONE OF OUR CURRENT OFFICERS RIGHT NOW, IAN MANDERNACK, AND THAT'S KIND OF HOW HE FELL INTO OUR LAP. AND VERY PLEASED TO HAVE HIM. SPENCER GREW UP IN THE LANSING AREA, ACTUALLY IN OKEMOS FOR A FEW YEARS BEFORE MOVING TO BRIGHTON WITH HIS FAMILY. WENT TO WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, WHERE HE GOT HIS DEGREE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE. TWO WEEKS LATER, UNBEKNOWNST TO HIS PARENTS, IT SOUNDS LIKE, HE JOINED THE ARMY AND LEFT FOR BASIC TRAINING. AND DID NOT COME BACK FOR 10 YEARS. HE SPENT 10 YEARS IN THE U.S.

ARMY. HE BECAME A BLACK HAWK HELICOPTER PILOT. HE WAS DEPLOYED OVERSEAS FOR A YEAR RECENTLY, AND IN 2025, HE LEFT THE MILITARY AND WENT TO THE NATIONAL GUARD. HE STILL FLIES BLACK HAWK HELICOPTERS, THOUGH I'M GUESSING WE ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GET A HELICOPTER. IF WE DO, WE HAVE A PILOT READY TO LEAVE. JUST SAYING. I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN THE BOOK. I DON'T THINK SO EITHER, BUT JUST. JUST PUT IT IN YOUR EAR. BUT, NO, SERIOUSLY, HE IS A MAN OF VERY HIGH CHARACTER, VERY RESPECTFUL. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE NICE THINGS IS WE'RE UP TO 40 OFFICERS NOW, AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T LOWERED OUR STANDARDS ONE BIT, AND SPENCER MEETS AND EXCEEDS ALL OF OUR STANDARDS HERE. SO I'M VERY PLEASED TO PRESENT TO YOU OUR NEWEST OFFICER, SPENCER MANDERNACK. YES, SIR.

TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, TO THE PEOPLE OF MOODY.

[00:05:01]

WELCOME. WELCOME. THANKS FOR JOINING US. NICE TO MEET YOU. THE NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM 4B, AND WE HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THE 2026 LOCAL ROAD PROGRAM, AND WE HAVE DEPUTY GOVERNOR DROPS FROM HERE TO TALK TO US ABOUT THAT. GOOD EVENING, SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON AND BOARD MEMBERS. SO TONIGHT IS OUR ANNUAL PRESENTATION, WHICH WE GIVE AROUND THIS TIME OF THE YEAR EVERY YEAR. AND AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE TWO CONTRACTS FOR THE 2026 LOCAL ROAD PROGRAM ON YOUR CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING. I'M GOING TO MOVE VERY QUICKLY THROUGH THE SLIDES BECAUSE WE DO HAVE MORE SLIDES THAN WE HAVE HAD IN PREVIOUS YEARS. SO JUST A QUICK REFRESHER ON THE LOCAL ROAD PROGRAM, WE HAVE 153 MILES OF LOCAL ROADS IN THE TOWNSHIP. 2026 WILL BE OUR SEVENTH CONSTRUCTION SEASON UNDER THE NEW MILLAGE APPROVED IN AUGUST OF 2019. AND BACK IN 2019, WHEN WE PROPOSED THIS MILLAGE, OUR GOAL WAS TO ACHIEVE AN AVERAGE PACER RATING OF AN 8 ON A 1 TO 10 SCALE. 1 BEING POOR, 10 BEING EXCELLENT. SO, AS WE DO EVERY THREE YEARS, WE HAD ENGINEERS DRIVE THE ENTIRE 153 MILE ROAD NETWORK AND RATE ALL OF THE LOCAL ROADS. BACK IN THE FALL OF 2019, WHEN WE HAD JUST PASSED THE NEW MILLAGE, THE AVERAGE PACER RATING ON THE TOWNSHIP'S LOCAL ROAD NETWORK WAS 4.48. OUR FINDING THIS FALL, WHEN WE UPDATED THE RATINGS, WAS THAT WE WERE NOW AT A 6.2. SO THAT'S A 38% INCREASE IN JUST SIX YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION. WE'RE INCREASING AT ABOUT 0.29 PER YEAR, SO IF WE CONTINUE THAT TREND, WE'RE TRENDING TOWARDS ABOUT A 6.7 TO A 6.75 AT THE END OF 2027. WHICH WILL LIKELY BE OUR LAST VERY ROBUST YEAR IN TERMS OF FUNDING UNDER THE CURRENT MILLAGE.

FINAL NOTE THERE IS IT WOULD BE EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT TO FIND A LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT WITH A LOCAL ROAD. AVERAGE PACER RATING ABOVE SIX, AND PUSHING SEVEN WOULD BE NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE. THERE ARE VERY FEW COMMUNITIES THAT WOULD HAVE A LOCAL ROAD AVERAGE PACER RATING LIKE THAT. SO WHY ARE WE BEHIND THE GOAL OF AN EIGHT? THE PRIMARY CAUSE WAS THE INFLATION THAT WE SAW POST-PANDEMIC. SO IN 2020 AND 2021, WE WERE GETTING BIDS FOR $60 TO $65 PER TON FOR ASPHALT. TODAY, OUR BIDS ARE COMING IN AT $90 TO $100, AND THAT'S BEEN TRUE SINCE 2022. THE GOOD NEWS IS, PRICING HAS BEEN FLAT SINCE THE PANDEMIC CONCLUDED.

TRUSTEE LENZ ACTUALLY ASKED A QUESTION THAT PROMPTED THIS ADDITIONAL SLIDE THIS YEAR. SO BEFORE YOU IS A TABLE THAT COMPARES THE AVERAGE ANNUAL INVESTMENT PER MILE OF LOCAL ROAD FOR ALL OF THE TOWNSHIPS IN INGHAM COUNTY. SO, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE RANGE IS $900 PER MILE FOR DELHI, ALL THE WAY UP TO MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, AT JUST OVER $29,000 PER MILE. SO WE ARE INVESTING $30,000 TO...

ABOUT SIX TO THIRTY TIMES WHAT EVERY OTHER TOWNSHIP IN INGHAM COUNTY IS INVESTING PER MILE OF LOCAL ROAD. WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE OUR PACER RATING WHERE IT IS TODAY. SO JUST TO RECAP LAST YEAR'S PROGRAM, WE RESURFACED AND RECONSTRUCTED 5.7 MILES OF ROADS IN POOR CONDITION. THIS INCLUDED TIHART ROAD, NEWMAN ROAD, THE REMAINING ROADS IN POOR CONDITION IN TACOMA HILLS, LAC DU MONDE. AND HAZLET, AND IT SEEMED TO BE FOR, OH, AND EVERETT FARMS AND EVERETT WOODS BETWEEN HAZLET AND LAKE LANSING ROAD AND HAZLET AS WELL. SOME OF THE UNIQUE PROJECTS THAT KIND OF FALL BY THE WAYSIDE THAT I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT TONIGHT WAS THE GRAVEL PORTION OF TYE HART ROAD FROM TWINGING DRIVE TO CORNELL ROAD. WE IMPROVED THE GRAVEL ROAD BY ESSENTIALLY CRUSHING IT IN PLACE, SHAPING IT, AND GRADING IT, AND THEN WE I DID WHAT'S CALLED AN ASPHALT STABILIZATION TREATMENT. SO ESSENTIALLY, WE MIX IN. AS WE CRUSH AND PULVERIZE IT, WE MIX IN LIQUID ASPHALT TO GLUE THAT SAND AND GRAVEL TOGETHER. AND THEN WE DID A DOUBLE CHIP SEAL

[00:10:01]

AND IT'S HOLDING UP PRETTY WELL, GIVEN THAT WE JUST HAD THE WORST FREEZE AND THAW CYCLE THAT WE'VE HAD IN QUITE SOME TIME. CORNELL ROAD FROM GRAND RIVER AVENUE TO HAZLET ROAD RECEIVED...

OVERLAY PAVING AND A DOUBLE CHIP SEAL TREATMENT TO KEEP IT IN GOOD CONDITION. CORNELL ROAD RECEIVED A FULL-DEPTH CRUSH-AND-SHAPE TREATMENT, ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING ON THE ROADS TODAY IN 2013. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO KEEP THAT ROAD IN GOOD CONDITION. AND THEN WE ARE GETTING POTHOLE COMPLAINTS FOR CORNELL ROAD, SOUTH OF GRAND RIVER AVENUE. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, BUT WE'RE ADVISING RESIDENTS THAT WE WILL ADDRESS CORNELL ROAD BETWEEN GRAND RIVER AND HATCH, POST- CORNELL ELEMENTARY RECONSTRUCTION. WE DO NOT WANT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S CONSTRUCTION PREMATURELY DEGRADING THE ROAD. AND THAT IS ACTUALLY DUE TO BE COMPLETED.

THE ELEMENTARY SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY AUGUST OF 2028.

IF THEY FALL BEHIND, THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN TROUBLE. SO, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD SEE THAT TIMELINE REMAIN TRUE. ALSO, IN 2025, WE APPLIED ASPHALT REJUVENATOR TREATMENTS TO EXTEND THE LIFE. OF NEARLY 15 MILES OF ROADS THAT WERE RECENTLY RESURFACED. AND THEN THE 2024 AND 2025 CRACK FILL TREATMENT LIMITS ARE GOING TO BE COMPLETED IN 2026. THE BOARD APPROVED THAT CONTRACT IN THE FALL. THIS IS A DRONE SHOT OF TACOMA BOULEVARD FROM LAST YEAR AFTER IT WAS RECONSTRUCTED.

THIS ROAD ALSO RECEIVED AN ASPHALT STABILIZATION TREATMENT BENEATH THE ASPHALT. DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT TACOMA BOULEVARD. THANK YOU. SEAS, WE WANTED TO STRENGTHEN THAT ROADWAY.

MANITOU DRIVE WILL BE AN INTERESTING CASE STUDY.

MANITOU RECEIVED A HOT IN PLACE RECYCLE. THAT'S BASICALLY WHERE WE MILL OFF THE TOP INCH AND A HALF, MIX IT IN WITH SOME NEW AGGREGATE AND PAVE IT BACK DOWN. A HOT IN PLACE RECYCLE IS A BAND AID THAT LASTS APPROXIMATELY 10 YEARS. SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE, ALBEIT WITH 7 YEARS IN BETWEEN, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TREATMENTS WE DO TODAY UNDER THE MILLAGE, VERSUS THE OLD TREATMENTS.

WHEN WE HAD, YOU KNOW, A MINUSCULE AMOUNT THAT WOULD NOT EVEN BEGIN TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE LOCAL ROAD SYSTEM. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A NICE CASE STUDY. AND THIS IS JUST A PICTURE OF NEWMAN ROAD, WHERE WE WERE PAVING THE TOP COURSE IN THE FALL. FUNDING FOR THE 2025 PROGRAM, $335,000 CAME FROM THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT, THEIR STANDARD ALLOCATION. 280,000 FROM THE TOWNSHIP GENERAL FUND, AND THEN THE ROAD BOND PROVIDED 4.47 MILLION. OUR TOTAL SPENDING IN 2025 WAS JUST UNDER 5.1 MILLION. SO, DURING THE FIRST SIX YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION, WE HAVE NOW RECONSTRUCTED 46.83 MILES AND COMPLETED ABOUT 96.07 MILES OF PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE WORK ON THE 153 MILE LOCAL ROAD NETWORK. SO 2026, LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS UPCOMING CONSTRUCTION SEASON. WE HAVE 7.5 MILES OF ROADS THAT ARE IN THE TWO CONTRACTS BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING TO BE RECONSTRUCTED. AND 20.5 MILES OF CRACK, FILL AND MASTIC TREATMENTS, WHICH THE BOARD APPROVED IN THE FALL. SO WE WILL BE DOING A TOTAL OF ABOUT 28 MILES OF WORK ON THE LOCAL ROAD NETWORK THIS YEAR. HEWLETT ROAD DESIGN. SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING NOW FOR TWO YEARS ON THE HEWLETT ROAD DESIGN.

FOCUSING PRIMARILY ON PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT LIVE BETWEEN THE CSX RAILROAD AND OKEMOS ROAD. BECAUSE THOSE WERE THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT PETITIONED IN THE 2000S TO HAVE THE EXISTING SPEED HUMPS INSTALLED. OUR DESIGN THAT WE HAVE MOVED FORWARD WITH WOULD ELIMINATE THOSE SPEED HUMPS AND CREATE CONTIGUOUS TRAFFIC CALMING FROM BENNETT ROAD TO OKEMOS ROAD. RATHER THAN ONLY HAVING TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES FROM THE CSX RAILROAD CROSSING TO OKEMOS ROAD. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT TRAFFIC CALMING WITH MEDIAN ISLANDS LIKE YOU SEE HERE. ONE OF THE MORE FINER POINTS OF WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN IS THAT. WE WILL HAVE CURB ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE ROADWAY AS YOU GO THROUGH THE MEDIAN ISLAND PORTIONS, AND THAT'S TO KEEP MOTORISTS FROM CHEATING. THE CURVATURE OF THE MEDIAN ISLAND BY USING THE PAVED SHOULDER.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THAT AERIAL VIEW, THE LANE WIDTH THROUGH THE MEDIAN ISLAND SECTION IS 10.5 FEET, WHICH IS NARROWER THAN, YOU KNOW, ALL THE COUNTY

[00:15:02]

THIS IS A CROSS-SECTION PROFILE VIEW OF THE MEDIAN ISLANDS. SO WE'LL HAVE FLAPPABLE BOLLARDS THAT WILL REFLEX IF SOMEONE DRIVES OVER THEM WITHIN THE ISLAND. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE CURB AND GUTTER ON THE OUTSIDE TO KEEP MOTORISTS FROM CHEATING THE CURVATURE.

AND THEN WE WILL HAVE TWO MINI ROUNDABOUTS. CONSTRUCTED AT CAPESIDE AND SOPHIA PARKWAY.

AND THEN, TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ON HEWLETT ROAD, WE EXPLORED A LOT OF DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES. ALL OF THE ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED GREATER ENHANCEMENT TO PEDESTRIAN SAFETY WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A LOT OF TREE REMOVAL. SO THOSE WERE ULTIMATELY SCRAPPED BASED ON PUBLIC INPUT THAT WE RECEIVED AT THE TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE FINALIZED A DESIGN THAT WILL ALLOW FOR THREE FOOT WIDE PAVE SHOULDERS FROM CAPE SIDE DRIVE, WHERE WE WHERE THE PATHWAY CURRENTLY TERMINATES TO OKEMOS ROAD. SO THIS WILL AT LEAST GIVE CONTIGUOUS SHOULDER WIDTH FROM CAPE SIDE TO OKEMOS ROAD. TODAY, THE SHOULDER WIDTH VARIES THROUGH THAT PROJECT LIMIT.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, WE HELD TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS IN 2025 WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT LIVE BETWEEN THE CSX RAILROAD AND OKEMOS ROAD AND PETITIONED FOR THE SPEED HUMPS. BASED ON THE INPUT THAT WE RECEIVED AT THOSE TWO MEETINGS, WE DEVELOPED TWO OPTIONS. ONE WAS ESSENTIALLY KEEPING THE EXISTING SPEED HUMPS AND REPLACING THEM IN KIND IN THEIR CURRENT LOCATION. THE OTHER WAS THE MEDIAN ISLANDS AND THE MINI ROUNDABOUTS THAT WOULD CREATE CONTIGUOUS TRAFFIC CALMING THROUGHOUT HEWLETT ROAD AND SOME LED DISPLAY SIGNS FOR SPEED. THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY SHOWED A PERFECT 50-50 SPLIT. 35 PROPERTY OWNERS, WE'VE RECEIVED 24 RESPONSES, SPLIT 12 AND 12. SO, BASED ON THE PUBLIC INPUT THAT WE RECEIVED, WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH OPTION TWO, AS IT PROVIDES TRAFFIC CALMING THAT'S CONTIGUOUS FOR THE ENTIRE LOCAL ROAD PORTION OF HEWLETT ROAD.

IT'S ALSO GOING TO GREATLY HELP US ADDRESS DRAINAGE, BECAUSE THE SPEED HUMPS DO ACT AS A DAM FOR STORMWATER RUNOFF. AND THEN. THIS IS ACTUALLY AN INTERESTING THING THAT WAS POINTED OUT BY PROPERTY OWNERS AT THE PUBLIC MEETINGS, BUT WHEN TRAILERS OR TRUCKS PASS OVER THE SPEED HUMPS, THEY DO HAVE A TENDENCY TO DROP NAILS OR TOOLS OR OTHER SHARP OBJECTS IN THE ROADWAY. WE HAD ONE PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAD TO REPLACE TWO TIRES DUE TO THE SPEED HUMPS. AND THEN, PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT'S GOING TO IMPROVE, IT WILL IMPROVE RESPONSE TIMES FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND EMS. ONE OTHER INTERESTING PROJECT THAT WE'RE WORKING ON THIS YEAR IS THE MARSHALL PARK BIOSQUALE AND PARK BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT. SO, THIS WILL BE AT MARSHALL PARK, WHICH IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF LAKE LANSING, IN THE COLUMBIA STREET-LAKE STREET INTERSECTION AREA. AND SO I'LL GET INTO THE PHOTOS. ACTUALLY, I'M GOING TO JUMP TO THE PHOTOS JUST TO SHOW YOU EXISTING CONDITIONS DURING A SPRING THAW TODAY. SO THESE WERE TAKING... TAKEN IN 2024, I BELIEVE. THE BOLLARDS THAT YOU SEE OUT PAST THE TWO KIRBY CARTS ARE AT THE FAR EDGE OF COLUMBIA STREET. THAT BROWN KIRBY CART WITH THE BROWN LID IS AT THE OTHER EDGE OF COLUMBIA STREET. SO COLUMBIA IS COMPLETELY UNDERWATER THERE.

AND THEN OFF IN THE DISTANCE, YOU CAN SEE THAT BROWN POLE BARN, THAT IS LAKE STREET, WHICH IS PARTIALLY UNDERWATER.

AND PARTIALLY JUST OUTSIDE OF THE PONDING AND FLOODING THAT YOU SEE THERE. A COUPLE OF OTHER PHOTOS JUST AS THE WATER STARTED TO RECEDE. HERE YOU CAN SEE ALL THAT WATER PONDED THERE IN FRONT OF THE BOLLARDS. THAT WOULD BE COLUMBIA STREET. SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A TIERED FOUR BIOSWALE SYSTEM THAT WOULD MANAGE... THE STORMWATER RUNOFF IN THIS AREA. THE ISSUE IS ESSENTIALLY THAT COLUMBIA STREET AND LAKE STREET, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE, IS THE LOW SPOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS A HILL AS YOU APPROACH BLISS STREET, AND THERE'S ALSO A HILL TO THE SOUTH AS YOU GO IN THIS DIRECTION. SO ALL THE STORMWATER IS COLLECTING FROM ABOUT HALF OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN THIS GENERAL AREA AND FLOODING THIS AREA. PRIOR TO RESURFACING THE ROADS, WE WANT TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT TO ADDRESS THE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. WHILE WE CAN RESURFACE THE ROADS WITHOUT... MAKING THE

[00:20:01]

SO WE ARE WORKING ON THE DESIGN, ON THIS. THIS IS THE SECOND CONCEPT PLAN, WITH A LOT MORE TREE CANOPY PROPOSED.

WE TOOK THIS TO THE PARK COMMISSION AND THEY WOULD STRONGLY PREFER THAT WE STICK WITH THE FIRST CONCEPT PLAN WITHOUT ALL THE CANOPY.

BUT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT ADDITIONAL CANOPY OVER HERE BY THE NEW PLAYGROUND TO PROVIDE SHADE. DID THEY OFFER, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, DID THEY OFFER ANY REASONS WHY THEY PREFER CANOPY? YES. YEP. I THINK I PROVIDED A SLIDE ON THAT, BUT MAYBE NOT. SO I'LL TOUCH ON THAT VERBALLY. THEIR CONCERN WAS, ONE, OBSTRUCTING THE SIGHT LINES AND THE VIEW FOR PROPERTY OWNERS. HERE ON THE WEST SIDE OF MARSH ROAD, WHICH IF YOU DROP DOWN IN STREET VIEW IN GOOGLE MAPS, THEY DO HAVE A SIGHT LINE. THEY CAN SEE PORTIONS OF THE LAKE, EVEN WHEN EVERYTHING'S IN FULL BLOOM. SO THEY DIDN'T WANT TO CHANGE SIGHT LINES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE WEST SIDE OF MARSH.

THEY ALSO WANTED THE SIGHT LINES THROUGH THE PARK TO GENERALLY BE LEFT OPEN FOR POLICE TO BE ABLE TO SEE.

INTO THE PARK AND TO SEE ALL THE PLACES WITHIN THE PARK. SO THEY WERE NOT WILD WITH THE CONCEPT OF DOING THIS MUCH TREE CANOPY, BUT THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF AT LEAST SOME, BUT PROBABLY CLOSER TO THIS CONCEPT PLAN. WE'RE STILL TAKING INPUT. WE'VE ALSO TAKEN THIS TO THE LAKE LANSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

OBVIOUSLY, THE FOREMOST... THE PURPOSE OF THE LAKE LANSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS IMPROVING WATER QUALITY TO THE LAKE.

THESE BIOSWALES WILL DISCHARGE TO THE LAKE. HOWEVER, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS NATURALLY TREAT THAT STORMWATER BEFORE IT'S DISCHARGED TO THE LAKE. THE LAKE LANSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS VERY THRILLED WITH THIS PROJECT, AND THEY'VE COMMITTED A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY TOWARD THE PROJECT, $10,000.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THIS PROJECT, AND THEY COMMITTED SOME OF THEIR CLIMATE SUSTAINABILITY FUNDING, WHICH HELPED US KICKSTART THE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT. GENERAL TIMELINE, WE'RE HOPING TO BID THIS PROJECT THIS YEAR. I THINK CONSTRUCTION IS PROBABLY MORE THAN LIKELY NEXT YEAR.

BUT WE'LL SEE, AS THIS YEAR PROGRESSES, WHETHER THERE'S A CHANCE WE COULD START CONSTRUCTION IN THE FALL. BUT I'M ANTICIPATING MORE FALL BIDDING WITH CONSTRUCTION THIS TIME NEXT YEAR. AND THEN THE FINAL COMPONENT OF THIS PROJECT IS THAT THESE... BIOSWALES WILL BE EMERGENT WETLANDS. WE HAVE SENT AN INQUIRY TO EGLE AND WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULDN'T ALLOW IT. BUT WE ARE HOPING THAT THESE WETLANDS CAN COUNT AS WETLAND MITIGATION FOR PHASE THREE. AND WHAT THAT WOULD DO IS ALLOW US TO FUND MOST OF THE MARSHALL PARK BIOSWALE PROJECT WITH THE GRANT FUNDING FOR PHASE THREE, WHICH FREES UP LOCAL ROAD FUNDING. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW. AND THEN THE FINAL PORTION OF THE PRESENTATION. THIS EVENING, I JUST WANT TO WALK THROUGH HOW WE SELECT ROADS.

THIS COMES UP EVERY YEAR.

TRUSTEE LENTZ REMINDED ME OF THAT, SO I WAS ABLE TO ADD A COUPLE OF SLIDES TO THIS EFFECT. SO, FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE'RE LOOKING TO IDENTIFY ONES ON THE PACER RATING, RIGHT? WE'RE LOOKING TO IDENTIFY THOSE WORST ROADS IN THE SYSTEM AND ADDRESS THEM, BUT WE DO HAVE TO BALANCE THAT WITH OTHER FACTORS. SO ONE OF THE OTHER FACTORS IS HOW WE CAN STAGE THE WORK OVER MULTIPLE SEASONS. SO THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING NEIGHBORHOODS FROM THE BACK TO THE FRONT, AND THEN IF THERE'S A LOCAL ROAD THAT IS SERVING AS A COLLECTOR FOR THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, WE ADDRESS THAT. LAST, RIGHT? WE DON'T WANT TO DO THE FRONT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, MOBILIZE ALL THAT EQUIPMENT OVER IT TO GET TO THE BACK, SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, WE'RE WORKING BACK TO FRONT.

GREAT EXAMPLES OF THIS WOULD BE ADDRESSING, UH, OKAMATH SQUARE, SUNDANCE ESTATES AND HERON CREEK TO ALLOW US TO DO HEWLETT ROAD. ANOTHER ONE WOULD BE ADDRESSING OLD ENGLISH ESTATES SO THAT WE COULD DO TYHART ROAD. THERE ARE THREE CUL-DE-SACS OFF OF NEWMAN

[00:25:02]

2020, THE SHAW STREET NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE LANSING. THAT PROJECT WAS DONE IN CONCERT WITH A DRAIN PROJECT. THE PERRY ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE LANSING, WAS DONE IN CONCERT WITH TWO SANITARY SEWER PROJECTS THAT THE TOWNSHIP UNDERTOOK. AND THEN 2023 THROUGH 2024, THE PROJECT THAT WE DID AT THE VERY NORTH END OF THE WARDCLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT WAS ACTUALLY IN CONCERT WITH WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT AND A STORM DRAIN PROJECT. WE ALSO CONSIDER HOW MANY YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION WE'RE GOING TO PUT A NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH.

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SIZE OF SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, WE DON'T WANT TO GO IN 10 TIMES DOING LITTLE, PIECEMEAL PROJECTS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THE PROJECTS THAT WE DO IS WE ARE REMOVING 100% OF THE ASPHALT, WHICH MEANS THERE'S A LOT OF DUST. SO THINK ABOUT DUST COATING YOUR ENTIRE PATIO, ALL OF YOUR PATIO FURNITURE, ANY OF YOUR OUTDOOR SPACES, RIGHT, IN THE SUMMER MONTHS. THAT CAN BE STRAINING. THERE'S NOT MANY PROJECTS WHERE YOU ACTUALLY EXPOSE ALL THE AGGREGATE BENEATH THE ROAD. THE TOWNSHIP'S UNIQUE IN THAT SITUATION BECAUSE WE HAVE THE FUNDING TO DO THAT.

BUT THAT'S ALSO WHAT'S GOING TO MAKE THE ROADS THAT WE'RE RECONSTRUCTING LAST A LOT LONGER, IS THAT WE ARE REPLACING THE ASPHALT. FULL DEPTH. SO, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, WE'RE TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN ONE TO THREE YEARS. ANOTHER FACTOR IS TRYING TO CREATE CONTIGUOUS AREAS FOR ECONOMY OF SCALE. SO WE'RE GOING INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE SAME REASON AS REDUCING HOW MANY YEARS WE HAVE TO GO INTO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS TWOS AND THREES WHILE WE'RE IN THERE TO DO ONES. A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THAT WOULD BE TACOMA HILLS LAST YEAR, RIGHT? WE DIDN'T WANT TO, THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH TWO YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION. WE DIDN'T WANT TO PUT THEM THROUGH SEVERAL MORE YEARS.

ANOTHER FACTOR IS... TRYING TO CATCH UP ON CUL-DE-SACS PRIOR TO THE NEW MILLAGE, WE DID INTENTIONALLY NEGLECT CUL-DE-SACS BECAUSE THEY BENEFIT VERY FEW PROPERTY OWNERS, SO WHEN YOU HAVE VERY LIMITED FUNDING, YOU KNOW, YOU TEND TO DO THE ROADS THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO USE. A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THAT WOULD BE MANITOU DRIVE. WE DID MANITOU IN 2018.

THERE'S A LITTLE CUL-DE-SAC AT THE VERY SOUTHERN END OF MANITOU. WE DIDN'T TOUCH THAT IN 2018. IT WAS IN POOR CONDITION, BUT WE WANTED TO SAVE THAT MONEY, SO WE'RE CATCHING UP ON CUL-DE-SACS. LASTLY, IT'S HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO DESIGN A PROJECT. WE'VE GOT TWO THAT ARE EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT. THAT TOOK MORE THAN A YEAR TO DESIGN PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION YEAR, THOSE BEING HEWLETT AND THEN ACADEMIC WAY WE ARE STILL WORKING ON. AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR THIS PRESENTATION.

MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE.

AND YOU HAVE THE PACER RATING MAPS IN YOUR... BOARD PACKET.

BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THE NORTH END OF THE TOWNSHIP PRE-MILLAGE WORK AND THEN POST-MILLAGE WORK. SO A LOT MORE BLUE AND A LOT MORE GREEN, AND THEN SAME FOR THE SOUTH END OF THE TOWNSHIP. PERFECT BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS? LET'S JUST DO THAT. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU ADDING THOSE ADDITIONAL SLIDES, DAN. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SEE JUST EXACTLY WHERE THOSE TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING. WE HEAR SO OFTEN ABOUT THE TAX RATES IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. AND TO BE ABLE TO PUT NUMBERS BEHIND WHAT THAT GOES TO, ESPECIALLY WHEN COMPARING TO OTHER TOWNSHIPS IN THE AREA. IT IS MIND-BLOWING, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER OVER HALF OF THE LOCAL ROADS WERE IN THAT POOR RATING IN 2019.

THE STRIDES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. I THINK IT IS REALLY ONE OF THE BEST THINGS THAT THIS LOCAL GOVERNMENT DOES. AND YOU KNOW, YOUR THOROUGHNESS IS IN EXPLAINING IT AND MAKING SURE THAT WE DO WORK. THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE REPLACED. EVERY THREE TO FIVE YEARS IS REALLY APPRECIATED, SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? I NOTED THAT WE DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THE ASPHALT REJUVENATOR, WHICH I KNOW WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT. NOR DID WE SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THE EXPANSION OF THE PROGRAM THAT WAS USED ON TIE HEART INTO OTHER AREAS. ARE WE EXPECTING THAT IN FUTURE YEARS? UH, SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE GONNA TAKE ONE YEAR

[00:30:01]

BUT NOW WE'VE CAUGHT UP, SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A ONE YEAR GAP AND WE'LL PROBABLY RESUME THAT NEXT YEAR. AND THEN FOR THE ASPHALT STABILIZATION AND DOUBLE CHIP SEAL TREATMENT FOR GRAVEL ROADS, WE CURRENTLY HAVE KANSAS STREET OFF JOLLY ROAD IN THE PLANS FOR 2027. THAT ONE IS DIFFICULT AND CHALLENGING.

KANSAS IS A GREAT CANDIDATE BECAUSE IT'S NOT A THROUGH STREET. OUR CONCERN IS SPEED. WHEN WE RESEARCHED, WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT IT'S STILL LEGALLY CLASSIFIED AS A GRAVEL ROAD WHEN WE PERFORM THAT TREATMENT. WHY YOU CANNOT? ESTABLISH A POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON A GRAVEL ROAD, UNFORTUNATELY. OUR GOAL WAS TO LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT, DO A SPEED STUDY, LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT ON TYE HART ROAD, THEN PERFORM THE TREATMENT. AND THAT TREATMENT WAS GOING TO EXTEND ALL THE WAY TO VAN ATTA. BUT WHEN WE LEARNED THAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH A POSTED SPEED LIMIT, WE TERMINATED IT AT CORNELL ROAD. IT'S A GREAT TEST PROJECT BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE PROPERTY OWNER. AND HE DOES HAVE A REALLY BIG FRONT YARD, SO A REALLY BIG FRONT YARD.

SETBACK OFF OF TIHART ROAD. SO THERE'S REALLY NOBODY TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. AND IT GAVE US AN EXAMPLE PROJECT, RIGHT? SO RESIDENTS ON KANSAS, WHO HAD BEEN COMPLAINING FOR YEARS ABOUT POOR DRAINAGE OF THEIR GRAVEL ROAD, DUST CONTROL ON THEIR GRAVEL ROAD, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THEM GO OUT AND DRIVE IT IN THE FALL, AND THEY WERE ECSTATIC ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF GETTING... A TREATMENT LIKE THAT, NOT EVEN HAVING A PAVED ROAD, RIGHT? SO WE ARE GOING TO AT LEAST EXPAND IT TO KANSAS IN 2027, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT WHERE IT'S MOST VIABLE, GIVEN THE SPEED CONSTRAINTS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO... ANOTHER EXCITING AND FULL CONSTRUCTION SEASON AHEAD. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM 4C, AND DEPUTY MANAGER OPSOM IS CORRECTLY STAYING AT THE PODIUM BECAUSE HE WILL BE GIVING US A SHORT PRESENTATION ON THE ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATION PROJECT. GOOD EVENING AGAIN, BOARD MEMBERS. SO THIS IS AN INTERESTING PROJECT. SO THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WE STARTED IN, ON MY PRESENTATION I PUT 2025, BUT I BELIEVE OUR FIRST...

COLLECTOR OR ANTENNA, WHICH I WILL GET INTO IN A MINUTE, WAS TECHNICALLY INSTALLED IN 2024. BECAUSE WE WANTED TO PILOT THE TECHNOLOGY BEFORE WE DEPLOYED IT ACROSS THE SYSTEM. SO WE CURRENTLY COLLECT REEDS FROM WATER METERS BY DRIVING THE TOWNSHIP WITH AN INSTRUMENT. WE PUT THE INSTRUMENT IN THE VEHICLE WITH US, WE DRIVE AROUND AT A SLOW SPEED, AND WE COLLECT THE REEDS THAT WAY. SO, BASICALLY, OUR... OUR DRIVER IS THE ANTENNA AND HE'S JUST NAVIGATING THROUGHOUT THE TOWNSHIP. THERE IS NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT WE CAN DEPLOY WHERE WE HAVE ANTENNAS JUST STATIONED ACROSS THE TOWNSHIP. AND WHAT THAT WILL ALLOW US TO DO IS COLLECT READS EVERY 24 HOURS, WHEREAS TODAY WE'RE COLLECTING READS EVERY 30 TO 90 DAYS. SO IN BETWEEN THOSE READS EVERY 30 TO 90 DAYS, WE ARE BLIND. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE USAGE LOOKS LIKE FOR THOSE CUSTOMERS. SO AMI STANDS FOR ADVANCED METER INFRASTRUCTURE, AS THE SUPERVISOR NOTED, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ME SAY COLLECTOR, WHICH BY COLLECTOR, JUST THINK ANTENNA. AND THESE COLLECTORS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS EVENING ARE INSTALLED ON WOOD UTILITY POLES, BUT THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT TALLER THAN TRADITIONAL WOOD UTILITY POLES THAT YOU SEE THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. SO, JUST TO GIVE YOU A VISUAL AID, THIS IS A TRADITIONAL UTILITY POLE.

AS IS THIS RIGHT HERE. THIS IS AN AMI COLLECTOR. SO, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS A LITTLE BIT TALLER.

THESE ARE ABOUT 80 FOOT TALL AT THE PEAK, WHERE THE ANTENNA IS. THE WOOD POLE IS GOING TO BE ABOUT 70 FEET TALL. BUT THEY DO, GENERALLY SPEAKING, BLEND IN WITH THE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE, AND THEY DON'T LOOK VERY DIFFERENT FROM A NORMAL UTILITY POLE. SO AMI COLLECTORS ARE BEING INSTALLED THROUGHOUT THE TOWNSHIP TO INCREASE THE FREQUENCY AT WHICH WE READ METERS. THE LOCATIONS ARE VERY PRECISELY SELECTED TO MAXIMIZE COVERAGE, RIGHT? WE'RE CAPTURING METERS. READS

[00:35:01]

BUT ALSO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CAPTURING THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, AND WITH THESE NEW COLLECTORS, WE WILL. ESSENTIALLY, THEY POWER ON AROUND 1 A.M. EVERY NIGHT, AND THEY READ THE ENTIRE SYSTEM AT NIGHT WHENEVER WE WENT TO SLEEP. SO TODAY, BETWEEN THE 30 AND 90 DAY PERIOD, YOU KNOW, OUR CUSTOMERS COULD HAVE LEAKS.

THEY COULD HAVE A TOILET LEAK OR A WATER POWERED SUMP PUMP THAT IS USING STAGGERING AMOUNTS OF MONEY. THAT WILL BE VERY SHOCKING TO THEM. THERE IS A WAY FOR CUSTOMERS TO MONITOR THAT TODAY. AND WE DO HAVE THAT ON OUR FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION DOCUMENT, WHICH IS JUST TO KEEP A LOG OF THEIR DIAL HEAD ON THEIR METER. IT TAKES ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME AS THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY WILL.

BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE AREN'T READING OUR FAQ AND AREN'T BEING MINDFUL OF THAT.

BUT THERE IS AN OLD SCHOOL WAY TO DO IT THAT TAKES JUST AS LITTLE TIME AS THE NEW TECHNOLOGY WILL. SO, ONCE WE HAVE COMPLETED THE INSTALLATION OF THESE COLLECTORS ACROSS THE SYSTEM, WE WILL THEN BE ABLE TO NOTIFY OUR CUSTOMER BASE.

WE WANT TO DO THAT AT THE SAME TIME, SO EVERYONE GETS THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS, BUT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DOWNLOAD AN APP. AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO PROGRAM YOUR APP TO TELL YOU AND ALERT YOU WHEN YOUR USAGE EXCEEDS A CERTAIN THRESHOLD OVER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. SO YOU'LL GET AN ALERT, JUST THE SAME AS YOU GET A TEXT ALERT ON YOUR PHONE.

PROJECT PHASING, SO WE ARE IN PHASE, TONIGHT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PHASE TWO. PHASE ONE WAS THE INSTALLATION OF COLLECTORS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH WATER TOWERS. WE HAVE NOW EXHAUSTED EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT WE CAN PUT COLLECTORS ON. WE'RE LOOKING AT INSTALLING WOOD POLES FOR THE REMAINING COLLECTORS.

WE WILL BE INSTALLING FIVE MORE DURING THIS PHASE, WITH THREE TO SIX TO COME IN THE THIRD PHASE ONCE WE ASSESS HOW THE NEXT FIVE COVER THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE, BUT THE BLUE DOTS ARE HERE AND HERE. THESE ARE THE EXISTING COLLECTORS ON THE TWO WATER TOWERS. THE RED TRIANGLES ARE THE FIVE PROPOSED NEW LOCATIONS. THE FIRST OF WHICH IS GOING TO BE AT THE TOWNSHIP SERVICE CENTER, VERY DISCREETLY BETWEEN THIS TREE LINE RIGHT HERE AND THE WESTERN POINT OF THE SERVICE CENTER. THE SECOND ONE IS GOING TO BE JUST SOUTH OF THE SNELL TOWER REC CENTER ON THE PARK PROPERTY, ALONG THE TREE LINE. THIS TREE LINE IS ACTUALLY VERY MATURE, AND SO THIS WILL HELP SCREEN THE POLL FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE SOUTH. THE NEXT ONE IS... GOING TO BE IN THE GREEN ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. WE IDENTIFIED THIS BECAUSE THESE TWO PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE REALLY WIDE SIDE LOTS, SO THIS IS GOING TO CREATE THE MOST SEPARATION WE CAN OVER IN THIS NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE TOWNSHIP. THIS IS FOREST HILLS PARK. THIS IS GRAND RIVER AVENUE, NORTHVIEW DRIVE. WE ARE LOOKING TO INSTALL IT ESSENTIALLY RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE CURB CUT AT WEST POND DRIVE. ON FOREST HILLS PARK, NEXT TO THE TREE LINE. AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS THE RED CEDAR NATURAL AREA PARK. SO NORTH OF THE SCREEN, HERE IS HATCH ROAD. SO WE ARE SOUTH OF HATCH ROAD, IN THIS LITTLE, CIRCULAR SHAPED NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE RED CEDAR NATURAL AREA PARK RUNS ALONG THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF OSCODA ROAD HERE, AND THERE'S ACTUALLY AN EXISTING, TWO EXISTING CONSUMER POOLS HERE. WE'RE GOING TO LOCATE IT BEHIND THOSE TWO POLES AND THEN WE CAN BRING POWER AERIAL FROM THOSE EXISTING POLES.

IT'LL SCREEN IT WELL AND KIND OF CAMOUFLAGE IT INTO THE AREA, AND WE ALSO HAVE SOME NICE MATURE TREES THAT WILL KIND OF SCREEN IT.

LASTLY, WE HAVE A VACANT LOT ON THAT CORNER. LASTLY, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS.

CAN THE COLLECTORS BE INSTALLED ON EXISTING WARNING SIREN POLES? THE ANSWER IS, UNFORTUNATELY, NO. THOSE POLES ARE FAR TOO SHORT, AND THERE'S SOME OTHER CONFLICTS WITH THOSE, EVEN IF THEY WERE TALLER. CAN COLLECTORS BE INSTALLED ON CELL TOWERS OR OTHER EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE? TECHNICALLY, YES, BUT THE COST WOULD BE HIGHER FOR THE TOWNSHIP'S WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS. WE CHECKED WITH LIKE THE WKR TOWER DOWN OFF DOBIE ROAD, FOR INSTANCE, NEAR KINAWA MIDDLE SCHOOL. THE LEASE RATE ON THAT WOULD HAVE FAR EXCEEDED THE COST FOR COLLECTORS. SO WE'VE MODELED THAT OVER THE LIFE OF A WOOD UTILITY POLE. THE OTHER CHALLENGE THERE, ASIDE

[00:40:01]

AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THERE IS TAKE THE... THE HEAD THAT SENDS THE SIGNAL FROM THE METER, AND WE MIGHT HAVE TO WIRE IT TO THE EXTERIOR OF A FOUNDATION TO INCREASE THE SIGNAL STRENGTH. WE HAVE THAT CONDITION ON HOMES. THERE'S ALREADY HOMES WITH THAT.

BUT WE MIGHT HAVE SOME METERS IN THE SYSTEM WHERE WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT SIGNAL STRENGTH FOR WHATEVER REASON IN THE BASEMENT. AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MODIFY SOME METERS.

BUT ONCE WE DO THAT, IF WE CAN ACHIEVE 100% COLLECTION, WE WILL SAVE THE NEED TO HAVE TO DRIVE THE TOWNSHIP. SO THERE WILL BE SOME COST UP FRONT, SOME LABOR TO ADAPT CERTAIN CUSTOMERS, AND THEN, IF WE CAN DO THAT SUCCESSFULLY, HOPEFULLY. WE ARE SPENDING VERY FEW HOURS, IF ANY, DRIVING TO COLLECT REEDS. WE CAN USE THOSE LABOR HOURS FOR SYSTEM MAINTENANCE, EXERCISING VALVES, RESTORING HYDRANTS THAT ARE DAMAGED BY VEHICLES, ET CETERA. AND ONE OTHER QUESTION. HOW DO YOU AVOID, I'M THINKING ABOUT OUR SIREN SYSTEM. WHICH HAS SOME OVERLAPS IN DIFFERENT AREAS. HOW DO YOU AVOID AN OVERLAP OF READING? SO THE SIRENS AREN'T GOING TO CAUSE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY. SO THERE'S REALLY NO CONCERN WITH OVERLAP. ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE COLLECTORS OVERLAPPING? THE COLLECTORS THEMSELVES.

OKAY. THEY KNOW WHAT THEIR AREA IS. YEP. OUR VENDOR FOR METERS IS HELPING US TO DETERMINE, RIGHT, THEY KNOW, BASED ON THE HEIGHT. HOW FAR OF A RADIUS WE SHOULD REACH? AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING IT IN THREE PHASES, TOO, RIGHT? WE INSTALLED THE COLLECTORS ON THE TWO WATER TOWERS SO WE CAN SEE IN REAL TIME WHAT THE COLLECTION RADIUS LOOKS LIKE.

THEN WE PICKED THE NEXT FIVE.

AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SPACED OUT THROUGHOUT THE TOWNSHIP.

AND SO THEN, AFTER THE SECOND PHASE, WE'LL REASSESS WHERE ARE THE GAPS, AND THEN HOW DO WE FILL IN THOSE GAPS? AND AT THE OUTSET OF THE PROJECT, WE GAVE OUR VENDOR ALL OF OUR TOWNSHIP OWNED PROPERTIES, EVERY PARK, EVERY LAND PRESERVE.

OF COURSE, WE'VE GOT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AVAILABLE TO US.

HOWEVER, WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, BECAUSE WITH A RIGHT-OF-WAY, WE HAVE TO SET A NEW METER. SO WE HAVE COSTS TO INCUR WITH CONSUMERS. WHEREAS AT THE SERVICE CENTER, FOR THIS ONE, THESE DON'T HAVE MUCH DRAW ON ELECTRIC. WE CAN LITERALLY TAP OFF AN OUTLET IN THIS CORNER. OF THE SERVICE CENTER RIGHT HERE AND JUST RUN CONDUIT OFF AN OUTLET. SO WE AVOID COSTS WHENEVER WE CAN LOCATE NEXT TO AN EXISTING FACILITY THAT ALREADY HAS ELECTRIC. I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THIS IS ASSISTING OUR RESIDENTS WITH LEAKS.

BECAUSE SO OFTEN THEY HAVE NO IDEA. UNTIL THE BILL HAS GOTTEN SO HUGE THAT IT'S BECOME A SERIOUS PROBLEM, FINANCIAL BURDEN. SO THE FACT THAT THESE COULD DETECT THERE'S A LEAK, BECAUSE THE WATER USAGE IS SO MUCH HIGHER THAN IT HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY. I THINK IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A GREAT BOON FOR OUR FOLKS. THANK YOU.

OTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK, TO TRUSTEE WILSON'S POINT, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE HAVE, LIKE, A RADIUS MAP OF THE TWO ON THE WATER TOWERS. THAT MIGHT GIVE US SOME GOOD PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT AREAS ARE ALREADY COVERED BY THAT. AND THEN WE CAN UPDATE THAT, SIMILARLY TO HOW WE DID THE FIRE SIREN MAPS OVER THE YEARS. SO THAT WE CAN SEE SORT OF THE PROGRESS OF THE COVERAGE. JUST GIVE US A SENSE OF SORT OF WHAT THE SCALE OF ALL OF IT IS. THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING INFORMATION.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. WE CAN SHARE THAT TOMORROW MORNING. WE'RE NOT RELEASING IT PUBLICLY YET, RIGHT, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GIVING THE PUBLIC THE INFORMATION TO... YEAH. LOG INTO THE APP, BUT WE HAVE A MAP THAT METERS THAT WE'RE NOT READING VIA THE COLLECTORS ARE RED DOTS, AND THEN WE HAVE BLUE DOTS FOR THE METERS THAT WE ARE COLLECTING. SO WE CAN SHARE THAT WITH THE BOARD

[00:45:01]

YOU KNOW, WE SEE QUITE A FEW, QUITE OFTEN WE SEE FOLKS COMPLAINING ABOUT WATER BILLS BEING HIGHER THAN USUAL. AND MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT IT ENDS UP BEING IS A LEAK THAT THEY WEREN'T AWARE OF. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TOOL TO PROVIDE TO FOLKS THAT THEY CAN MONITOR THEIR OWN WATER AND HOPEFULLY CATCH IT.

BEFORE IT BECOMES TOO BIG OF AN ISSUE MONETARILY. AND SO I THINK THAT'S A VALUABLE SERVICE. AND IT CAN CURRENTLY SAVE SOME MONEY IN THE LONG RUN BY REDUCING STAFF TIME. IT ALLOWS, YOU KNOW, FREES UP, YOU KNOW, AN ALREADY OVERWORKED STAFF TO DO OTHER THINGS. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ABSOLUTELY. SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

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

IN FACT, THERE ARE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS AT TONIGHT'S MEETING. RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN SPEAK TO ANY ISSUE, AS WELL AS AT THE END OF THE MEETING, YOU CAN SPEAK TO ANY ISSUE. WE ALSO HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO OUR TWO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS FOR STREETLIGHTS THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING, SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO SPEAK AT THAT TIME ABOUT THAT ISSUE.

BUT FOR NOW... MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO ADDRESS OUR AGENDA OR ANY ITEM NOT ON OUR AGENDA HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. THOSE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD MUST COMPLETE ONE OF THESE CARDS, WHICH YOU CAN FIND ON THE TABLE. WE HAVE BOTH GREEN AND WHITE CARDS TONIGHT.

AND YOU CAN TURN THOSE CARDS IN TO A MEMBER OF THE STAFF OR TO SOMEONE UP HERE ON THE BOARD, AND WE'LL MAKE SURE TO GET YOU CALLED UP TO THE PODIUM. WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN, I WILL CALL YOU UP. AND WHILE IT'S NOT REQUIRED, IT IS HELPFUL FOR THE SAKE OF OUR MEETING MINUTES. IF YOU CAN, 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 ALERT YOU WHEN YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD VALUE COMMENTS AND INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC. MEETING FORMAT AND RULES, HOWEVER, DO RESTRICT BOARD MEMBERS FROM ENGAGING IN CONVERSATION WITH COMMENTERS OR ANSWERING QUESTIONS DIRECTLY. QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS MAY BE ADDRESSED BY BOARD MEMBERS AT A LATER TIME OR REFERRED TO A MEMBER OF THE TOWNSHIP STAFF TO FOLLOW UP ON. PLEASE REMEMBER TO ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS TO THE BOARD OR THE BOARD'S CHAIR, AND NOT TO INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS OR TO OTHERS IN THE AUDIENCE.

OKAY, SO, THAT SAID, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CARDS THIS EVENING. FIRST UP IS JADE SHI, AND THEN ON DECK WE HAVE PAULETTE GRACE. HELLO, EVERYONE. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE OUR CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSED AUTHENTIC I'M FROM THE OCCUPY AUTHENTIC PROJECT. SO I HAVE A FEW CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS TO SHARE WITH THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. SO THE FIRST ONE IS, I WOULD LIKE TO FORMALLY REQUEST A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REZONING REQUEST. BOTH THE LAND OWNER, I, AND ALSO THE DEVELOPER, CONTINENTAL, REPEATEDLY STATE THAT THE ORIGINAL ZONING, IT'S OUTDATED. HOWEVER, NO CONCRETE JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN PRESENTED SPECIFICALLY EXPLAINING IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS THE ORIGINAL ZONING IS OUTDATED. AND ALSO, WHAT PLANNING PRINCIPLES DOES THE ORIGINAL ZONING FAIL TO MEET? AND ALSO, HOW DOES THE ORIGINAL ZONING CONFLICT WITH THE TOWNSHIP'S ADOPTED MASTER PLAN? FROM MY... REVIEW AND ALSO RESEARCH. I THINK THE CURRENT ZONING, WHICH INCLUDES BOTH CS AND RD, WAS ACTUALLY DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN A BALANCED AND A SUSTAINABLE MIX OF LAND USES UNDER A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

AND ALSO THEY ALIGN WITH THE TOWNSHIP'S LAND USE VISION AND MASTER PLAN GOES REGARDING THE MIXED USE, INFRASTRUCTURE ALIGNMENT AND ALSO BALANCED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY. SO I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REZONING REQUEST. SO WHY CS IS NO LONGER APPROPRIATE, AND WHY RD IS INSUFFICIENT, AND ALSO WHY RC WITH THE CAP IS NOW CONSIDERED ALIGNED WITH COMMUNITY PRIORITIES? AND HOW DOES CHANGE UPHOLD THE TOWNSHIP'S LONG-TERM USE STRATEGY? AND THE OTHER CONCERN, AND A QUESTION, IS ABOUT THE RC ZONING WITH THE CAP. SO THE PROPOSED THE PROPOSAL TO REZONE THE ENTIRE SITE TO RC WITH THE CAP APPEARS PROBLEMATIC. THE ORIGINAL

[00:50:01]

SO, THE SEQUENCING SUGGESTS THAT THE END GOAL IS DRIVING THE PROCESS, WHICH IS MAXIMIZING THE DENSITY, RATHER THAN CAREFUL ZONING ANALYSIS. SO, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE BOARD MAINTAIN THE COUNTER OFFER PROPOSED IN DECEMBER'S MEETING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

PAULETTE, GRACE AND THEN YEE DEE DU IS ON DECK. GOOD EVENING, I'M PAULETTE GRACE ON 4824 NASSAU STREET IN CENTRAL PARK ESTATES. I APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPERS' EFFORTS TO MAKE THIS PROJECT MORE AMENABLE BY PROPOSING 240 UNITS. HOWEVER, THIS CHANGE DOES NOT RESOLVE THE PRIOR CONCERNS RAISED BY CPE RESIDENTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND ALSO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERNS.

THE PROPOSAL STILL BREACHES THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND REMAINS INCONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS SET OUT IN THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP'S MASTER PLAN. IN ADDITION, EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIATED NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING. AND ISSUES RELATED TO DENSITY AND TRAFFIC PERSIST, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE SITE'S PROXIMITY TO ESTABLISHED SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE LIMITED CAPACITY OF CENTRAL PARK ROAD. IMPORTANT CONCERNS ABOUT DRAINAGE ALSO REMAIN UNADDRESSED. DENSITY CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INACCURATE AND SHOULD BE BASED ON EACH PARCEL'S NET BUILDABLE ACREAGE, EXCLUDING WETLANDS, REQUIRED BUFFERS, EASEMENTS, AND OTHER UNSUITABLE AREAS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

TO MAINTAIN COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, DENSITY MUST NOT BE COMBINED ACROSS THE ENTIRE SITE. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL EVENTUALLY OCCUR HERE.

HOWEVER, WE ASK THAT ANY FUTURE PLANS COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING ZONING AND VARIANCE AGREEMENTS THAT WERE IN EFFECT WHEN WE BOUGHT OUR HOMES IN CPE. IT IS CLEAR LOCAL RESIDENTS HAVE VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED THIS PROJECT FROM THE BEGINNING FOR MANY VALID REASONS. WE ARE HOPEFUL THE BOARD WILL SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND REJECT THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

YOU MAY DO. AND THEN... HI, GOOD EVENING. TODAY, I'M OPPOSING THE AUTHENTICS PROJECT BY EID AND CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES AT CENTRAL PARK DRIVE. SO I WAS HERE IN THE DECEMBER MEETING AND I THOUGHT WE HAVE A CLEAR DIRECTION TO DO FOR THOSE THREE PARCELS. SO I THINK WE HAVE DISCUSS ABOUT 200 UNIT IN TOTAL, WHICH IS THE RD ZONING FOR A UNIT PER ACRE, FOR THE UPPER PARCEL AND CENTER PARCEL.

I MUST QUESTION THE SUDDEN CHANGE, JUST THREE MONTHS LATER, WHY WE ARE CONSIDERING HIGHER CAP NOW. I THOUGHT WE HAVE A DEAL AND I REALLY APPRECIATE SUPERVISOR AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR MAKING THAT RIGHT VICE DECISION AND MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY.

BUT JUST WHY THAT WE ARE ADDING 40 MORE UNITS NOW, LIKE, WHICH IS 25 PERCENT MORE THAN THE PREVIOUS NUMBER. UM, AS A REST, SO, UM, PLEASE GIVE US SOME KIND OF EXPLANATION WHY YOU ARE CONSIDERING, UH, THE RC ZONING WITH A CAP? AS A RESIDENT OF CENTRAL PARK ESTATE, WE'RE NOT OPPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT.

HONESTLY, WE ARE MYSELF QUITE LIKE THE PREVIOUS ZONING, CS AND RD. WE CAN HAVE SOME CONVENIENCE FOR US, CONVENIENCE STORE NEXT TO OUR HOME, WHICH IS VERY BENEFICIAL FOR US AND ALSO THE COMMUNITY.

THAT WILL CREATE A LOT OF JOB OPPORTUNITIES AS WELL AS YOU HAVE AROUND 90 UNITS OF APARTMENTS ON THE SIDE, WHICH ALSO HELPS THE TOWNSHIP FOR THE HOUSING NEEDS, RIGHT?

[00:55:03]

YOU'RE WELCOME TO SPEAK AT BOTH IF YOU WANT. UP TO YOU. OKAY. THEN NEXT WE HAVE VINCENT TAMANAKA, AND THEN DIANA CAVALIER IS ON DECK.

VINCENT TAMANAKA, CENTRAL PARK ESTATES. THE AUTHENTIC ALCHEMIST PROJECT IS BEING INCORRECTLY CHARACTERIZED IN SOME RESPECTS. WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT WITH THE PROJECT, ARTIFICIAL DETENTION PONDS WILL BE ADEQUATE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD DRAINAGE.

EVEN AS UNREGULATED, WETLANDS WILL BE FILLED IN AND REPLACED WITH TENS OF SPRAWLING APARTMENT BUILDINGS, PARKING LOTS AND ROADS, A CLUBHOUSE, ETC. CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, CPE RESIDENTS, ALREADY STRUGGLE WITH WATER RETENTION, FLOODED BASEMENTS AFTER RAINS, AND FOR AUTHENTIC CRITICAL DRAIN AND CONSERVATION. EASEMENTS ARE BEING DEFERRED UNTIL AFTER APPROVAL, WITH LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

THESE NEED TO BE FULLY RESOLVED BEFORE A VOTE BY THE TRUSTEES. THE ROAD DEPARTMENT AND DRAIN COMMISSION HAVE NOT SIGNED OFF ON THE PROPOSAL, SO ROAD SAFETY AND DRAINAGE CLAIMS ARE SPECULATIVE. DENSITY AND ZONING. THE PROJECT SEEKS INCREASED DENSITY PER ACRE, EXCEEDING THE CAP PLACED UNDER A COURT-ORDERED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. ANY AMENDMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DESERVES CLEAR PUBLIC JUSTIFICATION.

THE HOUSING ANALYSIS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIMS FOR A NEED FOR MORE HOUSING, AND CERTAINLY NOT AT THIS INAPPROPRIATE LOCATION.

AS THIS BOARD HAS RECOGNIZED, UNDER THE MASTER PLAN, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS SHOULD BE 207, NOT THE 240 CURRENTLY REQUESTED.

HIGHER DENSITY RC ZONING IS NOT ALIGNED WITH COMMUNITY BENEFIT. IT'S DRIVEN BY DENSITY MAXIMIZATION. THE MASTER PLAN IS STRUCTURED TO PROTECT ADJACENT RESIDENTS THROUGH BUFFERING, DENSITY CONTROL, APPROPRIATE LAND USAGE, AND PRESERVATION OF THE CHARACTER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOODS. PER THE MASTER PLAN, HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DIRECTED TO DEVELOPMENT NODES AND PICAS. CPE IS NOT A PICA. IF THE BENEFITS ARE OVERSTATED, JOB CREATION CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE TEMPORARY. AND LEAVE BEHIND A TRAIL OF DAMAGE.

OF DRAINAGE ISSUES, TRAFFIC OVERLOAD, LOSS OF CHARACTER AND LIVABILITY OF A SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

CLAIMS THAT THE UNITS ARE NEEDED TO SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESS ARE NOT SUBSTANTIATED.

WE HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT PATTERN OF VACANT STOREFRONTS. THIS PROPOSAL IS ABOUT PROFIT, NOT ABOUT COMMUNITY COMPATIBILITY.

IT'S AT ODDS WITH THE CURRENT MASTER PLAN.

AT ODDS WITH THE WILL OF THE CURRENT CITIZENS, THE HOUSING NEED ANALYSIS, AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT GOVERNS USE OF THIS LAND, MOREOVER, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT GRANT APPROVAL. A WISE PERSON IN CPE RECENTLY SAID, GROWTH FOR GROWTH'S SAKE IS THE STRATEGY OF CANCER. IT SHOULD NOT BE THE STRATEGY FOR THE EAST SIDE OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, ESPECIALLY AT THIS LOCATION. IF THIS PROJECT GOES FORWARD, WE WILL HAVE A MALIGNANT NEXUS OF CAR ACCIDENTS, FLOODED HOMES, NOISE POLLUTION WITH CARS COMING AND GOING CONSTANTLY, DOGS BARKING IN THE PET PLAYGROUNDS. AND THE DESTRUCTION OF A WAY OF LIFE FOR WHICH THE RESIDENTS OF CPE HAVE INVESTED THEIR LIFE'S FORTUNES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

DIANA CAVALIER AND THEN RAMON S. IS ON DECK. HI, I'M DIANA CAVALIER. I'M AT 1508 BELVEDERE. I CONTINUE TO BE OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT DUE TO THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION. A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE AND LOCATION AT POTENTIALLY 240 UNITS NOW WOULD MEAN AN ADDITIONAL 300 TO 400 PEOPLE. CONCENTRATED ON THE CURVE OF AN ALL-DAY TRAFFIC CONGESTION. ALREADY BUSY, TWO-LANE ROAD, WHICH WOULD CREATE DANGEROUS TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. CENTRAL PARK AND TIMES SQUARE ARE ALREADY VERY

[01:00:01]

MR. SCHMIDT BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT HE SPOKE WITH THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER AT THE LAST MEETING AND IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF HESITATION. AND THEN IT TRIGGERED A MEMORY FOR ME WHEN I FIRST MOVED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE ALREADY HAD FLOODING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND THE HOUSES IN THE OLMSTEAD CUL-DE-SAC. AND I BELIEVE THEY WORKED WITH THE LANDOWNER AND THE DRAIN COMMISSION TO HAVE THAT COMPLETELY DUG UP.

AND SO THEY SHOULD HAVE DOCUMENTATION OF THAT, BUT I BELIEVE THE LANDOWNER HAD TO PAY FOR IT TO BE CORRECTED. AND SO I GUESS, HOW WOULD THIS POTENTIALLY IMPACT US, WITH ALL OF THESE UNITS MOVING IN, WITH US BEING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THAT? YOU MAY WANT TO LOOK INTO THE DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT ARE ALREADY OCCURRED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE OLMSTEAD CUL-DE-SAC. THE PROPERTY OWNERS THERE WOULD, YOU KNOW, ARE AWARE OF IT, BUT I WASN'T IMPACTED, BUT I KNOW IT WAS ALREADY DUG UP AND HAD TO BE CORRECTED, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS THE LANDOWNERS THAT HAD TO PAY FOR IT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF SOMETHING WASN'T SET UP CORRECTLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE AWARE OF, AND THAT'S A CONCERN. THANK YOU. RAMON S. AND THAT'S ALL THE CARDS I HAVE. IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU FILL OUT A CARD NOW. GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. GOOD EVENING, RESIDENTS. SO MANY OF THE POINTS WHICH I WAS ABOUT TO SPEAK HAVE ALREADY BEEN COVERED BY OTHER SPEAKERS, WHICH INCLUDES FLOODING IN THE BASEMENTS AND THE TRAFFIC ISSUES. SO I'LL TRY TO.

SUMMARIZE WHAT I HAVE. SO THERE WAS A DISCUSSION. SO SORRY, I'M RAMAN FROM CENTRAL PAKISTAN. SO THERE WAS A DISCUSSION THAT TOWNSHIP ASKED THE LANDOWNERS TO BUILD THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FIRST AND THEN DO WHATEVER. SO A MISTAKE WAS MADE WHEN THE TOWNSHIP ASKED THEM TO DO THAT. AND DOUBLING DOWN ON THAT MISTAKE IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. RATHER THAN FIXING THE MISTAKE, WE SHOULD NOT AGGRAVATE THE PROBLEM BY BUILDING APARTMENTS WHICH IS IN A TIGHT SPACE. SO WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT. NOW, THE NEW PROPOSAL, WHICH IS IN THE PACKET, IT SAYS 240 UNITS, WHICH IS NOT VERY DIFFERENT FROM 288 UNITS. SO ALL THE PROBLEMS, WHICH ARE VALID FOR 288 UNITS, ARE STILL VALID FOR 240 UNITS AND FULLY VALID.

TRAFFIC ISSUES. AND ESPECIALLY THIS SITE IS AT A LOCATION WHERE THE CENTRAL PARK STATE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO EXIT AND ENTER, EXCEPT FOR THESE TWO ROADS. SO IT'S NOT SUITABLE FOR APARTMENTS. AND, MOREOVER, THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO RC. RC IS BAD FOR THIS LOCATION BECAUSE OF THE CRAMPED SPACE IN THE THREE PARCELS. SO THAT'S ONE POINT. AND THIS IS SLIGHTLY DIRECT, BUT SOMEONE NEEDS TO SAY IT. SO MAYBE I'LL SAY IT. ONCE THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WERE BUILT, THERE ARE NOT ONLY TWO PARTIES IN THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

WE ARE THE THIRD PARTY. AND IF WHAT I HEARD IN THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATE CHATTER, THAT IF WE GO TO COURT, MAYBE COURT WILL ALLOW US TO BE THE THIRD PARTY, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A SAY.

SO. WE'LL TRY EVERYTHING TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE WHO DRIVE ON CENTRAL PARK, WHICH IS BASICALLY US ALSO. SO WE'LL TRY EVERYTHING FOR THAT. AND THAT'S WHY WE OPPOSE THE CHANGE OR MODIFICATION TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

AND WE ARE NOT AGAINST ANY DEVELOPMENT OR WHATEVER. SO THIS LAND IS SUITABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR CONDOS.

WE'LL BE HELPING THEM. IF THEY NEED US TO HELP IN DOING THAT, WE'LL HELP THEM IN THAT.

BUT WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO APARTMENTS IN THIS LOCATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHER CARDS. WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AT 7.03 P.M. NEXT

[6. TOWNSHIP MANAGER REPORT]

[01:05:01]

AT THE TOP BANNER, SO THE PUBLIC CAN PROVIDE FEEDBACK AND ANY COMMENTS. AND IF THE BOARD HAS ANY COMMENTS, CERTAINLY REACH OUT TO ME, AND I'M HAPPY TO PASS THOSE ALONG TO OUR COMMUNICATIONS TEAM.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBERS? I HAD ONE, WHICH IS, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHEN WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR THE PRIME MERIDIAN MAGAZINE? I KNOW THAT'S A POPULAR ONE IN THE SPRINGTIME. YES, THAT IS, I KNOW, AFTER THE WEBSITE, THAT IS A TOP PRIORITY FOR COMMUNICATION, SO THAT'LL BE COMING OUT IN THE NEXT, MID-APRIL, IS WHAT WE'RE TARGETING RIGHT NOW.

YEP, APPRECIATE IT. ANY OTHER

[7. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES ANDANNOUNCEMENTS]

ANY BOARD MEMBERS WITH ACTIVITIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS? YEAH, SO I'VE BEEN SICK, SO I WASN'T HERE FOR THE LAST BOARD MEETING, BUT I WANTED TO MENTION SOME OF THE EVENTS I ATTENDED. I WENT TO THE RECENT LUNAR NEW YEAR EVENTS AND THE POLAR DASH AND SPLASH FUNDRAISER THAT HAPPENED RECENTLY. AND THEN YESTERDAY, I TOURED MSU'S FACILITY FOR RARE ISOTOPE BEAMS, AND THAT WAS ALONG WITH OTHER TOWNSHIP DIRECTORS.

THAT'S IT. TERRIFIC. THANK YOU.

TREASURER BURKHART. HI. I WANTED TO THANK MANAGER DEMPSEY FOR GIVING A SHOUT-OUT TO THE TREASURERS AND UTILITY BILLING STAFF AT THE LAST MEETING. WE DO HAVE SOME DETAILS ABOUT TAX DAY, WHICH WAS FEBRUARY 17TH.

APPARENTLY, WE TOOK CARE OF 231 PEOPLE AT OUR COUNTER DURING THE DAY FROM 8 TO 5. WE HAD MORE THAN 500 CHECK PAYMENTS THAT DAY THAT WE PROCESSED. TOOK IN APPROXIMATELY $48,000 IN CASH. HAD A TOTAL OF 2.9 MILLION PAID IN TAXES THAT DAY. SO IT WAS A BUSY DAY. I WAS ALSO AT THE FRIB YESTERDAY, AND I ATTENDED THE INGHAM COUNTY CHAPTER OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP ASSOCIATION'S MEETING, AND I WANTED TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE ITC POWERLINE PROJECT, AND I'M GOING TO DEFER TO... TRUSTEE LENZ, WHO HAS A LOT OF DETAILS ABOUT THAT. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE SETUP. AND THE TREASURER JOINING US. I'M THE BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE ON THE ITC BOARD, AND IT'S A GREAT WAY TO INTERACT WITH THE OTHER TOWNSHIPS IN INGHAM COUNTY.

WITH THAT SAID, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS INDIVIDUAL FOR ITC PRESENTED. SHE LET US KNOW THAT OVER 3,000 COMMENTS WERE MADE DURING THE COMMUNITY LISTENING SESSIONS REGARDING THIS PROJECT, THE MAJORITY OF THEM COMING FROM MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS. SO WE APPRECIATE THE TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS MAKING THEIR VOICES HEARD AS MUCH AS THEY HAVE. IT SEEMED TO BE TO THE POINT WHERE THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY NEED TO DELAY THEIR NEXT PHASE BY A MONTH TO CONTINUE REVIEWING ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK, ONLY GOES TO SHOW WHAT PEOPLE WHO ARE COMMITTED TO A CAUSE CAN DO.

WITH THAT SAID, THEY LET US KNOW THAT PHASE THREE OF THE PROJECT, WHICH WE JUST FINISHED PHASE TWO, WE CAN EXPECT TO HOST LAND OWNER OPEN HOUSES, WHICH ARE SOMEHOW DIFFERENT THAN COMMUNITY LISTENING SESSIONS IN JULY OR AUGUST, BUT IS VIRTUALLY THE SAME THING, JUST WITH A WINNOWING DOWN OF AVAILABLE OPTIONS THAT ITC WOULD BE CONSIDERING. YOU KNOW, AS WE HEARD FROM DURING OUR PRESENTATION HERE, THE ANTICIPATED FINISH OF THIS PROJECT IS NOT UNTIL 2032, AND IT'S NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO START UNTIL THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION GIVES AN ANSWER IN EARLY 2028. YOU KNOW, MERIDIAN WAS HERALDED AS THE TOWNSHIP... HAROLD MIGHT BE A BIT STRONG, BUT COMMENDED FOR PASSING A RESOLUTION ON OUR FEELINGS ABOUT THIS POTENTIAL LINE. WE BOTH MADE SURE TO MENTION THAT THE PARKLAND IMPACTS AND THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED BY IT. SO WITH THAT SAID. WE ON YOUR BOARD ARE CONTINUING TO WATCH FOR UPDATES ON THIS PROJECT. AND WE'LL DO WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT

[01:10:01]

THANK YOU. AND JUST ONE OTHER ITEM. AT THE TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH I ATTENDED, LAST WEDNESDAY, WE WERE INFORMED OF A UPDATE ON THE INGHAM COUNTY STANDING COMMITTEE WORKING ON ROADS AS THE DEPARTMENT MAKES CHANGES. I WANT TO GIVE ANOTHER THANK YOU, I DON'T KNOW IF DAN IS STILL IN THE ROOM, FOR BEING INVOLVED IN THAT STANDING COMMITTEE. I PROBABLY COULD HAVE COMBINED THESE TWO COMMENTS ON ROADS AS YOU WERE PRESENTING TONIGHT, BUT I REALLY DO APPRECIATE WORKING WITH THE COUNTY. I VIEW IT AS REALLY ESSENTIAL TO WORK WITH THOSE OTHER GOVERNMENT BODIES, SO THANK YOU. THOSE ARE MY ANNOUNCEMENTS. THANK YOU. MR. TREZISE. YES, SINCE WE LAST MET HERE, I HAVE ATTENDED A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE BUSIER NIGHTS WE'VE HAD, WITH FOUR APPLICATIONS. WE TURNED DOWN TWO OF THEM HAVING TO DO WITH PROPERTY SPLITS. SO WE MAY HEAR GRIPES FROM THOSE PEOPLE. BEFORE, WE'RE DONE, BUT IT WAS AFTER A LONG DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF THE REQUEST. SO THAT'S A VERY GOOD BOARD TO WORK WITH, AND I ENJOY IT. THE OTHER THING IS, I THINK LAST NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, I SAID I WOULD APPLY TO BE ON THE MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLANNING COMMITTEE.

I HAD MY INTERVIEW LAST MONDAY, AND TODAY I RECEIVED NOTICE THAT I WAS APPOINTED.

THEY HAVEN'T TOLD ME WHEN THE MEETINGS ARE, BUT I DO KNOW WHAT THEIR ATTENDANCE POLICY IS, WHAT THEIR ETHICS AND ELECTRONIC USAGE REQUIREMENTS.

I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SERVING ON THAT GROUP. TRUSTEE WILSON.

I ATTENDED THE NEIGHBORHOOD POLICING MEETING, WHICH IS A QUARTERLY MEETING OF ALL THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS WITH THE POLICE. POLICE LEADERSHIP, AS WELL AS ABOUT HALF OUR OFFICERS ATTEND THAT MEETING. AND IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FOLKS TO TALK ABOUT ISSUES OF SAFETY, TRAFFIC, AND SO ON. AND AS YOU WOULD LIKELY GUESS, THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS TRAFFIC AND SPEEDING. SO I'M DELIGHTED TO SEE TONIGHT THAT WE HAVE OUR 40TH OFFICER WITH US. WE HAVE ONE OFFICER DEDICATED TO TRAFFIC AT THIS TIME. WHEN WE CAN GET UP TO 40 OR 41, WE CAN HAVE A SECOND OFFICER DEVOTED TO THAT. AND I DID SEE A STOP TODAY, SO THEY'RE OUT THERE.

THE NEXT BIGGEST PROBLEM IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS IS BARKING DOGS.

SO I THINK WE'RE DOING PRETTY WELL IF THAT'S THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THAT NEIGHBORHOODS ARE TALKING ABOUT, BESIDES SPEEDING. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? I'LL JUST ADD I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF ATTENDING THE STATE OF THE STATE. THAT GOVERNOR WHITMER GAVE HER FINAL STATE OF THE STATE LAST WEDNESDAY.

AND IT WAS A VERY EXCITING EXPERIENCE, AND I GOT TO HEAR HER TALK ABOUT SOME OF HER PRIORITIES FOR HER LAST YEAR IN OFFICE, WHICH INCLUDE A FOCUS ON LITERACY, A FOCUS ON DECREASING THE COST OF HEALTH CARE FOR OUR RESIDENTS. AND SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING AT EVERY LEVEL. AND SOMETHING THAT REALLY SPOKE TO ME, OBVIOUSLY WE TALK ABOUT THAT A LOT. WE'VE MADE GREAT STRIDES, I THINK, IN WORKING ON THAT. BUT THAT IS INDEED A STATEWIDE EFFORT, A STATEWIDE GOAL. IT WAS REALLY INTERESTING TO HEAR HER GIVE IT SUCH A SPOTLIGHT IN HER ANNUAL ADDRESS. SO THANK YOU TO SENATOR SINGH AND CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR PENDING CHANGE. AND WE'RE VERY THANKFUL TO HAVE HAD YOU AS OUR STATE SENATOR FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

[8. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

BEFORE I MAKE THE MOTION, I'VE GOT AN ADDITIONAL ACTION ITEM FOR APPROVAL. SO, THIS IS...

WAS RECOMMENDED BY OUR LEGAL COUNSEL.

TO HAVE THE BOARD APPROVE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF POLLING LOCATIONS OR ABSENT VOTER COUNTING PLACE AND THEN EARLY VOTING SITE. SO, MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA WITH 11B ESTABLISHING POLLING LOCATIONS, ABSENT VOTER COUNTING PLACE, EARLY VOTING SITE, ADDED TO THE BOARD ACTION ITEMS. WE'VE GOT A MOTION.

FOR THE AGENDA, WITH THE ADDENDUM AS DESCRIBED.

TRUSTEE WILSON? SUPPORT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE

[01:15:03]

[9. CONSENT AGENDA]

WE HAVE A RELATIVELY LENGTHY CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING, CONSISTING OF SEVERAL ITEMS. WE HAVE THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH TOWNSHIP BOARD. WE HAVE FOUR SETS OF MINUTES. SO WE'VE GOT THE, IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU'VE GOT MANILA FOLDERS.

WITH THE CLOSED SESSION MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 3RD AND FEBRUARY 17TH, AS WELL AS THE REGULAR MINUTES FROM THE, SORRY, THE SPECIAL, EXCUSE ME, THE SPECIAL.

TOWNSHIP BOARD MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 10TH AND THE REGULAR TOWNSHIP BOARD MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 17TH.

FOUR SETS IN TOTAL. WE HAVE THE BILLS. WE HAVE A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORTING AND HONORING WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH. WE HAVE THE TWO, THREE CONTRACTS THAT WERE MENTIONED, TWO CONTRACTS THAT WERE MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT THE LOCAL ROAD PROGRAM FOR CRUSHING AND RESURFACING AND THEN MOWING AND RESURFACING. AND THEN WE HAVE A FORCED MAIN SANITARY SEWER PROJECT CONTRACT AWARD AS WELL.

WE HAVE A SETTING OF A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE MICHIGAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION. WE HAVE APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF REVIEW. FOR NATHAN EIDE AND MANESH MODI, AND THEN THE APPOINTMENT OF TREASURER BURKHART TO THE PENSION BOARD. WE HAVE A SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT, AND BUDGET. AND THEN WE HAVE THE ST. MARTHA'S SCHOOL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR BUILDING, PERMITTING, AND INSPECTIONS.

THAT WAS A LOT, GUYS. SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING? MOVED BY TREASURER BURKHART. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE LENTZ. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? ANY ITEMS TO REMOVE FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE, WILL CLERK DEMAS PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? CLERK DEMAS, YES. TREASURER BURKHART, YES. TRUSTEE LENTZ, YES. TRUSTEE SUMLIN, YES.

TRUSTEE TREZISE, YES. TRUSTEE WILSON, YES. SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON, YES. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE PASS YOUR FOLDERS DOWN.

[10.A. Sanctuary #2 Public Streetlighting Improvement Special Assessment District #430 ]

[10.B. Sierra Ridge #4 Public Streetlighting Improvement Special Assessment District #431 ]

TO HAVING TWICE AS MANY PARCELS TO DISTRIBUTE, THE COST OVER.

ONCE AGAIN, DIFFERENT DEVELOPER, BUT THE DEVELOPER HAS PAID FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE STREETLIGHTS, WHICH WOULD TYPICALLY BE AROUND $1,000 PER PARCEL.

FOR THAT FIRST YEAR. SO HERE WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE ONGOING SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE OF THOSE STREETLIGHTS. SO VERY REASONABLE ASSESSMENTS, EVEN

[01:20:01]

CLAVON REDWINE. I LIVE AT 6116 FRESNO LANE IN THE SIERRA RIDGE DEVELOPMENT. AT THE TIME THAT MY WIFE AND I BOUGHT THIS PARCEL, THERE WERE STREETLIGHTS ALREADY THERE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BUILDER PAID FOR THEM, AND I THINK THAT THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE WITH THIS IS THAT THE BUILDER SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THAT IN THE COST OF THE PARCEL, AND THAT COMING TO US AFTER WE HAVE BUILT AND MOVED IN... IT'S AN AFTERTHOUGHT ON HIS PART, AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BEAR THE COST. WE ALSO DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY LIGHTING IS NOT PROVIDED THROUGH OUR REGULAR ASSESSMENT, THROUGH OUR TAXES, OUR PROPERTY TAXES. ELSEWHERE IN THE TOWNSHIP, ARE PEOPLE ASSESSED FOR LIGHTING? I DON'T THINK SO.

I'VE LIVED HERE OVER 48 YEARS, IN THIS AREA. I'VE OWNED HOMES IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS.

AND I HAVE NEVER PLAYED ASSESSMENT FOR LIGHTS. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN INCLUDED IN MY PROPERTY TAX. MAYBE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING THIS. MAYBE SOMEONE CAN CLEAR THIS UP FOR ME.

BUT I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO ADDRESS THE TOWNSHIP BOARD ON THIS ISSUE? SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED AT 7.20 P.M. OKAY, NEXT UP IS ITEM

[11.A. Sanctuary #2 Public Streetlighting Improvement Special Assessment District #430 – Resolution #3]

GOOD EVENING AGAIN, BOARD MEMBERS. SO TONIGHT BEFORE YOU IS RESOLUTION THREE OF FIVE. SO TONIGHT YOU ARE JUST APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENTS, AND THEN WE WILL BRING BACK RESOLUTION FOUR AT A FUTURE MEETING. WHICH WILL SET THE SECOND AND FINAL PUBLIC HEARING. AND THEN RESOLUTION 05, OF COURSE, IS WHERE YOU WILL APPROVE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT IF THE BOARD SO CHOOSES. MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON THE SANCTUARY PUBLIC AND STREETLIGHT IMPROVEMENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT? TRUSTEE TREZISE. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I WILL SAY THAT I'VE BEEN LIVING IN THE TOWNSHIP FOR 39 YEARS, AND I DO PAY. A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR STREETLIGHTS.

AND HAVE BEEN FOR ALL THAT TIME PERIOD. I WAS GOING TO RESERVE THAT FOR THE NEXT ONE BECAUSE THE QUESTION WAS GERMANE TO THE NEXT ITEM, BUT REGARDLESS, I SUPPOSE I CAN SPEAK TO THAT RIGHT NOW. WITH NEIGHBORHOOD STREETLIGHT DISTRICTS, SO FLUTED POLES OR STREETLIGHTS ON POLES THAT... ARE INSTALLED IN NEIGHBORHOODS, THE TOWNSHIP'S POLICY HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT THOSE ARE PAID BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT.

THAT CAN OCCUR ONE OF TWO WAYS. THAT CAN OCCUR WITH THE DEVELOPER INITIATING IT WHEN THEY STILL OWN ALL OR MOST OF THE PARCELS, WHICH IS THE CASE IN THIS INSTANCE, OR IT CAN OCCUR WITH AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. WE DO HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WILL COME TO US AND SAY, OKAY, HOW DO WE GET STREETLIGHTS? WE WOULD LIKE STREETLIGHTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HOW DO WE DO THAT. THEN WE WOULD GIVE THEM A PETITION AND THEY WOULD CIRCULATE THE PETITION TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PRIOR TO US BRINGING IT TO THE BOARD.

BUT IT'S FAIRLY COMMON PRACTICE IN THE NEWER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THE DEVELOPERS BUILD THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE GENERALLY DESIRED BY PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IN THIS CASE, TO ANSWER THE RESIDENTS QUESTION, FOR BOTH OF THESE STREET LIGHT SADS, THE DEVELOPERS DID PRESUMABLY PASS THE COST ALONG, THE CONSTRUCTION COST, TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. BECAUSE THIS STREET LIGHT SAD WILL NOT FUND THE CONSTRUCTION.

CONSTRUCTION WAS ALREADY COVERED BY THE DEVELOPER. THIS IS COVERING THE ONGOING COST FOR THE ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO KEEP THEM LIT, AND THE MAINTENANCE WHEN THEY GET TAKEN OUT BY A VEHICLE. THAT MIGHT LEAVE THE ROADWAY OR SOME OTHER MATTER. CONSUMERS WILL COME AND RESTORE IT, AND THERE'S NO COST TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN THEY RESTORE THAT STREET LIGHT. SO WE'RE REALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT THE ONGOING COST TONIGHT TO MAINTAIN AND KEEP THE STREET LIGHTS LIT. AND THAT'S FOR THE SECOND ONE, OR IS THAT FOR BOTH? THAT'S FOR BOTH. TWO DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS, BUT THE EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCE.

JAGUAR HOMES PAID FOR THE SIERRA RIDGE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STREETLIGHTS. AND I'M

[01:25:02]

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? WE HAVE A MOTION IN OUR PACKAGE.

SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO MAKE IT? TRUSTEE TREZISE. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE SANCTUARY NO. 2 PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 430, RESOLUTION NO. 3, WHICH APPROVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, THE ESTIMATE OF COST, AND DEFERRING THE COST.

BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, DETERMINES THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND DIRECTS THE MAKING OF AN ASSESSMENT ROLL.

SUPPORT. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY TRUSTEE TREZISE, SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WILSON. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CLERK DEMAS, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? TREASURER BURKHART? YES. TRUSTEE LENZ? YES.

TRUSTEE SUNDLAND? YES.

TRUSTEE CHESISE? YES. TRUSTEE WILSON? YES. SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON? YES. CLERK DEMAS? YES. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.

[11.B. Sierra Ridge #4 Public Streetlighting Improvement Special Assessment District #431 – Resolution #3]

SO, SAME CIRCUMSTANCE AS THE PRIOR AGENDA ITEM. WE ARE ON RESOLUTION 3, WHICH IS WHERE THE BOARD WOULD APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION, WHICH HAS, OF COURSE, ALREADY OCCURRED.

AND THEN WE WOULD BRING BACK RESOLUTION 4, AND THERE WILL BE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING, AND ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WILL RECEIVE ANOTHER NOTICE FOR THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS? TRUSTEE LENTZ. MY ONLY QUESTION, AND I THINK THIS IS SOMEWHAT CLEAR IN THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF US, THIS DOES NOT AFFECT THE...

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT OF PREVIOUSLY BUILT HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, DOES IT? THIS IS AN ASSESSMENT ON SOME HOMES THAT EXIST TODAY.

THERE MIGHT EVEN BE A LOT OR TWO THAT'S STILL VACANT.

OKAY. THE BUILDER OWNS ALMOST ALL OF THE HOMES STILL. SO THIS IS THE ROLE. SO YOU CAN SEE, FIDWA BUILDERS OWNS MOST OF THE HOMES, BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE SOLD THUS FAR.

THANK YOU, BUT JUST SORRY, I MAYBE SHOULD HAVE ASKED IT IN THE WAY OF. THIS IS ONLY AFFECTING THESE NEW HOMES THAT ARE ONLY THAT ARE BEING BUILT AS A PART OF THE PHASE OF THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

CORRECT. THESE 14 PARCELS RIGHT HERE THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS DISTRICT. WE TYPICALLY GO PLAT BY PLAT. GREAT. THANK YOU. THAT WAS A SMILING QUESTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, THERE IS A MOTION TO BE MADE IN OUR PACKET OF SO2S. TRUSTEE TREZISE. IF I CAN GET BACK TO IT. MOVE TO APPROVE THE SIERRA RIDGE NO. 4 PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 431, RESOLUTION NO. 3, WHICH APPROVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. THE ESTIMATE OF COST AND DEFERRING THE COST BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND DETERMINES THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND JUST DIRECTS THE MAKING OF AN ASSESSMENT ROLL.

SUPPORT. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY TRUSTEE TREZISE, SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WILSON. ANY FINAL DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC? SEEING NO MORE, CLERK DEMAS, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. TRUSTEE LENTZ? YES. TRUSTEE SUNDLUND? YES. TRUSTEE TREZISE? YES.

TRUSTEE WILSON? YES.

SUPERVISOR HICKSON? YES.

CLERK DEMAS, YES. TREASURER BURKHART? YES. QUESTION

[11.C. Board Policy Document Revisions]

I'M HAPPY TO TURN IT OVER TO DEPUTY MANAGER. GOOD EVENING AGAIN. SO, BACK AT THE JANUARY 6TH BOARD MEETING, WE DISCUSSED CODIFYING SOME OF THE CURRENT PRACTICES THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF THE BOARD'S AGENDA PROCESS. SO, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

BEFORE YOU ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES, IF YOU GO TO PAGE 10 OF THE DOCUMENT, WHICH I PUT UP ON THE SCREEN, THAT'S THE ENTIRETY OF THE CHANGES. SO, ESSENTIALLY, ADJUSTING THE AGENDA TIMING TO INITIAL INFORMATION ON A PRELIMINARY AGENDA BY MONDAY, FINALIZING THAT BY HOPEFULLY CLOSE OF BUSINESS THURSDAY. AS WE HAVE DONE TODAY, CONTINUING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD SEES THAT PRELIMINARY AGENDA EITHER MONDAY OR SOMETIMES IT'S TUESDAY, DEPENDING, SOMETIMES THERE IS A LITTLE DELAY, BUT YOU ALL GET TO SEE THAT AGENDA AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO US FOR ANY NECESSARY CHANGES. SO JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE ACTION ITEMS, WE DISCUSSED THE TWO-STEP PROCESS. AND WE THOUGHT WE WOULD SIMPLY CLARIFY WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING.

[01:30:01]

ACTION ITEMS WOULD BE THOSE THINGS THAT MIGHT REQUIRE US AN EXPLANATION OR MORE THOROUGH DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD. AND THEN DISCUSSION ITEMS ARE THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE MORE PRELIMINARY IN NATURE, WHERE WE KNOW THAT. WE'RE NOT REQUESTING ANY ACTION FROM THE BOARD, SIMPLY WANT TO PRESENT THAT CONCEPT TO THE BOARD FOR INITIAL CONSIDERATION TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT A LATER TIME. SO AGAIN, FOLLOWING ESSENTIALLY THE PRACTICE THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING OVER THE PAST YEAR AND CODIFYING THAT HERE FOR...

CLARITY SAKE. WITH THAT, HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS.

BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS? I WILL JUST SAY ONE OF MY CONCERNS FOR AGENDA PROCEDURE IS NUMBER THREE. IF WE, SAY, BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THURSDAY AND WE HAVE A BOARD MEETING ON THURSDAY, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD APPLY. AND SO MY WORRY BY HAVING A SPECIFIC DATE IS THAT CAN RESTRAIN US. OR IT JUST WOULDN'T APPLY TO HOW WE PREPARE AGENDAS FOR SPECIAL MEETINGS OR MEETINGS THAT ARE MOVED. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A TOTALLY FAIR CONCERN.

PERHAPS WE COULD SET A NUMBER OF DAYS PRIOR, AND THAT WAY, IF WE HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING, OR IF WE HAVE A REGULAR MEETING THAT WE PLAN FOR A DIFFERENT DAY, THAT BACKS IT OFF IN THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF DAYS. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S AN EASY SOLUTION. WE CAN SIMPLY DO THAT. EIGHT DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING FOR THE INITIAL AND THEN THE THURSDAY TO DO THE FIVE DAYS PRIOR.

OTHER THOUGHTS OR CONCERNS? I DON'T THINK IT NECESSARILY NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN HERE, BUT I DO THINK IF A. JUST AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE, IF A BOARD MEMBER IS HOPING TO PULL SOMETHING OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT THEY SEE, THAT'S ON OUR REGULAR AGENDA, THE SOONER YOU CAN PROVIDE THAT FEEDBACK, THE BETTER.

IN SOME CASES, NOT EVERY CASE, BUT IN SOME CASES, ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA HAVE A DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBER THAT WOULDN'T OTHERWISE BE PRESENT AT THE MEETING. AND SINCE THOSE WOULD REQUIRE A PRESENTATION AND, YOU KNOW, A DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS WITH THAT STAFF MEMBER, WE'D ASK THAT. YOU, YOU KNOW, PULL THAT AS SOON AS YOU CAN, SO THAT WE CAN ASK THAT PERSON TO BE PRESENT FOR THE MEETING. AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY NEEDED IN THE TEXT OF THE RULES, BUT JUST AS A PRACTICE. IF WE COULD TRY TO MAKE THOSE REQUESTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

BUT OTHERWISE, I'M HAPPY WITH THE CHANGES THAT'S PRESENTED.

AND I THINK... WE CAN PROBABLY PASS THIS WITH THE RECOMMENDED UPDATE THAT WE CHANGE DAYS TO NUMBERS. YEAH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION TO MAKE. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO MAKE THAT? YES. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. ALL RIGHT. MOVE TO APPROVE THE REVISED BOARD RULES, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES MANUAL AS...

PRESENTED WITH THE INCLUSION OF CHANGING DAYS TO NUMBERS.

VERY GOOD. DOES THIS HAVE A SECOND? SUPPORT. SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE LENTZ. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I THINK THESE ARE JUST OUR OWN RULES, SO WE CAN PROBABLY DO A VOICE VOTE FOR THAT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION

[11. D. Establishing Polling Locations, Absent Voter Counting Place, Early Voting Site]

YEAH. DO WE HAVE COPIES IF PEOPLE WANT? YES, THIS WAS A LATE AGENDA ITEM. IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHES TO, THERE'S A PHYSICAL COPY ON THE TABLE BY THE DOOR.

YOU'RE WELCOME TO GRAB THAT.

OTHERWISE, I BELIEVE WE'LL HAVE THIS UP ON THE MONITORS SHORTLY.

ASSUMING THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING? YES. OKAY. WE'LL GET TO THE MONITOR SHORTLY AS WELL.

[01:35:16]

YEAH. OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE SCHOOL. OH, YEAH. YEAH.

ICE CREAM LINES ARE NOT A THING YOU GET VERY OFTEN. THAT'S JUST HOW IT GOES. IT'S CRAZY. ALL RIGHT. I SEE IT. HERE YOU GO.

IT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW, SO...

AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, I REACHED OUT TO OUR TOWNSHIP ATTORNEYS AND THEY RECOMMENDED FOR US TO NOT ONLY GO TO THE ELECTION COMMISSION, BUT ALSO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD. TO APPROVE OUR POLLING LOCATIONS, OUR ABSENT VOTER COUNTING PLACE, AND EARLY VOTING SITE.

AFTER WE CHANGED OUR PRECINCTS FROM 22 TO 14. SO, INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT... YOU WILL SEE AN OUTLINE OF THE POLLING LOCATIONS FROM PRECINCT 1 TO PRECINCT 14.

PRECINCT 1, WE WILL HAVE THAT BE ST. LUKE LUTHERAN CHURCH.

PRECINCT 2, STORY POINT EAST LANSING FOR THIS ELECTION.

PRECINCT 3, HAZLITT COMMUNITY EDUCATION. PRECINCT 4, HAZLITT COMMUNITY CHURCH.

PRECINCTS 5 AND 9 WILL BE AT OKEMOS COMMUNITY CHURCH.

PRECINCT 6, THIS WILL REMAIN THE SAME, RED CEDAR CHURCH.

PRECINCT 7, INGHAM COUNTY REHAB FACILITY. PRECINCT 10 IS MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP SERVICE CENTER. PRECINCT 11, OKEMOS LIBRARY. AND THEN PRECINCT 12, CENTRAL FIRE STATION, NUMBER 91. AND, OF COURSE, PRECINCT 13 AND 14 WILL BE AT 242 COMMUNITY CHURCH. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THREE DAYS OF EARLY VOTING FOR OUR MAY ELECTION. AND THAT WILL BE FROM MAY 1ST TO MAY 3RD. WE WOULD LIKE THAT TO, ONCE AGAIN, BE HELD AT THE TOWN HALL ROOM. AND THEN OUR ABSENT VOTER ACCOUNTING PLACE WOULD ALSO BE AT THE TOWN HALL ROOM ON ELECTION DAY. SO THAT IS WHY WE WON'T HAVE ANY POLLING LOCATIONS IN THIS ROOM HERE.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBERS? BOARD MEMBERS, SO WE'VE GOT ACTUALLY THREE AGENDA ITEMS, THREE ACTIONS.

HERE, BEFORE US, THE FIRST TWO APPROVED POLLING LOCATIONS FOR THE MAY 5TH ELECTION SPECIFICALLY. THERE'S THE SECOND, THE BACK SIDE HERE UNDER B, TO APPROVE THE TOWN HALL ROOM AS OUR EARLY VOTE SITE FOR THE MAY ELECTION. AND THEN THE THIRD IS TO APPROVE THE ABSENT VOTER COUNTING BOARD HERE IN THE TOWN HALL ROOM AS WELL.

QUESTIONS FOR CLERK DEMAS? TRUSTEE TREZISE. ARE THESE POLLING LOCATIONS THAT WE HAVE CONTRACTS WITH ALL OF US? WE HAVE SIGNED CONTRACTS FOR ALMOST ALL OF OUR POLLING LOCATIONS. I GOT VERBAL CONFIRMATION FOR A FEW THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO SEND A CONTRACT YET. I BELIEVE IN THE MOTION. IT SAYS THAT CHANGES ARE MAY BE MADE BEFORE THE MARCH 6TH DEADLINE.

SO LET'S SAY WE HAVE ONE OF OUR POLLING LOCATIONS PULL OUT FOR SOME REASON. I WOULD JUST CHANGE THAT AS LONG AS YOU MOVE TO APPROVE. AND THESE WILL STAY THE SAME FOR THE AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, OR AUGUST AND NOVEMBER? SO FOR AUGUST AND NOVEMBER ELECTION, I AM, WE DO HAVE CONTRACTS FOR ALL OF THE POLLING LOCATIONS, EXCEPT FOR PRECINCT 2, WHICH WE MAY LOOK AT. AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION, GIVEN HOW IT IS OUR LARGEST PRECINCT WITH STORY POINTS, WE MAY NEED TO FIND A LARGER FACILITY. SO THAT IS WHY THIS IS ONLY FOR THE MAY 5TH ELECTION.

TRUSTEE WILSON. HOW MANY OF THESE PRECINCTS DO YOU NOT HAVE A SIGNED AGREEMENT YET? YEAH, SO... I THINK WE DON'T HAVE A SIGNED AGREEMENT FOR LIKE, TWO TO THREE OF THEM. I KNOW 242 CHURCH, I'M WORKING WITH THEM TOMORROW TO GET THE AGREEMENT. STORY POINTS, THEY VERBALLY CONFIRMED, BUT THEY WILL BE SENDING THAT CONTRACT SHORTLY.

AND THEN I THINK IT HAS, LIKE, COMMUNITY, CHURCH, WHICH THEY ALSO CONFIRMED. AND IF YOU USE THE POLLING PLACE FOR AT STORYPOINT FOR PRECINCT 2 FOR

[01:40:03]

OF COURSE, YES, IT'S JUST WE DON'T HAVE A PERMANENT LOCATION FOR PRECINCT 2, AS I'M SURE OUR ELECTION COMMISSION IS FAMILIAR. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE POLLING PLACES FOR FREEZING 2, WHICH USED TO BE 18 AND 19, AND WE ARE JUST TRYING TO FIND A PERMANENT LOCATION.

SO IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED, PLEASE REACH OUT TO MY OFFICE. SO THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE MOST OF THE POLLING PLACES HAVE CHANGED FOR VOTERS IN THIS COMMUNITY.

HAS ONE STAYED THE SAME? RED CEDAR HAS STAYED THE SAME.

PRECINCT 6 WAS NOT CHANGED. SO THE VOTER CARDS ARE GOING OUT ON MARCH 6TH? IS THAT THE PLAN? WE'RE USING A VENDOR TO SEND OUT OUR VOTER ID CARDS TO ALL OF OUR REGISTERED VOTERS WITH THE POLLING LOCATION CHANGES.

THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND ARE THOSE, IS THERE A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT AS TO WHEN THOSE GO OUT? JUST AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SO AS SOON AS THE BOARD APPROVES THIS, WE WILL SEND THEM OUT. THANK YOU. HAVE WE LOOKED AT, THIS IS FINE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE APPOINTMENT FOR THE ONE ELECTION, I HAVE NO REAL ISSUES HERE.

HAVE WE CONSIDERED SNELL TOWER FOR PRECINCT 2 AT ALL? WE HAVE.

I BELIEVE THERE IS A PARKING ISSUE. AND THAT IS THE MAIN REASON WHY WE DID NOT USE THAT FACILITY. ALSO, JUST GIVEN THE SIZE OF IT, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE ABLE TO HOUSE THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS THAT WE HAVE.

IS THERE A REQUIREMENT? I'M LOOKING AT TRYING TO RECALL IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, IF THEY'RE ACROSS THE LINE OR NOT. IS NEW HOPE CHURCH? SOMETHING THAT'S AN OPTION? I DID REACH OUT TO NEW HOPE CHURCH. THEY HAVE DECLINED. AH, OKAY.

WELL, HERE WE ARE THEN. YEAH, AND THEN ONE LAST POINT. I AM UNSURE IF YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTION ALTOGETHER, BUT IF THAT'S AN OPTION, WE HAVE THREE MOTIONS. I'M SURE YOU CAN DO THAT. IT'S JUST A VERY LENGTHY MOTION. OR YOU COULD DO EACH THREE, AND I'LL READ OUT ALL OF YOUR NAMES. YEAH, I THINK SEPARATELY IS PROBABLY BETTER IN THIS CASE. OKAY. SO I GUESS THE FIRST QUESTION BEFORE US IS ON THE POLLING PRICES. DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED? YES, TREASURER BURKHARDT. LET'S SEE. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE POLLING LOCATION CHANGES AS PRESENTED IN THE MARCH 3, 2026 MEMORANDUM AND IN THE ATTACHED MAP FOR PRECINCTS 1 THROUGH 14 AS REQUIRED FOR THE MAY 5, 2026 SPECIAL ELECTION. SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENTS IS NECESSARY BY THE TOWNSHIP CLERK. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY TREASURER BURKHART. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SUPPORT. SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE SUNDLUND. I SAW HER. OH, OKAY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CLERK DIMAS, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? IT'S KIND OF EASIER BECAUSE I CAN SEE YOUR NAME. YOU CAN SEE US ALL, YEAH. I THINK WE'RE AT TRUSTEE SUNDLUND. SO, TRUSTEE SUNDLUND? YES. TRUSTEE TREZISE? YES. TRUSTEE WILSON? YES. SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON? YES. CLERK DEMAS? YES.

TREASURER BURKHART? YES.

TRUSTEE LENTZ? YES. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO OUR SECOND QUESTION THIS EVENING IS ON THE EARLY VOTE SITE. THIS WAS, AS YOU SAID, FROM THE 1ST TO 3RD? THAT IS CORRECT. AND THAT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR SCHOOL PLAN, RIGHT? IS THAT HOW THAT WORKS? I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. I THINK THE COORDINATED SCHOOL PLAN.

DICTATES THE EARLY VOTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EARLY VOTE SITES, RIGHT? I BELIEVE SO. OKAY. I JUST KNOW THAT EARLY VOTING IS NOT REQUIRED, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO OFFER IT. YEAH, OKAY.

MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO JUST VERIFY BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR AWAY FROM THIS ISSUE. YES. SO, BUT THAT IS IN THIS ROOM, IN THE TOWN HALL ROOM OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL BUILDING. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? I THINK WE'VE USED THIS SITE, YOU KNOW, THE LAST SEVERAL ELECTIONS SINCE EARLY VOTING WAS IMPLEMENTED AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE STATEWIDE BALLOT PROPOSAL, AND IT SEEMS TO HAVE WORKED PRETTY WELL. NO ISSUE WITH THIS PARTICULAR...

YEAH, I'LL MAKE A POINT.

[01:45:01]

SOMETIMES WE HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN HERE ON ELECTION DAY BECAUSE THEY'RE USED TO COMING IN DURING THE NINE DAYS OF EARLY VOTING. SO THIS IS A WONDERFUL PLACE. AND IF ANYONE GETS CONFUSED OR HAS QUESTIONS, THEY CAN ALWAYS GO TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE, WHICH WILL BE OPEN DURING THAT TIME. GREAT. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE THE TOWN HALL ROOM OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 5151 MARSH ROAD, OKEMOS, MICHIGAN, AS AN EARLY VOTING SITE FOR ALL PRECINCTS IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP FOR THE MAY 5, 2026 SPECIAL ELECTION, SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENTS AS NECESSARY BY THE TOWNSHIP CLERK.

SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WILSON, SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE TREZISE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. CLERK DEMAS, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? TRUSTEE CHESAIS? YES. TRUSTEE WILSON? YES. SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON? YES. CLERK DEMAS, YES.

TREASURER BURKHART? YES.

TRUSTEE LENTZ? YES. TRUSTEE SUMLIN? YES. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP IN FRONT OF US IS THE ABSENT VOTER ACCOUNTING BOARD, AND CLERK DEMAS IS AGAIN SUGGESTING THAT WE DO THIS HERE IN THIS ROOM.

THAT'S ACTUALLY A CHANGE, ISN'T IT? IT IS A CHANGE. WE USED TO DO IT AT 242 CHURCH, THE BUILDING. NEXT TO THE POLLING LOCATIONS. AND IT'S JUST WAY EASIER TO HAVE IT IN THIS ROOM. IT WOULD HELP OUR OPERATIONS GREATLY AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET RESULTS TO THE COUNTY FASTER BECAUSE OF IT. GREAT. IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO DO PRE-PROCESSING HERE IN THIS ROOM AS WELL? THAT IS CORRECT. AS PART OF THE ABCB ACTIVITY? YES, THAT WOULD BE MAY 4TH. OKAY, AND WE DON'T NEED TO INCLUDE. DO WE NEED TO INCLUDE THAT? OR IS THAT JUST PART OF THE WHOLE THING? UM, I MEAN, YOU COULD ALSO SAY PRE-PROCESSING IN THE MOTION.

WE DIDN'T HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL INCLUDE IT. YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO DO SO. OKAY, SO MAYBE WE'LL JUST... YOU COULD ADD A PHRASE. MAYBE AFTER A SPECIAL ELECTION. AND FOR PRE-PROCESSING? YES, I THINK WE CAN JUST SAY AND FOR, SINCE I MADE THE MOTION, AND FOR PRE-PROCESSING ON MAY 4TH, 2026. YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO. IT DOES SAY ABSENT VOTER COUNTING BOARDS, WHICH IMPLIES MULTIPLE. GOT IT.

YEAH. SO THAT'S THE DAY BEFORE, THE MONDAY. MONDAY, THE 4TH. I THOUGHT YOU SAID 24TH. NO, NO, NO, MAY 4TH. OKAY, SO THEN WE DO HAVE A MOTION IN OUR PACKETS. IF SOMEONE WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE TRUSTEE WILSON IS EXCITED TO JUMP AT THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO I'M GOING TO READ THE WHOLE MOTION? WELL, YEAH, WE HAVEN'T DONE THE MOTION ON THE ABSOLUTE ACCOUNTABILITY YET. I'M SORRY. OKAY, GOT IT.

MOVE TO APPROVE THE TOWN HALL ROOM OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 51 MARSH ROAD, OKEMOS, MICHIGAN, 48864.

AS THE LOCATION FOR PRE-PROCESSING ON MAY 4TH, 2026, AND FOR ANY MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP ABSENTEE VOTER COUNTING BOARDS ESTABLISHED NOW OR IN THE FUTURE FOR THE MAY 5TH, 2026 SPECIAL ELECTION, SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENTS AS NECESSARY BY THE TOWNSHIP COURT. OKAY.

GET IT? MOVED BY TRUSTEE WILSON. SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE LENTZ. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CALL THE ROLL. TRUSTEE WILSON? YES. SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON? YES. CLERK BEMIS? YES. TREASURER BURKHART? YES. TRUSTEE LENTZ? YES. TRUSTEE SUNDLUND? YES.

TRUSTEE ECHERS-EYCE? YES.

MOTION CARRIES 7-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR ALMOST TWO HOURS. LET'S TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS BEFORE WE JUMP INTO OUR DISCUSSION AGENDA, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'LL BE BACK AT THE END OF RECESS. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL BRING OURSELVES BACK

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

DIRECTOR SCHMIDT IS HERE TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON WHAT'S CHANGED. DIRECTOR SCHMIDT. THANK YOU, MR. SUPERVISOR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THIS HAS BEEN, THIS IS BACK IN FRONT OF YOU FOR THE FOURTH TIME NOW.

PREVIOUSLY, THE BOARD HAD DISCUSSED IT IN AUGUST, BEFORE IT GOT REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEN THE BOARD GOT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION BACK, DISCUSSED IT IN DECEMBER. AND AGAIN TWO WEEKS AGO, ON FEBRUARY 17TH, AFTER THE FEBRUARY 17TH MEETING, WHICH WAS A MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION THAN PREVIOUS. THE APPLICANT DID MAKE SOME SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE PLAN, WHICH I'M GOING TO

[01:50:01]

THE HIGH LEVEL LOOK AT THIS IS THE NUMBER. THE MAIN ITEM IS. THE NUMBER OF UNITS HAS BEEN REDUCED DOWN TO 240, WHICH IS 10 BUILDINGS OF 24 UNITS. OTHER BUILDINGS COME IN 24S, SO IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A MULTIPLE OF 24 AS WE MOVE FORWARD. EACH FLOOR IS 12 UNITS, AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DID ALSO HAPPEN. THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT IS THE SPACE TO THE NORTH OF THE PROJECT, ADJACENT TO TIMES SQUARE DRIVE, AND IN THIS CASE, ON YOUR SCREEN, IT'S THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN. THOSE UNITS WERE REDUCED FROM THREE STORIES TO TWO STORIES. THEY ESSENTIALLY WENT TO AN ALL TWO STORY PROJECT AT THIS JUNCTURE. THE SETBACK FROM THE RESIDENTIAL, THE CENTRAL PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST HAS BEEN INCREASED BY MOVING SOME OF THE BUILDINGS AROUND. THAT WENT FROM 90 FEET TO THE TOTAL 200 FEET OF SETBACK. THE BUILDINGS WERE SLIGHTLY RECONFIGURED IN THAT ONE WAS ADDED TO THE NORTH OF ELVENDALE, ONE WAS REMOVED FROM THE AREA BETWEEN BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS. THE ACCESS POINTS WERE MOVED SLIGHTLY. YOU WOULDN'T KNOW IT IF YOU WERE JUST LOOKING AT THE PLANS BACK AND FORTH, BUT WE TRIED TO TAKE A DEEP DIVE IN THE SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

WE HAD TO REVIEW THESE AND THE THE WETLANDS, WHICH, AGAIN, I WANT TO REITERATE, OUR UNREGULATED WETLANDS THEY ARE.

IN TOTAL, THE THREE WETLANDS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE 0.11 ACRES OF UNREGULATED WETLANDS ARE STILL PROPOSED TO BE FILLED. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT ALL ALONG, THOUGH, AND HAS CHANGED HERE, IS THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN SOME IN AND OUT OF THE WETLAND SETBACK. BY AND LARGE, THIS PLAN RESPECTS THE WETLAND SETBACK. IN A COUPLE OF AREAS WHERE IT DOESN'T, IT CERTAINLY PROVIDES INCREASED AREA TO OFFSET THAT ADJACENT TO OTHER WETLANDS. AND SO THAT WOULD BE THE OTHER MAJOR CHANGE THE STAFF WOULD POINT OUT. AND SO THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROVIDED, AND THEY CAN DISCUSS THIS IN FURTHER DETAIL, SORT OF A SERIES OF CONDITIONS TO FURTHER THE CONVERSATION, BASED OFF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INITIAL DRAFT RESOLUTION THAT WAS ULTIMATELY NOT ADOPTED. AND SO THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CHANGES THERE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, SOMETHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY, THAT PROBABLY HAS BEEN LOST IN THE SHUFFLE. THAT I WANT TO RE-HIGHLIGHT IS THE BUILDINGS ARE PROPOSED TO BE 220 FEET LONG. OUR ORDINANCE. HAS A PROVISION LIMITING BUILDINGS TO 200 FEET. THEY ARE SEEKING TO EXCEED THAT. THEY DO HAVE DEVIATION IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS FUNCTIONALLY WHAT THAT ORDINANCE PROVISION IS TRYING TO GET. IT COULD PROBABLY BE WRITTEN BETTER. SO THEY'RE NOT A FLAT FACE, RIGHT? THEY GO IN AND OUT. SO THAT IS A CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE. IT'S BEEN IN THE PLANS ALL ALONG, BUT I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IT. WE'VE ALSO PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT, BUT NOT TO A GREAT EXTENT, THAT, YOU KNOW, FUTURE PROJECT, FUTURE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER CURRENT ORDINANCES. AND THEY ARE PROPOSING THAT THAT BE WAIVED AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ESSENTIALLY ACT AS THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT. I CAN CONFIRM THAT EACH OF THE BUILDINGS IS ESSENTIALLY 24,000 SQUARE FEET. SO THERE'S NO SCENARIO WHERE THAT DOESN'T APPLY GOING FORWARD. AND LASTLY, THAT... THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT THE TREE REMOVAL, AND I JUST WANT TO TOUCH BASE ON THAT BRIEFLY. THIS IS TYPICALLY SOMETHING THAT'S DONE COMPLETELY ADMINISTRATIVELY.

THAT ONCE THE PROJECT GETS TO A CERTAIN POINT, WE EITHER ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT AND THEY START TREE CLEARING, OR WE ISSUE A LAND CLEARING PERMIT IN ADVANCE OF THAT. THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR THAT.

GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THE SITE, IN FACT, THERE WAS SOME CLEARING DONE WITHOUT PERMISSION AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS A TIMEFRAME THAT SOME OF THE CLEARING NEEDS TO BE DONE. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO GET THEIR GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS COMPLETED, THEY ARE PROPOSING TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE ABOUT THAT HAPPENING. FAIRLY QUICKLY, JUST SO EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE. IT IS SOMETHING THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY CAN BE DONE. I THINK THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO PUT THAT OUT THERE AND MAKE EVERYONE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S LIKELY TO HAPPEN VERY QUICKLY. SHOULD SOMETHING GET APPROVED. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY MORE QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BEHOOVE THE BOARD TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT DIRECTLY AT THIS POINT, GIVEN THE...

LEVEL CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ACTUALLY, BEFORE WE GO ON, CAN YOU TELL US, BASED ON THE CURRENT PROPOSAL THAT THEY'VE MADE, THAT SENATOR PAXMAN? HOW MANY UNITS ARE ON THAT CENTRAL PARCEL IN TOTAL, AND HOW MANY UNITS ARE ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL IN TOTAL? THEY'RE SPLIT ENTIRELY EQUALLY.

THERE'S FIVE BUILDINGS ON BOTH AND EACH HAS 24 UNITS.

SO THERE'S 120 UNITS ON BOTH PROPERTIES. OKAY. AND

[01:55:08]

GOOD EVENING. IT'S MARK KLAUS ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. I WILL BE VERY BRIEF, EVEN BRIEFER THAN LAST WEEK.

FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR TWO WEEKS AGO. EXCUSE ME FOR HAVING THE DIALOGUE. I GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK A LOT WAS ACCOMPLISHED.

AND WE, WE LISTENED, THEY, OBVIOUSLY THE DEVELOPER LISTENED, THEY, THEY HEARD WHAT YOU SAID. AND I THINK THE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU SHOWS THAT. I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT, AND I DON'T WANT TO OVERSTATE THIS. BUT THE.

IT'S ALSO TO LOOK AT THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO YOU TWO WEEKS AGO FOR THE DEVELOPMENT THAT PERHAPS COULD BE DEVELOPED, LEAVING THE ZONING AS IT IS TODAY. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT A PLAN THAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED AS DETAILED AS THIS ONE, BUT IT IS ONE THAT DOES DEMONSTRATE THE FACT THAT UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, THERE WOULD BE MULTIFAMILY MUCH CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTS THAN IS PROPOSED IN THIS PLAN. AND A GREAT DEAL OF COMMERCIAL ON THE SITE AS WELL. SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE LOOK AT AS A COMPROMISE, AS A METHODOLOGY OF HAVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNITS AND ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THAT IS MUCH NEEDED IN THE COMMUNITY. AND BY A GROUP THAT IS WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU AND OBVIOUSLY LISTEN TO THE CONCERNS. AND WE'RE...

DARN CLOSE TO THE RD ZONING ON THE OVERALL SITE. I MEAN, IT'S 30 ACRES, IT'S 8 UNITS PER ACRE, AND IF YOU FORGET ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER DETAILS, WE'RE AT 240, YOU'RE THERE. AND SO, AS I MENTIONED LAST WEEK, WITH THE RC ZONING LIMITING IT TO 240, I THINK WE'RE AT A REALLY GOOD PLACE, AND HOPEFULLY YOU SEE IT THAT WAY AS WELL. I'LL BE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, AND ERIC WILL GO OVER THE PLAN IN MORE DETAIL. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. HAHN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO PRESENT ON THIS EVENING AS WELL? GOOD EVENING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

ERIC HAHN, WITH CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES, ADDRESSES W134 AND 8675, EXECUTIVE PARKWAY IN MENOMINEE FALLS, WISCONSIN. I WAS JUST ASKING IF TIM COULD PULL UP ONE OF THE EXHIBITS THAT WE PROVIDED IN THE PACKET, BECAUSE IT WILL BE USEFUL FOR DISCUSSION. VERY BRIEFLY, I'M GOING TO TOUCH ON ALL THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE. I, TOO, THANK THE ENTIRE BOARD FOR THE COMMENTS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO COLLECT FROM YOU ALL IN A DIALOGUE FORMAT. LAST MEETING, BUT ALSO IN DECEMBER. SO I DO WANT TO CALL OUT SOME OF THE COMMENTS FOR THOSE THAT WEREN'T HERE.

WE HAVE ADDRESSED, I THINK, SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE ON THE BOARD AT THIS POINT, DOING OUR BEST TO WORK WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS. SO I'LL EXPLAIN THAT AS I GO THROUGH IT. SO WE'VE REDUCED FROM 288 UNITS TO 240. AS TIM MENTIONED, THE DENSITIES RECALCULATED USING THE NET ACREAGE THAT WAS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT. WE LOOKED AT THAT FROM THE DECEMBER MEETING, OR TIM LOOKED AT THAT ON THE STAFF, LOOKED AT THAT FROM DECEMBER WITH EACH PARCEL. SO THAT TIES IN WITH THE 102 NUMBER. WE'RE ACCEPTING A LOWER YIELD AND THE CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TO DEAL WITH THE SITE CONSTRAINTS. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF WOOD TO CHOP TO MAKE THIS PROJECT A REALITY.

AT THIS THRESHOLD, WHICH IS RELEVANT, BUT WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT CHALLENGE BASED ON WHERE THIS IS AT. SECOND, BUILDING CONFIGURATION. ALL THE BUILDINGS NORTH OF BELVEDERE ARE NOW TWO-STORY. THAT ALLOWED US TO REMOVE ONE BUILDING ENTIRELY FROM THE CENTER PARCEL. WE LOOKED, AND AGAIN, THIS RELATES TO DENSITY ON EACH PARCEL BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT IT IN AGGREGATE BECAUSE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT ARE CREATED BY MOVING A BUILDING TO THE SOUTH PARCEL. SHOULD WE DO THAT, IT WILL EXACERBATE THE TRAFFIC, AS WE MENTIONED. SO WE'D NEED MORE DRIVEWAYS ON CENTRAL PARK, MORE DRIVEWAYS ON COLUMBUS. SO IN LIEU OF THAT, WE WERE ABLE TO BASICALLY GENERATE THE SAME REQUEST OF REMOVING TWO BUILDINGS.

IN THE CENTER PARCEL, WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE A BUILDING TO THE NORTH, AS ONE OF YOU MENTIONED, TO MAYBE INCREASE DENSITY THERE, SO TO SPEAK, TO PROVIDE A BIGGER BUFFER AND MORE OPEN SPACE ON THE CENTER PARCEL. SO

[02:00:02]

REGARDING THE SOUTH PARCEL ACCESS, BECAUSE WE MOVE ONE THING, WE CREATE ANOTHER ISSUE.

WETLANDS, AS TIM STATED, WE'VE REMOVED ALL IMPACTS TO REGULATED WETLANDS. THERE'S STILL THE QUESTION OF THE ESSENTIAL WETLANDS THAT WERE HIGHLIGHTED ON ONE OF THE THREE SITE PLAN EXHIBITS. THEY'RE LOW QUALITY. AGAIN, THOSE ARE CHALLENGES THAT WE PREFER TO ADDRESS OTHER ISSUES WITH THE PLAN OVERALL. SO NO MATERIAL IMPACT TO THE ESSENTIAL WETLANDS.

WE'RE COMMITTED TO BUFFER AVERAGING WHERE WE MAY ENCROACH INTO A BUFFER.

WE'LL RETAIN THAT SAME AREA IN PRESERVATION. WITH THAT, WE'RE COMMITTED TO PRESERVING THE NATURAL AREAS WHEREVER FEASIBLE. SO THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST EFFECTIVE EXHIBIT AT DEPICTING THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT THAT WOULD WOULD BE RECORDED IN PERPETUITY. AGAIN, CONSERVATION SPACE IS THE DARK GREEN. THAT IS COMPRISED OF 15.2 ACRES TOTAL. THAT'S ROUGHLY 50% OF THE SITE.

TO BE TECHNICAL, THAT'S 49.5% OF THE SITE. SO A GREAT DEAL OF THE SITE IS PRESERVED.

SECONDLY, THE LIGHT GREEN AREAS ARE OUR MANICURED OPEN SPACES.

THAT'S COMPRISED OF 5.4 ACRES.

I KNOW ONE OF YOU ALSO MENTIONED THEY HAD CONCERNS REGARDING OPEN SPACE. THIS IS A LOT OF OPEN SPACE FOR A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS. TYPICALLY. WE HAVE ABOUT 70% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND 30% GREEN SPACE ON THE SITE.

HERE, WE'RE AT 67% TOTAL OPEN SPACE OF THE TOTAL PARCEL BETWEEN THOSE TWO CATEGORIES.

SO THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. YOU CAN SEE IT HERE.

AND THE AREAS IN GREEN WOULD, YOU KNOW, AFTER INITIAL CONSTRUCTION, WOULD NOT BE TOUCHED, WOULD NOT BE ENTERED WITH PAVING OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT.

AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR OPPORTUNITIES SHOULD YOU ALL AGREE TO THE SETTLEMENT TERMS. TRAFFIC AND ACCESS, AS I MENTIONED, SO WE'VE HAD TO INCLUDE ANOTHER ACCESS POINT ON BELVEDERE. NOW, THAT WOULD BE AN EMERGENCY-ONLY ACCESS POINT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.

THE ROADWAY COMMISSION MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THAT, AND THIS WOULD BE CONDITIONED ON THEIR APPROVAL OF THIS.

THAT IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN MOVE BUILDINGS FROM THE CENTER PARCEL TO THE NORTH, AND I ALLUDED TO THAT IN THE LAST MEETING, BUT HERE IT IS IN PLAN FORMAT. SO I THINK THAT COVERS THE CHANGES OVERALL.

HOPEFULLY, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER, BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE ARE TIED IN WITH COMMENTS. I KNOW SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM DECEMBER, IN PARTICULAR, WAS THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE USE. COULD WE DO A LESS INTENSE USE? THAT WAS A SPECIFIC COMMENT. WE'VE MOVED TO ALL TWO-STORY BUILDINGS, LOWER HEIGHT THAN THE THREE-STORY, SO THAT'S MORE AKIN TO A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD, SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, 35 FEET IN HEIGHT, TYPICALLY. STRONGER BUFFERING, THAT WAS ANOTHER COMMENT. SO I DO WANT TO REVISIT SOME COMMENTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC. SO THE PLAN COMMISSION DEADLOCK WAS A 3-3 DIVISION. IT DIDN'T REFLECT REJECTION. YOU ALL KNOW THAT.

WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT I SHOULD ADDRESS HERE. WHY DOES 240 MATTER? IT'S OUR KIND OF INCREMENTAL BUILDING SIZE.

SO, AS TIM MENTIONED, WITH THE OTHER CONDITIONS, WE ADDED. WE'D HAVE TO ADD MORE BUILDING PADS FOR BUILDINGS LESS THAN 200 FEET IN LENGTH. THAT, AGAIN, CREATES MORE CHALLENGES WITH WORKING AROUND ALL THE WETLANDS ON THE SITE. AGAIN, ALMOST 70% OF THE SITE WE'RE PRESERVING IS GREEN SPACE OR OPEN SPACE.

SAME GOES FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. BOTH OF THOSE THINGS ARE TIED IN WITH ONE ANOTHER. IF WE WERE TO MOVE TO SMALLER BUILDINGS, WE HAVE MORE SETBACKS, FROM THOSE BUILDINGS TO PARKING AND SO ON.

IN EXCHANGE FOR THE BUILDING LENGTH CONDITION, WE DO HAVE A LOT OF ARTICULATION ON THESE BUILDINGS. IT'S NOT A FLAT FACADE, AS TIM MENTIONED.

THEY JOG IN AND OUT. IT LOOKS KIND OF LIKE A TOWNHOME STYLE, WITH THAT ARTICULATION ON THE BUILDINGS. SO, IN ALL, BELOW 240, I DON'T HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT I CAN SOLVE THROUGH THE BUDGETARY ISSUES.

AND BELOW 240, WE WON'T BE BACK TO SEE YOU. THE LAND WOULD REMAIN VACANT IN THAT CASE IF WE NEED TO GO BELOW 240. THE COURT SETTLEMENT ENTITLEMENTS REMAIN UNRESOLVED.

.ALONG. WITH NOT ALLOWING, NO IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUFFERING THAT EXISTS IN THE AGREEMENT, NO ADDITIONAL TAX BASE, NO $41 MILLION INVESTMENT BY CONTINENTAL.

IN THIS INSTANCE, NO FORMAL AGREEMENT ON THE OPEN

[02:05:02]

IN SHORT ORDER. AT 240, THAT'S A LOWER DENSITY THAN WHAT WE INITIALLY PROPOSED, AT 312, LOWER THAN THE 288, WHICH WE WERE MOSTLY COMFORTABLE WITH.

THIS IS GOING TO RESULT IN A LOT MORE HARD WORK FOR US BEYOND THIS, IN THE DISCRETIONARY, NON-DISCRETIONARY PERMIT PHASE, SHOULD YOU ALL AGREE TO THESE PROPOSED TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT? AND SEE THE BENEFITS AND THE BALANCE THAT WE'VE TRIED TO STRIKE HERE ACROSS THE BOARD. AND AGAIN, WE'D BE MAKING THAT $41 MILLION INVESTMENT WITHOUT NEEDING ANY INCENTIVES.

WE'D CONVENTIONALLY FINANCE IT.

IT WOULD COME WITH ALL THE JOBS AND BENEFITS THAT WE DESCRIBED IN PAST TESTIMONY HERE. SO THIS ISN'T THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

I'M COMMITTED TO THIS. THE AIDES ARE COMMITTED TO THIS PROPOSAL BASED ON THE BOARD'S DIRECTION, STAFF INPUT, THE PLAN COMMISSION INPUT. WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO ADDRESS THE RESIDENTS CONCERNS WITHIN REASON IN LIGHT OF WHAT COULD BE BUILT HERE UNDER THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT, WHICH AGAIN IS MORE INTENSE USE WITH TRAFFIC. AND THIS IS THIS HAS BEEN A LOT OF TIME AND HARD WORK PUT INTO IT. SO WE BELIEVE THIS IS OUR ABSOLUTE BEST FOOT FORWARD FOR A PROPOSAL ON THE SITE WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO INCORPORATE THOSE IMPORTANT OPEN SPACE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES RESIDENTS.

SO I'M HERE FOR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TRUSTEE CAZALES. YEAH, AND I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU HAVE ON HERE FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND I JUST SHRUNK IT DOWN. SO I CAN'T SEE IT. BUT ONE OF THEM TALKS ABOUT TWO-STORY BUILDINGS, BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S A MISTAKE IN IT. MIDDLE OR SOUTH PARCEL, IT SAYS. YEAH, IT'S THE MIDDLE OR SOUTH, AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE MIDDLE OR NORTH. WE'RE ALL THREE AT THIS POINT. YEAH, WELL, THE SOUTH IS NOT PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT. SO THESE ARE TERMS FOR A SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT. IT ISN'T ASSOCIATED WITH CONTINENTAL'S PLAN. THAT PROPOSED CHANGE IS MEANT TO INDICATE THAT IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROPOSAL.

AND IT'S ANOTHER DEVELOPER THAT THEY MAY INTEND FOR THREE-STORY ON THE NORTH.

SO THAT WASN'T AN ERROR? I UNDERSTAND. I THOUGHT IT WAS TIED INTO THIS. OKAY.

CONTINENTAL IS COMMITTED TO THIS PROPOSAL, 240, KEEPING THAT A TWO-STORY. ASSUMING THIS IS WHERE YOU GO FORWARD, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN IDEA OF WHAT TYPE OF TREE COVER WILL BE RAINED? BECAUSE THAT'S A PRETTY WOODED LOT. BOTH OF THEM ARE. YEAH, SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON, AND AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO ENGINEERING. WE WANTED TO GET TO A POINT WHERE, AGAIN... THE REMARKS OF THE GROUP HAVE BEEN PHENOMENAL TO GATHER THE AMOUNT OF FEEDBACK WE DID IN THE LAST MEETING. I COULD PROVIDE CLEAR DIRECTION TO OUR TEAM INTERNALLY. WE CAN GET OUR ENTIRE ORGANIZATION BEHIND THIS. WITH THAT, WE HAVEN'T SPENT A LOT OF DOLLARS ON ENGINEERING YET. WE WILL HAVE TO MEET THE LAW, LOCAL AND OTHERWISE, WITH REGARD TO DRAINAGE FOR THE NEIGHBORS. MOST OF THE CUTTING THAT WE WOULD DO WITH THE TREES IS...

IN THE AREAS OF THE LIGHT GREEN. AND THOSE AREAS WOULD BE CLEARED FOR FULL GRADING, FULL DEPTH UTILITIES. AND I THINK IT'S THOSE AREAS ALONG THE PERIPHERY WHERE WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO, WE WOULD NEED TO REHABILITATE SOME OF THOSE AREAS OF GRADING THAT ARE ON THE EDGES. BUT WE WOULDN'T KEEP IT MANICURED WITH LAWN MOWING AND SO ON. SO THAT'D BE A RETURN TO A NATURALIZED SETTING LATER.

PROBABLY MAYBE 5% OF THE EDGES THERE. I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY TO TRY TO TIE YOU DOWN TO IT, BUT MAYBE I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. SCHMIDT TALK ABOUT THE WEARING BEING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OUT OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

WHAT'S THE PROCESS? THEY FOLLOW THE TREATY CODE HERE AS FAR AS TAKING A SURVEY AND ALL THAT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHAT IS APPROVED? YEAH, SO WE HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PROCESS HERE THAN I THINK MOST COMMUNITIES. WE HAVE A LAND CLEARING PERMIT. AND I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING IS...

IT'S DUE TO SOME PAST PROJECTS THAT MAY HAVE CLEARED PREMATURELY AND DIDN'T GO FORWARD, RIGHT? AND SO, TO GET TO THAT POINT, THERE'S A SERIES OF ESSENTIALLY FINDINGS THAT HAVE TO BE MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.

[02:10:02]

IN THIS CASE, RIGHT, THERE'S GOING TO ESSENTIALLY BE A TWO-PART SITUATION. THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY... UNDER A PERMIT, GONE IN AND MADE SOME MINOR REMOVALS TO DO GEOTECHNICAL, TO GET SOME EQUIPMENT IN, PUNCH A HOLE IN THE GROUND, FIND OUT WHAT THEY GOT. SO ONE, THEY HAVE TO DO THAT AGAIN.

AND THEN TWO, YOU KNOW, I ALLUDED TO THE CLEARING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH RESPECT TO THE INDIAN BAT. THERE'S A TIME LIMIT ON THAT LEGISLATIVELY, THAT THAT CAN'T OCCUR.

IN CERTAIN MONTHS. AND SO THE POINT WILL BE, AT LEAST INITIALLY, THE LAND CLEARING WILL BE LIMITED TO SPECIFIC AREAS TO ALLOW THAT GEOTECH TO GET FINISHED AND AVOID ANY CONCERNS UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. ON THE END OF THAT.

SECONDARILY, THEN, ONCE WE GET TO THE POINT OF ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ALL THE ENGINEERING IS COMPLETED, WE KIND OF KNOW WHAT THAT BOUNDARY OF THE LIGHT GREEN AREA IS.

THAT WOULD JUST BE DONE UNDER OUR NORMAL BUILDING PERMIT, RIGHT? WE WOULD ISSUE. DO A PRE-CON ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT, WHETHER IT'S FOUNDATIONS OR WHETHER IT'S A LAND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT.

AT THAT POINT, AND THAT WOULD BE THE REMAINDER OF THE LIGHT GREEN AREA. SO IT'S GOING TO BE ESSENTIALLY A TWO-PHASE THING HERE. SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL, BUT IT HAPPENS. I MEAN, WE DO GET THAT REQUEST OCCASIONALLY TO GO AND PUNCH SOME HOLES EARLY. WELL, I'VE SEEN SOME OF THESE PLANS COME, AND THEY INCLUDE A TREE SURVEY, THE SIZES. ABSOLUTELY. THAT PART OF THE PROCESS. IT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE WITH THE SITE PLAN.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? TRUSTEE WILSON. UNDER THE TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT, ITEM 14, SPECIFIC ENCROACHMENTS WITHIN THE WETLAND SETBACK AREA MAY BE PERMITTED. AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW. PROVIDED THAT THE EQUIVALENT ADJACENT AREAS ARE DESIGNATED TO OTHER LOCATIONS TO MAINTAIN A KNOWN NET LOSS OF THE OVERALL BUFFER AREA.

CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT, PLEASE? I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT KIND OF A STATEMENT. YEAH, SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO, WHAT I THINK THEY ARE ATTEMPTING, WHY DON'T I, OKAY, WELL, NOW WE'RE UPSIDE DOWN.

YOUR HEAD IS OUT. WE'RE JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT LIKE THIS FOR A SECOND. SO, SORRY ABOUT THAT. SO... ESPECIALLY LIKE WHEN YOU'RE IN AN AREA LIKE THIS, SORT OF THE WETLAND FINGER STICKS UP. AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A FEW FEET WHERE THEY'RE REAL CLOSE TO, IF NOT IN THE SETBACK.

BUT CERTAINLY, THEY HAVE FAR MORE THAN THEY NEED AROUND THE EDGES OF THAT. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, CANDIDLY, IS AVOID A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE POTENTIAL VARIANCE ON A LAWSUIT PROPERTY. RIGHT. I DON'T WANT TO THREE MONTHS FROM NOW HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF THE ZBA TO JUSTIFY. A COUPLE SQUARE FEET OF ENCROACHMENT INTO A WETLAND SETBACK. AND SO THE IDEA IS THAT WE CAN GET MORE UNDER A CONSERVATION EASEMENT BY ALLOWING SOME FLEXIBILITY THROUGH THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

THE PROBLEM IS, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS YET BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOT TO FINAL ENGINEERING. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO MANIPULATE A SOLUTION HERE, TO NOT PUT US IN A VARIANCE SCENARIO. HAVE YOU HAD THESE... BEFORE, HAVE YOU HAD VARIANCES SUCH AS THIS TO THE SETBACK? ABSOLUTELY.

IT'S ONE OF THE MORE COMMON VARIANCE REQUESTS WE GET. AS LONG AS THERE'S COMPENSATION TO THE SETBACK? NO.

TYPICALLY, WE WOULD LIKE A VARIANCE TO THE WETLAND SETBACK. AND WE DON'T WANT A VARIANCE, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THE FACT THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY PROVIDING OTHER AREAS TO OFFSET IS SOMEWHAT UNIQUE.

OKAY. BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE ON THE ZBA, WE DO GET REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES. INTO THE SETBACK QUITE REGULARLY. IT'S ALL WETLANDS AROUND HERE. THEY'RE A MINOR IN MOST CASES. YEAH, IT'S A UNIQUE ORDINANCE WE HAVE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT IT CREATES ESSENTIALLY TWO CLASSES OF PROPERTIES, THOSE PRIOR TO THE ORDINANCE AND THOSE AFTER.

I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. ITEM 17 IS SHALL NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. I CAN'T SEE ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM OUR PRACTICE OF HAVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ANY BUILDING THAT'S OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET. I'M...

WOULD YOU CONCUR? I CERTAINLY SEE THE VALUE IN FOLLOWING THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. MY CONCERN BEING, HOWEVER, IF WE ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND

[02:15:01]

NOW, AFTER WE'VE ALREADY ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, ESSENTIALLY AGREEING TO THIS CONCEPT PLAN, I WOULD HAVE SOME CONCERNS, AND I THINK OUR ATTORNEYS WOULD SHARE THOSE CONCERNS. THAT, I BELIEVE, IS ALREADY COVERED IN CLAUSE, WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT THE 220 FEET. THAT WAS ALREADY COVERED AS ONE OF THE ITEMS. THAT'S THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING. THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING. IT'S NOT SAYING IT HERE. THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY IN THE CONDITIONS. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY IN THE MEMORANDUM. THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING IS 20 FEET LONGER THAN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE ALLOWS. ONE THING I'M VERY HAPPY TO SEE IS THIS 200-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK.

THAT IS SIGNIFICANT. I'LL STEP IN FOR A MOMENT. I CONCUR. I THINK THAT THE 200-FOOT SETBACK IS WONDERFUL. I THINK THAT IT'S CERTAINLY LISTENING TO THE FEEDBACK THAT THIS BOARD GAVE TO THE DEVELOPERS AT OUR LAST MEETING. I APPRECIATE CERTAINLY THE INTENT OF KEEPING ALL THE BUILDINGS TO TWO STORIES. YOU KNOW, MY CONCERN IS FOR, I KEEP COMING BACK TO, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE DENSITY ON THE MIDDLE PARCEL BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR RD ZONING CATEGORY.

AND I BELIEVE IT'S POSSIBLE, AND IT ALSO INCORPORATES SOME OF THE FEEDBACK, I THINK IT WAS TRUSTEE SUNDLAND PROVIDED AT OUR LAST MEETING. WHICH WAS TO TRY TO MOVE THE TWO BACK BUILDINGS ELSEWHERE. I THINK IF WE'RE ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO REMOVE BUILDING FOUR FROM WHERE IT'S AT AND DISTRIBUTE THOSE TWO FLOORS TO MAYBE BUILDINGS NINE AND TEN. ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL, IT MAINTAINS A RELATIVELY THOSE BUILDINGS ARE SET FAR ENOUGH BACK THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BOTHER ANYONE, AND I THINK IT ALLOWS US TO HAVE RD ZONING ON THE MIDDLE PARCEL AND RC ZONING WITH A CAP ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL. THAT, TO ME, IS A MUCH CLEANER EXPERIENCE AND ONE THAT I THINK WOULD BE FAR PREFERABLE TO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. I BELIEVE IT'S POSSIBLE, AND I'M SURE THAT MR. HAHN CAN TELL ME MORE DETAILS ABOUT THAT, JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE THOSE BUILDINGS WERE IN PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS THREE STORIES. AND SO... I THINK, YOU KNOW, TO ME, IN TERMS OF THE DENSITY QUESTION, WHICH I THINK IS THE BIGGEST QUESTION. RELATING TO THIS PARTICULAR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, I WOULD BE MUCH MORE AMENABLE TO SEEING IT BE RD ON THE MIDDLE PARCEL AND RC ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL. AND I THINK YOU CAN ACHIEVE THAT, IF I'VE DONE MY MATH CORRECTLY, BY MOVING BUILDING 4 AND DISTRIBUTING IT AMONGST SOME OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL.

TRUSTEE TREZISE? WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF PARKING. YEAH, THAT WOULD BE, OF COURSE, THE QUESTION.

MR. HAHN, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT IDEA? IT HAS MERIT. WE CAN'T AGREE TO THAT. I'M SORRY? WE CAN'T AGREE TO MOVE IT THERE. WE PROBABLY WOULD PREFER TO MOVE THAT FURTHER TO THE SOUTH, THOUGH, BECAUSE THIS IS AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT, THERE'S A RENTAL LOSS WHEN WE GO UP A FLIGHT OF STAIRS. SO THOSE UNITS RENT.

FOR ABOUT 7% LESS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE CARRYING THEIR GROCERIES UP THREE FLIGHTS OF STAIRS. AND TO OFFSET THAT 7% RENTAL LOSS, WE WOULD NEED MORE UNITS THAN ARE PROPOSED HERE. SO IT WOULD BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE FOR US, AND IT CREATES ANOTHER ISSUE, WHICH AGAIN, IS THE TRAFFIC. WE'D BE, AGAIN, MORE INCLINED TO MOVE THE BUILDING THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING TO... THE LOWEST, THE SOUTHERLY PARCEL AND KEEP THE MORE ATTRACTIVE TO, BECAUSE THEY'RE BY FAR PREFERRED TO THE THREE-STORY UNITS.

SURE. IF THAT HELPS, EXPLAIN OUR BUSINESS CASE FOR THAT. WE CONSIDERED IT. WE CONSIDERED THE THREE-STORY IN TOTALITY. WE LOOKED AT THIS AND SAID WE CAN AGREE AND WORK

[02:20:03]

WITH MOBILITY ISSUES, THEY HAVE TO GO UP THREE FLIGHTS OF STAIRS. OKAY, UM, I I THINK WE COULD LOOK AT. WE LOOKED AT PUTTING ANOTHER BUILDING THERE, IT WAS, IT WAS CHALLENGED. UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, UM.

BUT IT DOES PUT MORE PRESSURE ON THE ROADWAY COMMISSION FOR ANOTHER POINT OF EGRESS. I POSSIBLY, SORRY, PUT IT WHERE, UH, ON THE NORTHERLY PARCEL, UM. IT COULD PUT MORE PRESSURE ON HAVING A DAILY VEHICULAR ACCESS IN BELVEDERE. I SEE. AND IS THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF WHERE IN THE PARCEL IT WOULD BE LOCATED? I PROBABLY CAN'T ANSWER THAT WITH COMPLETE CERTAINTY. THE AREA WHERE WE WOULD PUT IT IS ON THE FAR EASTERN PANHANDLE, AND WE MAY GET INTO SOME OF THOSE. WETLAND CHALLENGES THERE. THERE'S A LOT OF GRAY THERE. IT WAS CHALLENGING FOR OUR SITE PLANNING TEAM TO DO THAT. NOW, WE COULD GO WITH THREE-STORY, BUT AGAIN, THEN WE END UP IN THE TOTAL LEASEABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND IS IT THE BEST OFFERING? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I WANTED TO AT LEAST HAVE... IT HAS MERIT.

YEAH. I APPRECIATE THE THINKING THERE. YEAH. AND I DON'T KNOW... REALISTICALLY, YOU KNOW, I SUSPECT, IF PUT TO THEM, YOU KNOW, THE FOLKS WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT DENSITY.

IN THAT MIDDLE PARCEL, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE PREFERRED IN ITS CURRENT FORMAT. OR PUT ANOTHER BUILDING ON THE SOUTHERN PARCEL AND EXIT IT ONTO CENTRAL PARK. I DON'T LIVE THERE EVERY DAY. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. YOU KNOW, I SUSPECT WE'LL GET SOME FEEDBACK ON IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE IF THERE'S A WAY TO PULL THAT INTO RD, THERE WOULD BE A TERRIFIC SUCCESS.

BUT I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ON THE COST RATIO, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS A CONCERN FOR CONTINENTAL. WE FELT LIKE WE ADDRESSED THE SETBACK CONCERN.

WE VIRTUALLY REMOVED TWO BUILDINGS BY VIRTUE OF THE SETBACK INCREASE BY MOVING ONE, AND WE RECONFIGURED. THE FIVE BUILDINGS THERE SO THAT WE COULD SHIFT EVERYTHING OVER AND TIGHTEN THINGS UP AGAINST THE WETLAND SETBACKS.

AND AGAIN, THROUGH THAT, WE WERE CONSIDERING MORE THREE-STORY, BUT UNDER THAT PRETENSE, WE WERE GOING TO COME BACK TO ALL OF THE 256-UNIT SCENARIOS.

SO, IN AGGREGATE, AND THE GROWTH DENSITY, IT DIDN'T MEET THE SPIRIT OF THE RD, WHICH WOULD BE EIGHT UNITS ACRE ON 30 ACRES. A COUPLE OTHER THOUGHTS ON THE LIST OF CONDITIONS THAT WERE ON EXHIBIT B OF THE PACKET.

YES, THANK YOU. SO ITEM 7 SAYS NO DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE PERMITTED SOUTH OF COLUMBUS.

SO, YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THIS, RIGHT. MY QUESTION IS, MOSTLY NO DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR SOUTH OF COLOGNE. IF THE INTENTION IS TO PROVIDE THAT AS A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, ALONG WITH THE 200-FOOT BUFFER, WHICH WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT NECESSARILY, BUT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, WAS THAT IF THERE WAS NO DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ON THAT, THEN IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THAT. EXACTLY. SO IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE DARK GREEN CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION EASEMENT AREA, SO THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE WROTE HERE.

OKAY. SO I JUST WANT TO...

FLAG THAT, AS I WANT TO BE CLEAR IF WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF AMENDING THAT. I ALSO HAD CONCERNS WITH THE SUP WAIVER. I THINK TIM'S COMMENT ON LIABILITY GIVES ME PAUSE TO CONSIDER THAT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE OTHER BIGGEST THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HERE IS TRAFFIC AND SAFETY, RIGHT? AND, YOU KNOW, I'M LEFT TO WONDER,

[02:25:01]

HOWEVER, THE LANDSCAPE HAS CHANGED RELATIVELY SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, AND IT WILL LIKELY CHANGE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AS WELL, ESPECIALLY IF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS APPROVED. AND SO I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW FROM THE ROAD DEPARTMENT IF THERE'S ENOUGH MERIT FOR A THREE-WAY STOP.

THERE PROBABLY ISN'T ENOUGH TRAFFIC FOR A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION, BUT I'M LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT NEWMAN AND CENTRAL PARK, WHICH IS BASICALLY DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE SOUTHERN PARCEL, AND I BELIEVE AT LEAST BORDERING THE IDE PROPERTY HERE. AND, YOU KNOW, MY CONCERN IS TIMING. TIMING AND COST, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR SOME AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC STUDY TO BE DONE TO IDENTIFY IF THIS IS NECESSARY.

AND IT'S ALSO GOING TO COST A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CASH TO ACTUALLY MAKE IT HAPPEN. I'D LIKE TO FIND A WAY TO, YOU KNOW, FUND WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, DO THAT STUDY TO IDENTIFY WHETHER OR NOT IT'S POSSIBLE TO PUT IN A THREE-WAY STOP THERE. I THINK THAT... BREAKS THE TRAFFIC CYCLE, I THINK THAT SLOWS EVERYONE DOWN. AND I THINK THAT'S A POSITIVE THING.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THAT WOULD COST.

BUT THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD. AND THEN, AS A MATTER OF TIMING, I THINK THE CASE GETS BETTER FOR THIS AS TIME GOES BY IF MORE UNITS COME ONLINE.

AND SO MAYBE... YOU KNOW, DEFERRING THE ACTUAL STUDY DOWN THE LINE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD MAKE SENSE AS WELL. SO JUST A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS I HAD ON TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, AS WE SORT OF UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SCOPE OF THIS ALL IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. AND THEN THE LAST BIT THAT I'D LIKE TO IDENTIFY IS WE'D LIKE TO FIND AN END TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. RIGHT, THIS IS A CUMBERSOME PROCESS, AND IT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR NORMAL PROCESS. AND I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A LAWYER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

BUT IF WE COME TO SOME AGREEMENT HERE AND DEVELOPMENT ENDS UP GETTING, YOU KNOW, ENDS UP HAPPENING, I WONDER IF THERE'S A SUNSET TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE CAN FIND ONCE THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAVE MORE OR LESS BEEN MET. I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE... A GOOD THING FOR BOTH PARTIES. WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT A STRANGE SCENARIO.

EVERYONE'S PLAYING BY THE SAME RULES AND UNDER THE SAME TERMS THAT WE HAVE WITH THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, IF AT ALL LEGALLY POSSIBLE, OVER THE REMAINING NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. IF I MAY SAY SO, IF CONTINENTAL BECOMES THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WE WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THAT, TOO. IF THERE'S A STANDARD.

MORE STANDARDIZED ZONING DESIGNATION. WE'D BE STRAPPING DOWN THE DEVELOPABLE AREA WITH THE CONSERVATION, EASEMENT AND PERPETUITY. WE DON'T WANT A MATTER LIKE THAT CLOUDING TITLE FOR A LOT OF REASONS. IT'S JUST ANOTHER ITEM ON TITLE. I MEAN, REALLY, THAT'S BEEN OUR GOAL ALL ALONG.

IS LET'S BRING FORWARD A PROPOSAL THAT WE CAN EXECUTE ON, NOT A PLANNING DOCUMENT, A PROPOSAL WE CAN EXECUTE ON AND BRING THE BENEFITS THAT WE'RE TOUTING HERE TO THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

SURE. ALL RIGHT, I'VE BEEN TALKING FOR A WHILE. START DOING THIS.

DR. SCHMIDT, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT NON-ESSENTIAL WETLANDS MEANS? YEAH, SO THERE'S A DEFINITION OF WHAT ESSENTIAL AND NON-ESSENTIAL MEAN, BOTH IN STATE AND LOCAL LAW, RIGHT? AND SO A NON-ESSENTIAL IS, OF LAYMAN'S TERMS, LOWER QUALITY. NOT CONNECTED TO A LARGER COMPLEX, NOT WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF EITHER A NAVIGABLE BODY OF WATER OR A DRAIN, RIGHT? IT'S SORT OF IN AND OF ITSELF, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD KIND OF THING.

WHAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO HERE IS EVEN A DIFFERENT CLASS. THIS IS TECHNICALLY NOT A REGULATED WETLAND, EVEN BECAUSE IT FALLS BELOW OUR THRESHOLD IN THE ORDINANCE OF EVEN BEING REGULATED. SO

[02:30:02]

IS ALL THE ESSENTIAL WETLANDS? CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN YOU MOST LIKELY HAVE MENTIONED THIS BEFORE, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY UPDATES ON THE DRAIN COMMISSION, ANY DRAINAGE ISSUES? NO, AND CERTAINLY I APOLOGIZE IF I WAS HESITANT THE LAST TIME.

MOSES. CHECKING MY WORDS CORRECTLY, BUT THE DRAIN COMMISSION AND THE ROAD DEPARTMENT WILL NOT GET INVOLVED UNTIL THERE'S A FORMAL SITE PLAN WHERE THE ENGINEERING HAS BEEN DONE. MY POINT BEING, ON THIS PROPERTY, THERE APPEARS TO BE AN UNRECORDED DRAIN THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INSTALLED, AND NO ONE'S REALLY SURE. AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GET INVESTIGATED AS WE GO FORWARD. BUT NO, THERE'S NO FURTHER UPDATE FROM THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE AT THIS POINT. I THINK THEY AWAIT POTENTIAL ACTION AS WELL. IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A PROJECT THAT IS LIVE HERE.

OKAY. I THINK THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW. JUST TO PIGGYBACK ON IT, THEY NEVER WEIGH IN UNTIL WE HAVE APPROVED THE PROJECT. IS THAT MORE? IN SO MANY WAYS, RIGHT? I WOULD SAY, IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES, THEY DO NOT WEIGH IN PRIOR. NEVER IS A STRONG WORD, BUT... BECAUSE THEY HAVE IN MY TIME. COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SHARE THEIR OPINION ON A REZONING PROJECT.

BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES, 99 OUT OF 100, THEY DO NOT WEIGH IN UNTIL THE FULL ENGINEERING IS DONE. RIGHT.

AND I DO THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE'VE GOTTEN SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC AS WELL ABOUT WAITING FOR THE RAILROAD DEPARTMENT OR THE DRAIN OFFICE TO WEIGH IN. THEY DON'T DO THAT ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TIME. I THINK THAT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO PUT ON RECORD AND TO NOTE THAT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS. AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CONTROL. RIGHT, EXACTLY. I MEAN, THEY ARE WELL AWARE THAT SOMETHING IS HAPPENING.

ABSOLUTELY. YOU'VE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THIS, AND I'M SURE THAT OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST YEAR, THE IDES AND OR CONTINENTAL HAVE TALKED TO THEM ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, AND THEY HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO WEIGH IN, AS THEY TYPICALLY DO. I THINK THAT THERE IS JUST ENOUGH CONFUSION ON THE HISTORY OF THIS SITE THAT THEY'RE WAITING TO SEE THE FINAL ENGINEERING TO GET INTO IT. OKAY, THANK YOU. TRUSTEE TRISAK. I HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. SINCE THIS ISN'T TECHNICALLY A ZONING CASE. CORRECT. ZONING. HOW WOULD WE GO FORWARD IF WE WENT FORWARD ON AMENDING THAT? SO SHOULD THE BOARD CONTINGENT ON THE PLAN? THAT'S...

PRESENTED. WOULD IT BE PART OF THE AGREEMENT THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY GO FORWARD WITH? SUBJECT TO NECESSARY CHANGES BECAUSE OF UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES OR SOME SUCH THING, WOULD THAT BE PART OF THE SETTLEMENT? YEAH, SO WHAT ON THIS? WHAT WILL NEED TO HAPPEN IS SIMILAR TO WHAT HAPPENED IN 2004, THERE WAS A RESOLUTION ADOPTED ESSENTIALLY DIRECTING A TOWNSHIP MANAGER AND TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY TO EFFECTUATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, SUBJECT TO A SERIES OF CONDITIONS. IN THIS CASE, THEY HAVE OFFERED A SERIES OF 22 CONDITIONS. STAFF WILL WORK THESE INTO OUR FORMAT BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED. BUT TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE PLAN, YES, THE PLAN, WE WOULD ALSO INCLUDE A CONDITION THAT SUBJECT TO THE ROUGH ROUGHLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN.

SOMETHING ALONG THAT LANGUAGE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT ONCE YOU GET INTO THE FULL ENGINEERING, THAT SOME OF THE DETAILS MIGHT CHANGE, ONE OF THE GARAGES MIGHT MOVE, THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT THIS IS THE ROUGH LAYOUT.

ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THIS WOULD THEN, WE'D HAVE A PROBLEM UNDER THE SUN. SO ONE OF THE TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT PUTS THIS IN A BASE ZONING OF RC.

WITH SOME LIMITATIONS TO THE NUMBERS. CORRECT. THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO REZONE ALL THREE PARCELS TO THE BASE ZONING OF RC. SO IT WOULD BE A SINGLE ZONING OVER THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.

ASSUMING THAT THIS PROJECT DIDN'T GO FORWARD, ARE WE LEFT WITH THE RC ON ALL THREE PROJECTS, OR DO THE CONDITIONS GO WITH IT? THE CONDITIONS WOULD

[02:35:01]

OKAY. THANK YOU. PROFESSOR LEX. THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED SO FAR, TIM. YOU ANSWERED A FEW OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ALREADY. A COUPLE MORE, THOUGH. THE BOLLARD EXITS ON COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE, THAT IS...

CURRENTLY, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. WE'VE SEEN SO MANY OF THESE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BOLLARDS BEING UP ONLY FOR USE BY EMERGENCY VEHICLES, CORRECT? YEAH, I MEAN, THE EXACT DESIGN TO BE DETERMINED, RIGHT? IT WOULD BE AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY. OKAY. AND AS SOMEONE WHO HAS LIVED IN THIS AREA, WHICH I WILL GET TO MY POINT SOON ENOUGH, THE ROAD, THE ACCESS ROAD THAT IS ON THAT NORTHERN PORTION THERE, PEOPLE HAVE FLOWN DOWN THERE.

PLENTY OF TIMES WHEN I LIVED IN THAT AREA, AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EMERGENCY SERVICE ACCESS, MEANING THAT EVEN IF SOMEONE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW IN FRONT OF THEM, THEY HAVE NO WAY OF USING THESE, CORRECT? THIS IS EMERGENCY VEHICLES, AS IN YOU PUSH DOWN THOSE FLAT BOLLARDS, MEANING THAT A NORMAL CAR WOULD NOT BE USING THESE WITH ANY REGULARITY. AND WE WOULDN'T BE HEARING FROM CENTRAL PARK RESIDENTS SAYING, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE EMERGENCY, WHY ARE PEOPLE DRIVING THROUGH THESE? AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT, CORRECT? YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY THE INTENTION. HOW DO WE GET TO THAT? SO, RIGHT, WE'VE DONE, IN OUR COMMUNITY, WE'VE DONE THIS A FEW DIFFERENT WAYS, RIGHT? WE HAVE THE COPPER CREEK EXAMPLE, WHERE THERE IS FLEXIBLE BOLLARDS AT EITHER END OF THE DRIVE, WHICH CONNECTS FROM AN EXISTING STUB STREET INTO COPPER CREEK, RIGHT? AND WE GOT CALLS FOR A LONG TIME BECAUSE ONE END OF THE STUBS HADN'T BEEN PUT IN YET. SO WE'VE DONE THAT APPROACH. WE'VE DONE THE GRASS PAVER APPROACH AT THE END OF, AROUND THE END OF HANNA BOULEVARD, RIGHT, SO THAT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, THERE IS AN EXISTING PATH THAT EMERGENCY ACCESS CAN TAKE.

AVERAGE PERSON WOULDN'T KNOW IT'S THERE BECAUSE IT'S GRASS PAVERS, BUT IT IS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT EMERGENCY ACCESS VEHICLES. WE'VE ALSO DONE THE FULL-ON HARD BOLLARD APPROACH.

FIRE TENDS NOT TO WANT TO DO THAT AS MUCH BECAUSE THAT CAUSES A LITTLE MORE DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE WHEN THEY PLOW IT DOWN. BUT THERE'S A VARIETY OF WAYS HERE, AND I THINK THE INTENTION AT THIS POINT FOR BOTH THE CENTRAL PARK APARTMENTS ACCESS, THE BELVEDERE ACCESS, AND THE COLUMBUS ACCESS IS TO MAKE IT EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY. WHAT THAT DESIGN IS YET, I DO NOT KNOW. OKAY. WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU IS COMPELLING ENOUGH TO CONVINCE ME THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE FLYING OUT ONTO COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE. NO. YOU KNOW, YEAH, OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT ALREADY A BIT, BUT CONSIDERING IT IS SOMEWHAT NOVEL, I WOULD APPRECIATE YOU. MAYBE JUST A FEW BULLET POINTS AS TO WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF RESTRICTIONS ON THANK YOU. ANY FUTURE PROJECTS? AND SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT WHATEVER? THAT LITTLE SQUIGGLY SOUTH OF COLUMBUS, RIGHT ON THE CORNER THERE ON THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT MAP IS LISTED AS OPEN SPACE RATHER THAN CONSERVATION EASEMENT SPACE. IT IS THE ONLY AREA SOUTH OF COLUMBUS THAT HAS THAT. IT'S LIKE A LITTLE CHARACTER. I BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO BE THEIR PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN. OR IS THAT THE EXISTING CENTRAL PARK MONUMENT SIGN? THERE IT IS. I KNEW IT WAS A SIGN, I JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHO IT WAS FOR. OKAY. YEAH, IT'S KIND OF JUST ON THAT PROPERTY, NO EASEMENT, JUST HANGING OUT THERE, SO THAT'S... TO BE ADDRESSED.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF WEIRD ENCROACHMENTS ONTO THESE PROPERTIES. SO THAT IS THE EXISTING SIGN. SO, BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION ABOUT CONSERVATION ISSUES.

[02:40:01]

FUNCTIONALLY, IT WILL PROHIBIT ANYTHING, MOST LIKELY, FROM HAPPENING. NOW, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL. NOT TO, POTENTIALLY, AND PART OF THE REASON I'VE HEDGED OF SAYING WE NEED TO HAVE THE ENGINEERING DONE BEFORE WE CAN FINALIZE IT, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A POSITION WHERE WE CAN'T DIG UP A SEWER LINE OR SOMETHING BECAUSE THERE'S A CONSERVATION. HE'S BEEN OVER.

AND SO TYPICALLY, ONCE THEY'RE PUT INTO PLACE, THEY'RE LOCKED TIGHT IF THEY'RE WRITTEN CORRECTLY. AND SO THAT'S ALWAYS THE... THE REASON BEHIND, OKAY, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE ENGINEERING DOWN, WE HAVE THE GRADING DOWN, WE HAVE THE SANITARY DOWN, BEFORE WE LOCK DOWN THOSE AREAS BECAUSE IT'S INHERENTLY VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THOSE AREAS THEN. SO, IN FOLLOWING THAT THREAD AND THE PROCESS QUESTION RAISED BY TRUSTEE TREZISE, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE ENGINEERING GETS DONE? AND THEN THAT WHOLE PLAN IS BROUGHT FORWARD AS PART OF THE SHARED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WILL THEN... HOPEFULLY BE SUNSETTED. OR I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AS TO, LIKE, WHEN THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT GOES INTO PLAY. AND YOU KNOW, INK IS DRIED. NOTHING IS TO BE DONE THERE. THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION. I HISTORICALLY, EASEMENT LIKE THAT. WE WOULD TYPICALLY REQUIRE THAT TO BE FILED PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING PERMITS BEING ISSUED.

OKAY, SO AFTER THE SITE PLAN, SO WE KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING, ENGINEERING IS DONE, WE KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING, BUT BEFORE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION STARTS, SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE. I WOULD NOT EXPECT IT TO COME BACK. I MEAN, YOU'LL HAVE AN ITEM ON YOUR CONSENT AGENDA, MOST LIKELY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT, BUT THAT'S THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE BOARD WILL BE INVOLVED IN THE FUTURE WITH THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND THE SITE PLAN. GREAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. THE ONLY THING I HAVE REALLY LEFT TO SAY IS, AS I'VE MENTIONED A COUPLE TIMES NOW, RELATED TO THIS PROJECT, I'VE LIVED IN CENTRAL PARK APARTMENTS FOR FOUR YEARS. PRIOR TO MY CURRENT DOMICILE. AND AS SOMEONE WHO WALKED THEIR DOG IN THIS AREA, INCLUDING IN CENTRAL PARK ESTATES ALMOST DAILY, I CAN SAY THE 200 FOOT SETBACK IS REALLY COMPELLING TO SEE. AND I APPRECIATE THAT BEING DONE. AND IN PREPARING FOR THIS MEETING, I LOOKED.

AND 5053 MADISON AVENUE, WHICH IS THE LAST OF THOSE CONDOS, YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE UPPER.

RIGHT HAND CORNER OF OUR MAP. HERE, THAT DISTANCE TO THOSE HOMES ON BELVEDERE IS JUST OVER 200, IT'S ABOUT 225, AND I CAN SAY, AS SOMEONE WHO HAS PERSONALLY WALKED THROUGH THERE EVERY SEASON OF THE YEAR, IT FEELS VERY REMOVED. SO I'M VERY MUCH, AGAIN, I'M VERY COMPELLED BY 200 FEET EASEMENT. I THINK THAT REALLY DOES SOLVE A LOT OF THE...

CONCERNS RAISED BY RESIDENTS, AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT, I APPRECIATE THE RESIDENTS BRINGING THOSE CONCERNS FORWARD. UM, YOU KNOW, ON THAT NOTE, UH, I'M, UH, REALLY INTERESTED TO HEAR SOME OF THE UH. PLANS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT FORWARD BY SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON.

ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF FINDING A WAY TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR THE MIDDLE PORTION AS COMPARED TO THE NORTHERN PORTION? BUT IN GENERAL, I. I WANT TO SAY THAT THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN, I THINK, VERY AMENABLE TO THE BACK AND FORTH THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING. AND FINDING SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. I THINK BUILDING MORE HOUSING IN THE CENTRALLY LOCATED CENTRAL PARK DRIVE AREA IS IN LINE WITH A MORE BUSTLING MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP IN OUR CENTRAL CORE. USING, HOPEFULLY, BUSINESSES IN THE AREA AND PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES, WHICH THIS IS RIGHT ALONG, HOPEFULLY CUTTING DOWN ON ANY POTENTIAL TRAFFIC. SO THAT IS. I WAS PLEASED TO SEE THIS CHANGE ON OUR AGENDA TODAY. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OH, JUST TREASURED. BEFORE TIM, I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS SAID, YOU KNOW, WHY THE SPLIT 50-50 BETWEEN THOSE OPPOSING AND THOSE SUPPORTING THE PROJECT, AND WHETHER THEY'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE LATEST PROPOSAL, HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THAT.

YES, SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. THEY'VE NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THIS UNLESS THEY LOOK AT THE PACKET FOR THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, BUT WE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE

[02:45:02]

IN THEIR DELIBERATIONS. COURT DAVIS? YEAH, I JUST WANT TO ADD TO THAT, TREASURER BURKHART. THERE'S LIKE, PLANNING, DISCUSSION, INFORMATION ON THEIR DELIBERATION AND EVERYTHING INCLUDED IN, I BELIEVE, THE DECEMBER PACKET WHEN THIS WENT TO THE BOARD. AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO WATCH THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND LOOK AT THEIR PACKETS JUST TO UNDERSTAND WHAT INFORMATION THEY RECEIVED. SO I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL. OKAY, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

BUT ESSENTIALLY, THEY DID NOT GIVE US A RECOMMENDATION, AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW. I THINK IT IS, TOO.

YEAH. AND THE PLAN HAS CHANGED, RIGHT? I MEAN, THEY WERE CONSIDERING THE 288-UNIT PLAN.

THEY WERE CONSIDERING THE 312-UNIT PLAN. RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT I'D BE INTERESTED IN, WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY NOW.

YEAH. OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? AT A CERTAIN POINT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO OFFER, YOU KNOW, SOME MEASURE OF, YOU KNOW, IDEA ABOUT HOW WE'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD HERE.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE AT WHATEVER PACE WE WANT.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING, I MEAN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION TOOK THIS UP IN SEPTEMBER. SO WE'RE NOW ON TO MONTH SEVEN OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SORT OF IDENTIFY. IF THERE'S A PATH FORWARD, WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE, OR IF WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, WHAT THAT SOMETHING ELSE IS.

SO, WITH THAT SAID, IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO TAKE A STAB AT, YOU KNOW, SORT OF HOW OR WHAT? TRUSTEE TREZISE? I WOULD LIKE MR. SCHMIDT TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS PROPOSAL AND COME BACK FOR SOME. .LANGUAGE? OR A MOTION THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH.

I'M SORRY. I'M JUST LISTENING.

I WAS NOT CATCHING THE MIC. I JUST FOLLOW THROUGH. I THINK THIS PROPOSAL IS WORTH EVALUATING, LOOKING AT, AND POSSIBLY GOING FORWARD WITH.

I'M VERY HAPPY, NOT HAPPY, BUT I'M IMPRESSED WITH THE EFFORTS ON BOTH SIDES TO REACH AN AGREEMENT. I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE COMPROMISE. I THINK IT IS A...

AN APPROPRIATE USE OF THIS PROPERTY, AND WE ALWAYS HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY SOMEONE WHO HAS A RIGHT TO DEVELOP. AND WE'RE HERE TO MAKE SURE THE DEVELOPMENT FITS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT'S THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. I THINK THIS IS A LONG WAY TO DOING THAT. SO IF YOU CAN GIVE US SOME SORT OF WAY FORWARD ON THIS FROM MY STANDPOINT, BACK TO US FOR SOME SORT OF A FORMAL APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDATION TO YOU TO GO FORWARD AND WORK ON A SETTLEMENT WITH OUR ATTORNEYS AND LAWYERS.

THAT'S JUST MY FEELINGS. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT OTHERS.

TRUSTEE WILSON? I CONCUR WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT, PETER, THAT I THINK WE'RE CLOSE ON THIS. AND YOU HAD INDICATED THAT YOU HAD ONLY SEEN THIS PROPOSAL RECENTLY? YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE LAST TWO WEEKS. SO WE CAN CERTAINLY PUT TOGETHER RESOLUTIONS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE'LL TAKE THE SAME APPROACH WE DID WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PROVIDE YOU WITH BOTH THE... YEAH, WE NEED TO... THINK THROUGH HOW TO STRUCTURE BOTH OF THEM AND RUN THAT BY TOWNSHIP ATTORNEYS. THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T WANT TO PROPOSE HOW TO STRUCTURE IT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE COMPLEX. IT IS. OTHERS? CLERK DEMAS? ADDING TO TREASURER BROOKHURT'S POINT, WOULD WE HAVE ANY GROUNDS TO SEND THIS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SEE THEIR THOUGHTS BECAUSE THE PLAN HAS CHANGED? I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS FOR A VERY LONG TIME, BUT AS WE HAVE JUST DISCUSSED ALL THE

[02:50:02]

I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT FOR CONSIDERATION. I THINK THAT A LOT OF CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE AND I THINK THAT A LOT OF OUR RESIDENT FEEDBACK HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. HOWEVER, I WISH THAT THERE WAS, I WISH THERE WAS STILL OPENNESS, I GUESS, TO DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF UNITS FOR THIS PROJECT. SO THAT WILL STILL BE MY STANCE.

TRUSTEE BURKHARDT, I SAW YOUR HAND UP. OH, NO, I WAS JUST THINKING. I'M THINKING HARD HERE. IT'S HARD BECAUSE ANY MOVEMENT AND I CATCH MY EYE.

TRUSTEE SELVIND. JUST ONE COMMENT. I'M REALLY PLEASED THAT WE KEPT IT TO TWO STORIES.

I'M REALLY PLEASED WITH THAT.

TRUSTEE WENTZ. I AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT, AGAIN REFERENCING THE CENTRAL PARK APARTMENTS, THE BUILDINGS RIGHT IN THAT UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF OUR MAP HERE. THOSE ARE ALSO TWO STORIES. I THINK IT DOES STICK WITH THAT CHARACTER OF THE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN THIS AREA, AND I WOULD AGREE. I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION BY TRUSTEE TREZISE IS... SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MOVE FORWARD WITH, I THINK THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE BOARD MEMBERS THUS FAR HAVE GIVEN OUR DEPARTMENT SOMETHING TO BRING HOME, MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS ARE IN SOME WAY AIRTIGHT AS MUCH AS WE CAN BEFORE CONSIDERING THIS FOR ACTION. SO, BUT OF COURSE, IN A TWO WEEK TIMELINE, I WAS AGAIN PLEASED TO SEE THOSE CHANGES MADE.

OKAY. JUDGE BERGER. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I WOULD, AGAIN, CERTAINLY WITHIN THE BOARD'S PURVIEW, I WOULD REQUEST A VERY SPECIFIC CHARGE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. DO YOU HAVE A CHARGE THAT YOU'RE HOPING TO MAKE OF THEM? NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT I CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING. OKAY. TRUSTEE TREZISE. I COULD ALSO SUGGEST THAT MR. SCHMIDT HAVE AN IDEA AFTER HEARING OUR DISCUSSION, WHATEVER, AS TO WHAT TYPE OF CHARGE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THEM. I DON'T WANT TO START THE PLANNING COMMISSION DAY ONE AND GO THROUGH ANOTHER SEVEN OR EIGHT MONTHS. TIM, WHEN IS THEIR NEXT MEETING? YESTERDAY. IT'S MONDAY. MONDAY COMING UP? NO, WE HAVE A GAP NOW. GIVE ME JUST A SECOND, I APOLOGIZE. IT'S OKAY, WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING. JUST AS A GENERAL RULE, I APPRECIATE THE REQUEST AND WHY IT'S BEING MADE. ULTIMATELY, THE BUCK STOPS WITH US. AND I GUESS...

WHAT I WOULD ASK IS, YOU KNOW, WHY, WHAT ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD GET? BASICALLY ALL THE SAME INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS AND MONTHS. AND SO MY CONCERN WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SENDING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHAT NEW INFORMATION WOULD BE GAINED, BECAUSE THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY SEND IT BACK TO US. RIGHT. WE COULD EITHER HAVE THEIR CONCURRENCE OR THEIR REJECTION, I SUPPOSE. RIGHT, RIGHT. BUT ULTIMATELY, EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT, THEY REJECTED IT, WE COULD APPROVE IT, AND VICE VERSA. AND SO ULTIMATELY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT DOES FALL TO US TO MAKE THE DECISION. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BEING PRESENTED.

AND ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, IN THE INTERVENING PERIOD, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH, YOU KNOW,

[02:55:01]

OKAY. RIGHT, THAT WAS NOT AN AREA OF EXPERTISE, EXCEPT WHAT I GAINED SITTING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

OKAY. SO I GUESS INSOFAR AS THEY SEE ALL THE PROJECTS, BUT ALSO WE SEE ALL THE PROJECTS TOO. AFTER THEY GO THROUGH, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. I MEAN, IT'S JUST... I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE HERE. UNDERSTOOD.

TRUSTEE WILSON. I WATCHED THAT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND WHAT HAPPENED IS THERE WERE TWO CAMPS, A VERY STRONG YES AND A VERY STRONG NO. I SUSPECT IF WE SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE'RE GOING TO GET THE EXACT SAME RESULT.

SO I'M NOT SEEING A BENEFIT TO DOING THAT BASED ON THE DISCUSSION THAT I WATCHED THAT TOOK PLACE. FRANKLY, I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF EXPERTISE OURSELVES, HAVING LOOKED AT SO MANY PROJECTS, THAT I THINK WE CAN MAKE THAT DECISION. LOOK HOW FAR WE'VE COME. WE'VE COME FROM 312 UNITS DOWN TO 288 UNITS, DOWN TO 240 UNITS. AND REALIZING THAT A DEVELOPER IS ENTITLED TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY, I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN...

AMENDMENTS TO THIS PROJECT THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT, AND THE ONE I REALLY DWELL ON IS THAT 200 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS TRUSTEE LENTZ SAID, THAT IS SIGNIFICANT AND THAT WILL MITIGATE THE PRESENCE OF THOSE APARTMENTS TO THE ADJOINING ARE A ZONED PROPERTIES. SO I THINK WE'LL BE READY TO MAKE A DECISION IN TWO WEEKS. I MEAN, SURE, IF THE RESULTS ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME, THEN WE CAN JUST ASSUME THAT.

WE HAVE NO RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I HAVE WATCHED PLENTY OF BOARD MEETINGS WHERE WE TAKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS INTO CONSIDERATION, GREATLY FOR MAKING OUR DECISIONS. AND SO I THINK THAT I WOULD REFER TO HOW. WE DID NOT GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WE ARE STILL TO MAKE THIS DECISION, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THIS PLAN EVEN.

THOUGH IT HAS CHANGES AND THEY HAVE NOT SEEN IT, WE CAN JUST GO WITH THAT ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THIS PROPOSED PLAN.

SO I'M COMFORTABLE MAKING A DECISION WITH THAT ASSUMPTION.

I UNDERSTAND THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE THAT RIGHT AND WE DO NEED TO CONSIDER THAT WHILE ON THE BOARD, BUT WE ALSO ARE REPRESENTING OUR RESIDENTS, THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ELECTED US, AND WE DO NEED TO CONSIDER IF THESE PROJECTS WILL BENEFIT OUR TOWNSHIP. I HOPE THAT WE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING A DECISION. SO I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH WHAT TRUSTEE TREZISE HAS PROPOSED. TRUSTEE TREZISE. I'D POINT OUT THE ONLY REASON THAT IT WAS A 3-3 SPLIT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS BECAUSE THEY WERE ABSENT ONE NUMBER. THEY HAD A VACANCY.

NOW, IF IT WENT BACK, IT WOULD, IN SOME WAY, IT WOULD BE...

EITHER YAY OR NAY FROM THEM, BUT IT'S STILL GOING TO PROBABLY BE 4-3 ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SO THAT DOESN'T GIVE US A LOT OF GUIDANCE. IF WE WERE TO SEND IT BACK TO THEM, I WOULD GIVE THEM ONE MEETING TO LOOK AT THIS PLAN. AND IF THEY HAD STRONG OBJECTIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BRING IT BACK TO US.

BUT I THINK WE'VE SEEN, WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO WATCH THEIR MEETINGS, AND THEY HAD A NUMBER OF THEM. WE'VE HAD PRESENTATIONS FROM THE DEVELOPER, WE'VE HAD COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. I'M NOT SURE WE WOULD GET ANYTHING MORE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAN WHAT WE'VE SEEN. TRUSTEE TREZISE.

NO, I'M TREZISE. I'M SORRY, TRUSTEE YATES. TRUSTEE TREZISE WAS TALKING. I THINK I WOULD ALSO ASK, TIM, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH OUR PLANNING COMMISSION, HAVE WE DONE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE, WHICH IS SENDING SOMETHING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION,

[03:00:01]

INVOLVED IN BOTH OF THOSE MEETINGS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. THE REASON WHY I BRING THAT UP IS, YOU KNOW, WE ARE VERY LUCKY IN OUR TOWNSHIP TO HAVE A VERY ROBUST PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFED BY MEMBERS OF OUR PUBLIC WHO, I THINK, DEVOTE A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY TO THESE PROJECTS AND CONSIDERATIONS.

AND LIKE TRUST TEACHER'S ICE MENTIONED, THESE WERE MANY MEETINGS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH HOURS-LONG MEETINGS DISCUSSING IN DEPTH ALL OF THIS INFORMATION. I THINK THE, AND AS THANKS. THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, WE ALL PUT OUR NAME ON THE BALLOT TO MAKE SURE THE BUCK DOES STOP WITH US. I WOULD FEEL HESITANT TO RECOMMEND PUTTING SOMETHING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN, AS SUPERVISOR, HENDERSON SAID, THE BUCK DOES STOP WITH US. AND THERE IS MATERIALLY NOT A TON OF CHANGE TO THE AREAS OF CONCERN BY THOSE THREE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO HAD... SPOKEN AGAINST THIS, WHICH LEADS ME TO FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A DECISION THAT THIS BOARD HAS THE CAPACITY TO MAKE WITHOUT THAT RECOMMENDATION. I CANNOT RECALL A TIME WHERE SOMETHING GOT REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I WON'T SAY THAT I REMEMBER EVERYTHING, BUT I CAN'T RECALL ONE. I THINK THAT SUPPORTS THE IDEA OF...

YOU KNOW, HAVING THE DECISION LIVE WITH US ON THIS BOARD, WHICH IT ULTIMATELY WILL NEED TO DO ANYWAY. OTHER COMMENTS? SO HERE'S WHAT I WOULD ASK. I AM MORE OR LESS IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT TRUSTEE TREZISE LAID OUT. I THINK THAT WE CAN.

PREPARE OURSELVES TO MOVE FORWARD IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AT OUR NEXT MEETING. IF WE ARE GOING TO ACCEPT CONDITION 17, WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, THEN I WOULD LIKE, TIM, IF YOU COULD, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE INCLUDING SOME OF THE SAFEGUARDS THAT WE WOULD EXPECT THROUGH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS. IN WHATEVER IT IS, THAT WE AGREE TO IN TWO WEEKS. SPECIFICALLY, THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE INTERLOCKING TREES AND THE BERMS AND ALL, LIKE THAT KIND OF SCREENING, MOSTLY GOING TO BE COVERED IN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT WE EXPECT. BUT SOME OF THIS KIND OF STUFF, THAT'S SORT OF PERFUNCTORY. THAT GETS ROLLED INTO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO MAKE SURE THAT GETS ROLLED INTO. ANY AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD AGREE TO OR NOT. YOU KNOW? IN REVIEWING THE HISTORY OF THE SUPS FOR 25,000 SQUARE FEET, STAFF HAS FOUND THERE'S NEVER BEEN A CONDITION SPECIFICALLY PUT ON AN SUP FOR BUILDINGS GREATER THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET. THAT RELATES TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. YOU'RE GOING TO PICK UP EVERYTHING YOU WANT, I THINK, IN THESE OTHER CONDITIONS. AND CERTAINLY, IF THERE'S SOMETHING FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW NOW. BUT I THINK, RIGHT, THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS GOING TO PICK UP. 90% OF THAT SCREENING SITUATION, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO TEAR DOWN ADDITIONAL NATURAL AREA TO PUT FIVE-FOOT-TALL ARBORVITAES IN, RIGHT? IT'S COUNTERINTUITIVE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FILL IN A WETLAND AND PUT A BERM IN, RIGHT? AND SO I THINK, CANDIDLY, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SCREENING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS GOING TO BE THE PANACEA TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CONCERNS. OKAY. THE OTHER THINGS THAT I WANTED TO JUST MENTION, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED, I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN THE NUMBER, THE DEVELOPER MAY PURSUE ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES, INDEPENDENT OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, TO FACILITATE THE REDUCED TOTAL. I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S A CONDITION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

THEY'RE WELCOME TO PURSUE WHATEVER FINANCIAL INCENTIVE.

THEY WISH, AND I DON'T WANT TO BE MISTAKEN, FOR US BEING COMMITTED TO PROVIDING SUCH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES. I THINK WE WERE RELATIVELY CLEAR AT OUR LAST MEETING THAT WE HAVE NEVER WE DON'T DO THAT. RIGHT. AND SO I WOULD. I THINK IT'S FINE THAT THEY DO THAT, BUT I WOULD RATHER IT BE REMOVED AS A

[03:05:02]

AND UNDERSTAND WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS OF THE DESIRE BETWEEN THOSE TWO OPTIONS. AND I THINK, BETWEEN NOW AND THEN... YOU KNOW, BETWEEN THE FOLKS WHO ARE HERE AND THE FOLKS WHO ARE LISTENING AT HOME, AND NO DOUBT THE FOLKS WHO WILL TALK AMONGST THEMSELVES, WE WILL HEAR FROM THEM. I THINK MOVING THAT BUILDING TO THE SOUTHERN PARCEL DOES HAVE THE VIRTUE OF CREATING RD BOTH IN THE SOUTHERN PARCEL AND THE MIDDLE PARCEL, AND RC ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL, WHICH I THINK IS VIRTUOUS. IF WE CAN DO IT. MR. HAHN, DO YOU THINK WE CAN SEE TWO VERSIONS OF THIS IN THAT REGARD? WE CAN SHOW YOU VERSIONS OF THAT. I THINK THAT THE DIFFICULT PART IS IF WE MOVE A BUILDING TO THE SOUTH PARCEL, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE TRAFFIC FLOW, PERIOD. AND WE WOULD NEED, IN THE SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT, WE WOULD NEED AN ESCAPE HATCH.

IF THE ROADWAY COMMISSION DIDN'T PROVIDE A SECOND CURB CUT ON CENTRAL PARK, MEANING THAT WE WOULD THEN NEED TO BE ABLE TO SHIFT IT BACK SOMEWHERE ELSE. OKAY. SO WE CAN PREPARE THAT. WE'VE PREPARED A VERSION OF IT. IT DOES REQUIRE SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS. WE WOULD NEED THAT BUILDING TO BE CLOSER TO CENTRAL PARK THAN THE OTHER BUILDINGS, AND THAT WOULD BE A VARIANCE.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE SAW THIS AS EFFECTIVELY THE MOST STRAIGHTFORWARD PATH, UNAMBIGUOUS PATH FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER. CERTAINLY, WE APPRECIATE THAT. WE CAN PROVIDE MAYBE JUST... VERSIONS OF THAT? AND I MEAN, THIS IS OUR RECOMMENDATION BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW WE CAN DO. AND IT HAS MAYBE THE LEAST COMPLICATION WITH REGARD TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE ANOTHER, AND I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BE ABLE TO.

ABSOLUTELY, WE CAN CERTAINLY SHOW YOU A VERSION, AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR, RIGHT? THIS IS IF IT CAN BE DONE RIGHT, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TO COMMIT TO SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IS FEASIBLE EITHER, RIGHT. BECAUSE THEN WE'VE SPENT SEVEN MONTHS GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND END UP WITH NOTHING. YEAH. YOU KNOW, NOTHING EITHER WAY TO SHOW FOR IT. RIGHT. AND SO I WOULD JUST, I THINK, IN KEEPING WITH YOUR SAME TRAIN OF THOUGHT THERE AS FAR AS THE RD ZONING, AND HELP ME IF I'M WRONG ON THIS, TIM, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THAT THE SITE IS MADE UP OF OF THREE TAX PARCELS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, AND THAT'S NOT DIFFERENT THAN IN MANY OTHER PROJECTS. WE DON'T HAVE ONE PARCEL, WE MAY HAVE THREE OR FOUR OR SIX OF THEM AND COMING INTO ONE DEVELOPMENT. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE THE RD ZONING ON THE SOUTHERN PART AND THE MIDDLE PART, AND YOU CHOOSE TO DEVELOP IT ALL ON THE CENTER PART. I THINK YOU STILL HAVE RD ZONING, YOU COULD TECHNICALLY CALL THAT RD ZONING IN THE MIDDLE AND THE SOUTH AND HAVE THE HAVE IT, THE DENSITY PUT IN ONE PLACE AND LEAVE THE OTHER VACANT. WE'VE DONE THAT, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THE TOWNSHIP HAS ENCOURAGED OVER THE YEARS THROUGH PUD PROCESSES TO CONSOLIDATE AND LEAVE MORE OPEN SPACE. AND SO I THINK YOU CAN STILL ACCOMPLISH YOUR RD ZONING IN THOSE TWO PIECES, BUT THE RC BEING ON THE NORTHERN PART.

BY ALLOWING WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT DOING ON THIS SITE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND INCLUDING IT ALL IN THE DEVELOPMENT. AM I, AM I MISSING THAT? DR.

SCHMIDT, DO YOU WANT TO? BECAUSE I THINK THE COUNT...

YOU'VE GOT A HEAD SCRATCHING.

102 IN THE MIDDLE, AND ISN'T IT 26 ON THE SOUTH? SO WE ADD THOSE TOGETHER AND YOU'VE GOT THE 128 AND WE'RE AT 120. SO INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FORCE BUILDINGS INTO OTHER PLACES THAT I THINK WOULD BE BETTER OFF LEFT IN THEIR CONSERVATION AREA, ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN THERE,

[03:10:01]

WITH TITLES OR WITH NAMES AND LOOKING AT THE OVERALL SITE, BUT THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN WITHOUT... YOU'RE CORRECT. INSOFAR AS WHETHER YOU MOVE IT TO THE SOUTH OR NOT, IT REMAINS THAT THERE'S 120 UNITS ON THE CENTRAL SOUTH SECTION OF THAT PARCEL.

EXACTLY. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT IT'S STILL, WITH THE ZONING THAT HAS BEEN USED HISTORICALLY IN THE TOWNSHIP, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPREAD IT ACROSS THE WHOLE SITE. AND SO YOU'RE PUTTING IT IN THE CENTER PART, LEAVING ONE PART VACANT, OBVIOUSLY ALLEVIATING...

YOU'LL FORGIVE ME, I'M NOW GOING TO GO TO OUR PLANNER TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS EXACTLY... SO I THINK I WOULD JUST REMIND EVERYONE, THIS IS AN ODDBALL THAT WE'VE PLATTED TWO ROADS THROUGH IT, RIGHT? THAT'S THE UNIQUE SITUATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK WE'VE SORT OF HAD THIS CONVERSATION IN MULTIPLE DIFFERENT WAYS.

PLANNING QUESTION AND THE BOARD AND WITH THE DEVELOPER OF, LIKE, HOW DO WE CALCULATE DENSITY HERE, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S TECHNICALLY THREE SEPARATE PARCELS, BUT IT'S ONE DEVELOPMENT SITE.

IF, IF, IF, THE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CENTRAL PARK. AT THE TIME, IF WE HAD WANTED TO DIRECT THAT TOWARDS POWELL ROAD, WHICH PRETTY EASY, YOU JUST FLOP THE DEVELOPMENT BASICALLY. THEN IT WOULD HAVE JUST BEEN ONE BIG DEVELOPMENT SITE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ANOTHER ACRE AND A HALF, TWO ACRES BIGGER, AND WE WOULD HAVE GONE FROM THERE. STAFF CERTAINLY LOOKS AT THIS AS ONE DEVELOPMENT SITE, RIGHT? AND I THINK THAT IS BY FAR THE CLEANEST WAY TO DO IT, GIVEN THAT IT'S ALL UNDER ONE CONSENT JUDGMENT.

WE'RE TRYING TO PUT IT ALL UNDER A SERIES OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS, AND WE'RE TRYING TO LOCK THE CLAMPS DOWN AND BE DONE WITH THIS. SO I SEE WHAT, MR. KLAAS IS SAYING. I ABSOLUTELY SEE WHAT THE BOARD IS SAYING. THAT IS CERTAINLY A REASONABLE WAY OF LOOKING AT IT.

BUT ABSOLUTELY, AS THE BOARD HAS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, YOU COULD LOOK AT IT AS AN INDIVIDUAL SITE, INDIVIDUAL SITE, INDIVIDUAL SITE, AND GO THAT WAY. I THINK THAT REALISTICALLY, IN THE END, AS LONG AS I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IS THAT WE GET TO THE FINAL NUMBER OF UNITS.

AND I THINK THAT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE CONTINENTAL TEAM TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY GO BEST. I'M SOMEWHAT HESITANT TO MOVE OVER TO THE SOUTH PARCEL BECAUSE I THINK THAT WETLAND IS ACTUALLY PROBABLY BIGGER THAN WE HAVE IT.

SURVEYED AT, BUT THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR THEM TO LOOK INTO.

BUT I DON'T THINK ANYTHING, MR. KLAUS SAID WAS WRONG. I THINK IT'S JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE THESE ROADS IN BETWEEN, WE HAVE TO SORT OF THINK BEYOND THAT A LITTLE BIT AND REALIZE THIS IS ONE BIG DEVELOPMENT SITE STILL. OKAY. GOT IT. THE LAST AND FINAL THING THAT I HAD MENTIONED BEFORE IS IDENTIFYING WHAT, IF ANYTHING, CAN BE DONE TO STUDY THE TRAFFIC AND LOOK INTO THE TCO. I THINK IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN TOMORROW, BUT I THINK IF WE CAN FIND A WAY TO INCLUDE THAT IN ANY ARRANGEMENT THAT WE HAVE. WITH A HOWEVER MANY YEAR DOWN THE LINE THING, I THINK IT WOULD BE WISE TO TRY TO IDENTIFY... IF THERE'S A CHANGE THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO THE CONTROL ORDERS IN THIS AREA, IF WE CAN DO IT.

YEAH, AND I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY COME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE HERE. I MEAN, I'LL BE COMPLETELY HONEST.

FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, AND I THINK DEPUTY MANAGER OPSMER WOULD AGREE WITH ME, THAT IF THE DESIRE IS TO SEE TRAFFIC CONTROL, IT'S GOING TO BE EASIER WITH ADDITIONAL UNITS, RIGHT? AND SO DOWN THE ROAD IS GOING TO BE EASIER THAN TRYING TO GET IT NOW.

UNDER THE WARRANTS, WHICH DON'T APPEAR TO QUALIFY THE CURRENT SITUATION. SO THAT'S ACTUALLY AN IMPORTANT POINT. IT'S YOUR ASSUMPTION, BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT, THAT IF WE ASK FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNALIZATION OR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS FOR STOP SIGNS.

AT THIS MOMENT, YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEY WOULD OFFER THAT.

SO OUR UNDERSTANDING, BASED ON THE TRIPCON DATA THAT WE HAVE AND THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DATA THAT WE HAVE, IT'S NOT AN ASSUMPTION, IT'S THAT IT DOES NOT MEET THE WARRANTS. BECAUSE TYPICALLY, THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS ARE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT'S X, THEN Y. DO NOT MEET X AT THIS POINT. AND SO, NATURALLY, THE POINT BEING, IF ANOTHER PROJECT COMES IN, IT WILL BRING ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, WHICH WILL THEN MEET X TO GET US TO Y. YEAH, I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT AS PART OF ANY ARRANGEMENT THAT WE CAN DO. WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE. THEN, YES, I'D BE

[03:15:02]

THANK YOU. WE LOVE OPTIONS.

OKAY. WE CAN CONVENE OUR

[12.B. Township Millages]

MANAGER DEMPSEY IS HERE TO TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING.

YES, NOTHING LIKE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY TAXES TO GATHER YOUR THOUGHTS.

BEFORE THIS EVENING, I JUST WANTED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION REGARDING OUR UPCOMING PROPERTY MILLAGES. SO THE TOWNSHIP CURRENTLY HAS NINE MILLAGES THAT... WE ASSESS OUR TAXPAYERS FOR TOWNSHIP OPERATIONS AND WE HAVE TWO THAT ARE COMING UP WELL, ONE THAT HAS EXPIRED, THE PARK MILLAGE, WHICH EXPIRED AT THE END OF 25. SO WE DID, OF COURSE, ASSESS IT IN OUR LAST TAX BILL. THAT'S REVENUE FOR 26, BUT IT IS NOT ON THE BOOKS FOR 26. SO IT WOULD IMPACT US FOR NEXT YEAR. AND THEN WE HAVE ONE OF THREE PUBLIC SAFETY MILLAGES, THAT'S THE POLICE AND FIRE MILLAGE. IT WAS ADOPTED IN 2017 TO DO TWO THINGS. ONE IS TO ADD ADDITIONAL STAFF TO FIREFIGHTERS, TO POLICE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TOWNSHIP'S PENSION SYSTEM. BOTH OF THESE ARE CRITICAL IN TERMS OF OVERALL DOLLARS. THE PARK MILLAGE CERTAINLY MAKES A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN MAINTAINING OUR 30 PARKS ACROSS OUR SYSTEM. IT IS OUR THIRD OLDEST MILLAGE, ONLY PRECEDED BY OUR OPERATING MILLAGE FROM 1959 AND THE PATHWAYS MILLAGE FROM 1979. AGAIN, IT GENERATES ABOUT 1.5, AND THE POLICE AND FIRE MILLAGE GENERATING 3.4 MILLION FOR US ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. IF YOU PUT THAT POLICE AND FIRE MILLAGE IN CONTEXT ON ITS OWN, IT'S JUST OVER 15% OF OUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

TO LOSE ONE OR BOTH OF THESE WOULD BE, I'LL USE THE WORD CATASTROPHIC, TO OUR FINANCIAL PICTURE. WE WOULD HAVE TO IMPLEMENT SIGNIFICANT LAYOFFS. IT WOULD IMPACT PERSONNEL, MOST CERTAINLY. SO IT'S FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER VERY SERIOUSLY, OF COURSE, MOVING FORWARD WITH RENEWING BOTH OF THESE.

IN STAFF'S ESTIMATION, THE REAL QUESTION IS ABOUT TIMING. WHEN YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. THE PARK MILLAGE, OF COURSE, NEEDS TO BE DONE THIS YEAR, EITHER IN THE AUGUST ELECTION OR THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. THE PUBLIC SAFETY MILLAGE, WE DO HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO LOOK AT THAT NEXT YEAR AS WELL AS THIS YEAR. AND THE OTHER QUESTION PERTAINS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE LOOK AT A RENEWAL, WHICH WOULD BE THE CURRENT MILLAGE RATE AS IT STANDS TODAY, OR LOOKING AT SORT OF RESETTING THAT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PRE-HEDLEY ADJUSTMENT RATE, WHICH? THE CHART ABOVE AND THE CHART ATTACHED TO THE MEMO SHOW YOU WHAT THOSE WERE. BECAUSE, AGAIN, HEDLEY REDUCES OUR MILLAGE RATES OVER TIME DUE TO THE EQUATION, THE COMPLICATED EQUATION OF TAXABLE VALUE GROWTH, SEPARATE NEW CONSTRUCTION. AND AGAIN, WE COULD HAVE THE ASSESSOR COME IN AND DO A WHOLE PRESENTATION ON JUST THAT TOPIC. FOR NOW, TRUST ME, IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO GO DOWN. AND THEN THE TABLE THAT I INCLUDED AS WELL, AS WELL AS THE TABLE UP HERE, SHOWS THE ADDITIONAL MILLAGE RATES EXPIRING. WE ESSENTIALLY HAVE ONE REALLY EVERY YEAR FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. SO IT IS A PRETTY STEADY PROGRESSION AND WILL BE A QUESTION THAT THIS BOARD AND FUTURE BOARDS WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE TO LOOK AT. SO I'LL STOP RIGHT THERE AND TURN IT OVER TO ALL OF YOU FOR EITHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST AS AN ADDITIONAL PIECE OF INFORMATION TO MAKE FOLKS AWARE OF, WE ARE... AWARE THAT THE COUNTY IS PLACING ALL COUNTY MILLAGE QUESTIONS ON THE AUGUST BALLOT OF THIS YEAR. SO THEY'VE GOT, I THINK, THREE OR FOUR, I BELIEVE. MILLAGE QUESTIONS ON THE BALLOT THIS AUGUST. AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THE MEETING WHERE THEY OPTED

[03:20:01]

AND SO I THINK IT WOULD BE WISE, IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, WHICH, TO AVOID CATASTROPHE, WE MUST. IT'S MY OPINION THAT NOVEMBER IS BEST. AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS, DO WE PULL POLICE AND FIRE? FORWARD TO THIS YEAR, UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S THE NOVEMBER 26TH MIDTERM, AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO TAKE IT UP NEXT YEAR? IN 2027, WHERE IT WOULD LIKELY BE THE ONLY THING ON THE BALLOT? I WOULD PERSONALLY BE IN FAVOR OF PULLING THAT FORWARD AND DOING THAT IN NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR AS WELL. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, SUPERVISOR NEWKSON. IT IS MY RECOMMENDATION AS THE CLERK HERE, JUST KNOWING OUR VOTER TURNOUT.

NOVEMBER WOULD BE THE BEST TIME TO PUT MILLAGES ON THE BALLOTS. WE WOULD HAVE A LOT OF OUR REGISTERED VOTERS GOING TO THE POLLS AND VOTING BY ABSENTEE. AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ALSO PUT POLICE ON FIRE FOR THIS YEAR, RATHER THAN HAVING ANOTHER ELECTION ON AN OFF-ELECTION YEAR. AND I'M NOT JUST SAYING THAT BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO HOLD ANOTHER ELECTION.

THERE ARE REAL COST BENEFITS TO NOT HAVING TO PAY FOR ANOTHER ELECTION. SO I'M JUSTIFIED BY SAYING THAT. I DID HAVE A QUESTION, HOWEVER. WAS THERE A REASON WHY WE DIDN'T HAVE THE PARKS MILLAGE ON IN THE PREVIOUS 2024 BALLOTS, OR 2025, THE AUGUST ONE FROM LAST YEAR? YEAH. WELL, I CAN'T NECESSARILY SPEAK TO IT FROM BEFORE MY TIME, BUT I THINK SORT OF. GIVEN THE TRANSITION WITH LEADERSHIP AND OTHER CHANGES THAT IT WAS PRIORITIZED TO TACKLE THIS YEAR AND TO LOOK AT IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANY SORT OF DEEP THINKING OR CALCULATED ANALYSIS ON THAT OTHER THAN WE'VE GOT A LOT ON THE PLATE. THIS IS GOING TO GET DISCUSSED AT 26 WHEN THINGS ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE STABLE. SO WHAT WERE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT HAVING THE PARKS MILLAGE RENEWED WHEN IT EXPIRED? SO CURRENTLY, NONE.

OKAY. SO BECAUSE OF THE 25 MILLAGE, SO WHEN WE COLLECT THE DECEMBER TAXES, WE'RE USING THAT MONEY FROM THE PRIOR YEAR. SO, DECEMBER 25 IS BEING UTILIZED IN OUR FUNDING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 2026.

SO WE'RE SOLID FOR THIS YEAR BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE DECEMBER TAX BILL. IT WOULD NOT BE ON DECEMBER OF 26'S TAX BILL, THE SEVENTH FISCAL YEAR. SO IF THE BOARD DECIDES TO PUT IT ON THE NOVEMBER MILLAGE FOR THIS YEAR, AND IT GETS APPROVED, IT'LL THEN BE ON THE TAX BILL FOR DECEMBER.

TAX BILLS OF 26. REVENUE FOR 27. SO WE'LL BE GOOD. NOW, IF IT WERE TO FAIL... WE DON'T HAVE THAT EXTRA ATTEMPT, THAT IS THE ONE RISK.

BUT WE WOULD NOT LOSE A YEAR OF FUNDING IF IT DOES PASS.

AND HISTORICALLY, JUST LOOKING BACK, IT'S BEEN A MIX. SEEING WHERE THE TOWNSHIP HAS DONE MILLAGES THE YEAR PRIOR TO ITS EXPIRATION, AND IT'S DONE MILLAGES EFFECTIVELY THE YEAR AFTER ITS EXPIRATION, EVEN THOUGH, AGAIN, YOU'RE COLLECTING THAT REVENUE.

SO IT HAS BEEN DONE BOTH WAYS.

WELL, THAT'S REASSURING TO HEAR. YES, I THINK THIS SHOULD DEFINITELY GO ON THE

[03:25:02]

TRUSTEE WILSON. CAN WE CALL IT A RENEWAL AND GO FOR THE PRE-HEADLEY RATE, THE RATE WHEN LAST ENACTED, AND STILL CALL IT A RENEWAL? I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. I THINK IT WILL BE, AT THAT POINT, A HEADLEY OVERRIDE. BUT WE WILL. DOUBLE CHECK THAT WITH OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. WOULD YOU APPRECIATE IT? THANK YOU.

WHERE ARE YOU? ON THE DATES? NOVEMBER? HANDS DOWN, BOTH OF US. OTHER THOUGHTS, JESSE WAS, YEAH, UH, CONSIDERING HOW LONG THE PARKS KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN AROUND. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED TO CHECK, UH, WITH, UH. TRUSTEE WILSON'S QUESTION, UH. BUT DID PREVIOUS BOARDS RECOMMEND THAT THEY REVERT BACK TO PRE-HEADLEY RATES, OR DO YOU KNOW IF THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RATES AS THEY WERE ON THE LAST YEAR OF THEIR CURRENT NUMBERS? WE COULD GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHERE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED. I THINK IN RECENT YEARS, THOUGH, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT'S TYPICALLY THE RENEWAL, SO IT'S THE HEADLEY ADJUSTED.

GREAT, THE LOWER RATE FROM THE ORIGINAL, TYPICALLY.

GOTCHA. SO, BUT WE CAN VERIFY THAT, TOO.

THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S WORTH MENTIONING, I DID THE MATH.

AND TO BE VERY CLEAR, THIS IS ROUGH. AND I WOULD HOPE THAT SOMEONE WOULD TELL ME IF I'M WRONG. MANAGER, I'M LOOKING AT YOU, BUT IT WOULD BE HEDLEY ADJUSTMENTS. IT WAS ABOUT $32,000 LOST TO HEDLEY IN THIS YEAR AS COMPARED TO THE ORIGINALLY PASSED RATE.

AND THEN FOR PARKS, IT WAS $25,000, A LOSS TO HEADWAY, WHICH OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, NONE OF THOSE ARE, OR NEITHER OF THOSE NUMBERS ARE SALARY LEVEL, BUT IT DOES MEAN A LOSS IN SERVICES THAT WE, YOU KNOW, ARE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE AS MUCH. WELL, AND I WOULD SUSPECT THAT THE PROPERTY VALUE APPRECIATION COVERS THAT SHORT. EXACTLY. THANK YOU.

YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. SO OUR RECENT TAXABLE VALUE ADJUSTMENTS HAVE CERTAINLY HELPED, RIGHT? BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT'S THAT EQUATION OF, YOU KNOW, HADLEY'S IN PLACE, IT'S LOWERING MILLAGE RATES BECAUSE OF THAT GROWTH AND TEMPERING IT TO HIT THE PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENTS. BUT THERE IS, THERE IS THAT TRADE OFF. SO WE'VE BENEFITED CERTAINLY MORE FROM SOME OF THE TAXABLE VALUE INCREASES.

AND WE'VE BEEN SORT OF, YOU KNOW, HIT HARD NOW. THAT CAN CHANGE, RIGHT? IF WE START TO SEE TAXABLE VALUES STAGNATE OR DECLINE, THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER SCENARIO.

BECAUSE THE ONE THING IT DOESN'T DO IS IT DOESN'T RATCHET BACK. IT ONLY RATCHETS DOWN, DOESN'T RATCHET BACK UP.

PROBABLY. SO DO WE HAVE A GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT WE'LL BE HOPEFULLY SEEING THESE TO PLACE ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT, BOTH POLICE AND FIRE AND PARKS? ARE WE CONFIDENT IN SAYING THAT WE SHOULD REMAIN AS IS OR HEADLY OVERRIDE? NO, I THINK REMAINING AS IS. LET'S HEAR ABOUT WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT RENEWAL, I SUPPOSE.

YEAH, WE CAN VERIFY THE TERMINOLOGY WITH THE RENEWAL AND JUST CLARIFY THAT ISSUE AND THE HISTORY BEFORE YOU PROVIDE THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

AND THEN, IN THE MEANTIME, WE'LL START TO TEE UP THE PROPER RESOLUTIONS AND JUST HAVE THAT READY, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THAT IN PLENTY OF TIME.

TO NOTIFY VOTERS. AND, YOU KNOW, AHEAD OF OUR, YOU KNOW? WE HAVE THREE LISTENING SESSIONS, OF COURSE, SCHEDULED NOW FOR THIS YEAR.

AND I'M SURE THIS WILL BE A TOPIC OF INTEREST AT ALL OF THOSE, NO DOUBT. TRUSTEE TREZISE YEAH, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY. THIS MAY BE A TOUGH YEAR FOR MILLAGES, WITH THE ISD COMING FOR 100 MILLION FOR A NEW SCHOOL.

WE'VE GOT THREE COMING FROM THE COUNTY. SOME WAYS GOING LAST MAY NOT BE THE BEST.

I THINK I AGREE ON THE NOVEMBER DATE. I SUSPECT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A TOUGH ELECTION FOR THESE, NO MATTER WHEN IT HAPPENS.

YES, IT WILL. AND I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT IT MAY NOT BE ANY BETTER NEXT YEAR EITHER, FOR THAT MATTER. THAT'S TRUE, TOO. WE'VE GOT TO GIVE OURSELVES THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID CATASTROPHE, TO KEEP OUR POLICE AND FIRE FUNDED, AND THIS REPRESENTS THAT. AND TO THAT END, WE KNOW THE, I THINK, THE OKEMOS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT IS CONSIDERING ANOTHER BOND MILLAGE NEXT YEAR, SO THAT WILL BE A 27. SO, YES, THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL

[03:30:01]

[13. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC]

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THAT BRINGS US TO AGENDA ITEM 13, COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. I DID GET A COUPLE OF NEW CARDS, SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC COMMENT, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME. FIRST WE HAVE EDIE DUHL, AND THEN VINCE DEMONICA IS ON DECK.

SURE. YEP, GO AHEAD.

CONTINENTAL'S RECENTLY ALTERED PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE UNIT COUNT TO 240 DOES LITTLE TO REMEDY THE TRAFFIC ISSUES, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY GONE INTO DETAIL ON. 240 UNITS IS A FEW HUNDRED TOO MANY, BASED ON THE TRAFFIC LOAD THEY WILL GENERATE. NO CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO REPEATED REQUESTS TO LOOK AT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. IF YOU'RE WILLING TO REZONE TO RC, WHY NOT BE WILLING TO EVEN LOOK AT REZONING TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, WHICH WOULD MAKE US PERFECTLY CONTENT, YOU KNOW. THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. IT'S OBVIOUSLY, IT'S A MORAL, IT'S A MORAL IMPERATIVE. AND IN THE NEW SITE PLAN, THE CONCRETE AND ASPHALT FOOTPRINT HAS NOT BEEN REDUCED. I THOUGHT WITH THE REDUCTION OF 48 UNITS, WE WOULD SEE FEWER APARTMENT BUILDINGS REDUCED FROM 10 TO MAYBE 8 OR 9. INSTEAD, CONTINENTAL TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION TO REMOVE THE THIRD FLOORS FROM THE BUILDINGS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BELVEDERE, BUILDINGS THAT WOULD NOT BE IN OUR BACKYARDS. AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE, THEY WOULD POSSIBLY NOT EVEN BE VISIBLE TO CPE RESIDENTS BECAUSE OF THE INTERVENING FORESTED WETLANDS.

AND TWO OF THE NORTH PARCEL BUILDINGS, THEREFORE, IN THE NEW PLAN, SHOULD HAVE REMAINED THREE STORIES HIGH. BUT IF, AND ONLY IF. THAT RESULTED IN BUILDING FOUR OF THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS BEING REMOVED, BUILDING FOUR BEING REMOVED FROM THE PARCEL BETWEEN BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS.

LEAVING US WITH A CLUBHOUSE AND FOUR OF THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS BEHIND CPE. THAT WOULD BE PREFERABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD, NUMBER ONE, GREATLY REDUCE THE ASPHALT AND CEMENT FOOTPRINT IN THE DRAINAGE AREA ADJACENT TO CPE, INCREASE THE BUFFER ZONE, REDUCING NOISE POLLUTION GENERATED BY PARKING LOTS AND PET PLAY AREAS, SERVE TO MINIMIZE THE ALTERATION OF THE CHARACTER OF OUR SINGLE-FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOOD. CONTINENTAL SHOULD CONSIDER THAT ABSORBING THE REDUCED RENT FROM THIRD-FLOOR UNITS WOULD BE BALANCED BY THE FOLLOWING SAVINGS.

BUILDERS GENERALLY FAVOR BUILDING UPWARDS BECAUSE THE EXPENSIVE PART OF BUILDING IS BUILDING THE FOUNDATIONS. SO BUILDING VERTICALLY IS LESS EXPENSIVE. REMOVING BUILDING FOUR WOULD BE A BIG HELP WITH THE DRAINAGE AND WITH MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF CPE. AND WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A LOT MORE THAN WE HAVE. WE HAVE NOT HAD A FAIR PLAYING FIELD AT ANY POINT IN THIS PROCESS. WE HAVE THREE MINUTES TO TRY TO DEVELOP A COHERENT ARGUMENT, WHICH IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE.

OUR OPPONENTS HAD UNLIMITED TIME. WE WERE TOLD AT THE VERY BEGINNING WE WOULD NOT GET A Q&A DIALOGUE WITH YOU GUYS.

LAST WEEK, THEY GOT IT. IF WE'RE HOPPING MAD, THERE'S A VERY GOOD REASON FOR IT. THANK YOU. EDIE DU, AND THEN PAULETTE GRACE. HI, GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS EDIE DU, 1572, MAIDEN LANE, AND...

YEAH, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR BRIEFLY STEPPING AWAY AFTER MY INITIAL COMMENT. I HAVEN'T HAD DINNER BEFORE THE MEETING. HOWEVER, I HEARD SUPERVISOR HENDERSON WAS ASKING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, WHO IS LIVING IN CENTRAL PARK ESTATE EVERY DAY. SO HERE I CAME BACK. WHILE I CANNOT SPEAK FOR THE WHOLE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, MY FAMILY AND I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO CONSIDER FEWER UNITS IN THE CENTRAL PARCELS. ONE POINT... CONTINENTAL HAS HIGHLIGHTED IS THAT IF WE REMOVE THE BUILDING FOUR AND PUT THOSE TWO LEVELS TO EIGHT OR NINE, THAT WILL DECREASE THEIR RENT PRICE FOR SEVEN PERCENT. I THINK THAT NUMBER IS A LITTLE BIT EXAGGERATED, LIKE SEVEN PERCENT, LIKE YOU HAVE TO TO 40 UNITS, AND THAT'S 40 UNITS. GOT AFFECTED BY HIGHER A LEVEL.

THAT'S NOT SEVEN PERCENT, I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER. HOWEVER, IF YOU ALSO CONSIDER THEY REMOVED THE BUILDING, THAT'S A LOT OF COST REDUCTION FOR THEM, RIGHT? SO I THINK YOU GUYS HAVEN'T ASKED THEM THAT QUESTION. WELL, THAT COST REDUCTION MAKE UP THE 7% LOSS FOR THEIR RENTAL. I THINK THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK FOR THEM. AND IF WE HAVE THE BUILDING 4 REMOVED FROM THE CENTRAL PARCEL, I THINK WE HAVE FAIRLY GOOD, WE HAVE 96 UNITS IN THE CENTRAL PARCEL, AND THAT FITS THE RD ZONING.

[03:35:01]

COMMENT IS THAT IN THE CUL-DE-SAC, THERE'S LIKE DRAINAGE ISSUE THAT THE BUILDER, BUILDER LEFT US, SO I WAS PART OF THAT.

AFFECTED FAMILIES, MY MY HOME, UH, HAVE A LEAK, LEAKAGE LAST, I THINK, TWO WEEKS AGO. AND IF I GO FOR THE QUOTE FOR THE FIX, THAT'S 2300 AND I HAVE TO PAY OUT OF MY OWN POCKET, BUILDER THE ID WILL NOW REIMBURSE ME. YOU GUYS WILL NOT REIMBURSE ME.

THAT COST ME LOSE MONEY BECAUSE OF THE DRAINAGE, AND IF WE HAVE MORE BUILDINGS, THAT WILL BE MORE SEVERE FOR THE DRAINAGE ISSUE. SO EVEN IF IT'S ONE LAST BUILDING, THAT WILL BE VERY BENEFICIAL FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. AND LASTLY, I JUST WANT TO RE-EMPHASIZE MY POINT.

PLEASE REDUCE THE DENSITY IN THE CENTER PARCEL. THANKS.

THANK YOU. ALL THAT GRACE, AND THEN THAT'S THE LAST GREEN CARD WE HAVE. IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME. THANK YOU. AFTER LISTENING TO ALL THE CONVERSATION TONIGHT, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE A FEW POINTS. IT CONCERNS ME WHEN I HEAR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE IDES KEEP REFERENCING THE 30 ACRES.

THERE'S NOT 30 ACRES THAT'S BUILDABLE HERE. THERE IS...

MUCH LESS THAN THAT. THE DENSITY IS STILL A HUGE ISSUE.

WE TALK ABOUT 240 UNITS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING 300 TO 400 PEOPLE IN A VERY SMALL AREA, AND THE TRAFFIC ISSUES ARE STILL OUT THERE. THERE'S BEEN NO REAL PLAN TO ADDRESS IT, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT TO SAY THAT, WELL, WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE PEOPLE ARE THERE AND THE ACCIDENTS ARE ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

BEFORE WE ARE ABLE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A CASE FOR SOME DECENT TRAFFIC MEASURES THAT EVEN THEN ARE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BACK IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION. DAYS OF, YOU KNOW, LIGHTS AND AND ROUNDABOUTS.

AND NOBODY FELT THAT THERE WERE ANY FEASIBLE ANSWERS TO REALLY ADDRESS ALL THAT HEAVY TRAFFIC.

I'M ALSO CONCERNED WHEN I HEARD SOME OF YOUR VERY, VERY VALID COMMENTS ABOUT THE WAY SOME OF THE WORDING WAS IN THE IN THE PROPOSAL. IN TERMS OF IT IS OUR INTENTION THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED. WE INTEND TO ADDRESS IT. TYPICALLY, WE HANDLE IT THIS WAY. THOSE ARE VERY VAGUE TERMS THAT VERY MUCH SCARE ME IN A LEGAL DOCUMENT, IN A PROJECT OF THIS NATURE.

AND I JUST WONDER ABOUT HOW THINGS WILL EDGE OUT AND AWAY FROM THAT WHEN THERE'S REALLY NOTHING SPECIFICALLY IN WRITING FOR SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. THE OTHER STATEMENT I THOUGHT WAS VERY INTERESTING WAS WHEN THE DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS THAT WE DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE OBJECTIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS.

IN OTHER WORDS, NOTHING'S REALLY CHANGED IN THIS NEW PLAN TO THEIR ORIGINAL OBJECTIONS.

AND I THINK THAT'S VERY TRUE.

WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT. AND AFTER SEVEN MONTHS OF A SITUATION WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS DEADLOCKED, YOU'VE CONTINUED ON AS A BOARD TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE AND LISTEN TO REVISIONS.

I KNOW THEY'VE MADE A VERY SOLID EFFORT TO MAKE A REVISION, BUT WE'RE STILL COMING DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE IF WE CAN'T MAKE A DECISION AT THIS POINT, IF IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A GOOD IDEA. MAYBE WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. SO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING, THANK YOU SEEING NO ONE ELSE RUSHING TO THE PODIUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. WE CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AT 9 44 P.M.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM 14 OTHER MATTERS AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS AND THE OTHER MATTERS THIS EVENING? SEEING THEM, WE MOVE ON. ITEM 15 IS ADJOURNMENT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED, THEY'RE MOVED BY TRUSTEE WILSON, SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE LENTZ. ALL IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT, PLEASE SAY, AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? WE SEE YOU AT ADJOURNMENT AT 9.45 P.M.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.