The Michigan Land Division Act, originally enacted March 31, 1997, defines parent parcels as contiguous properties owned by the same owner and prescribes allowable parcel divisions. The new legislation allows parent parcels to create 10 parcels for the first 10 acres (up from 4), with additional parcels for each subsequent 10 acres. Municipalities have three options: do nothing and accept state law changes effective March 24, 2027; allow more divisions than state permits; or establish a new 'line in the sand' date for parent parcels (recommended January 1, 2027). This change significantly impacts rural land preservation, as smaller minimum lot sizes can encourage high-density development that conflicts with master plan goals for rural character.
Whitewater Board of Trustees Meeting 5/28/2026Ajouté :
live and we're live on YouTube.
>> Okay. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Please, if you can stand for the pledge of >> allegiance.
Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Hey, roll call of board members.
Sipsa >> here.
>> Hima present. Milnik >> here.
>> Kester and Aaron's absent. So I know Kester said she was not going to be here, but did Aaron specifically tell you that?
>> Uh yes, he's ill.
>> He reported that yesterday that he was ill.
Okay. Uh set, adjust, and approve the meeting agenda. So, um, I have several changes. Um, would you like me to start, Wendy, or I think you've got some as well.
Okay. So, sounds like we we need to correct um the agenda to indicate instead of March 14th uh minutes, it's May 14th meeting minutes regular plus there was the special uh meeting minutes for that same date with the planning commission. Is that correct? Correct.
Um, under bills for approval, I have three items that need to be added. So, we've got approval for the final payment on the firet truck.
Um, we've got a payment for security camera replacement and a payment to K held for meeting minutes.
>> Who's the security company that that's going to? Uh that's social explorations and the firetruck is CSI.
>> Is there an invoice for the firetruck or is there >> Yes.
Oh, can have mine. There you go.
>> And um this one.
>> Okay. Um the next thing is um we need to add High Prairie Park banners to the park and recreation items that we will be discussing.
And we need to remove um the second item under park and recreation items, Whitewater Township Policy and Procedure Manual Update.
I'm removing that after discussion with Chief Morgan.
Um, under right after park and recreation items, we do um have an ad at the request of Chief Morgan to add fire personnel work period. I believe that's a policy.
I got that right.
Yes, it's a policy.
>> That's under unfinished business.
>> Under unfinished business. Yes.
And also, I know this is a little confusing. So, we added high prey banners and we're added this fire personnel work period policy after the park and recreation items. But then that whole chunk of items for Chief Morgan, uh, it needs to be moved after new business due to some time scheduling issues with him this morning.
So you guys all help me remember that that that's getting moved after new business.
So the park and recreation and fire items Okay, that um and then the last change I'd like to make is it's listed under table items, but it's really new business. I'd like to move this item, review of policies and procedure manual section 3.0. 0 as the last item under new business.
I also provided some information that's related to the policy and procedure manual section 3. It's the personnel manual section three. We have a markup from Feahhee Schultz on that that was actually um gathered a couple months ago. Um, I think we can look at that if time permits, but I'm not how sure how the rest of you feel. There might not be sufficient time that before, Josh, >> or after.
>> No, that probably is a bad idea. So, yeah. Do we do we even want to add it is my question. I know you haven't had a lot of time to review it.
>> No, I I don't I haven't had time to review this at all. Okay. So, why don't we why don't I uh pull back on that? So, we will not look at the personnel manual section three. So, >> well, that would be all of it then, not only what was handed out, but what was in the packet?
>> No, we will still review. I know it's confusing because they're both section three. We'll still review policy and procedure manual section three. The other document we can put it on a future agenda and that is the personnel manual section three. So, it's related but employees not the same.
>> Yeah.
So, uh, that's what I had. Do you guys have anything more or anything to add?
Did I get it all?
All right. Make a motion to approve the agenda as amended.
I'll second that. All right. Motion made by slopes, seconded by Vimma. All those in favor? I >> I. Those opposed? None opposed.
All right. Uh, declaration of conflict of interest.
Does anybody have a conflict of interest with any of the content of today's meeting?
>> No.
>> No.
>> No. All right. No conflicts noted. Uh time for public comment if anybody would like to come forward for public comment.
Honeymore 6761 Bags Road.
First I want to make a comment on the pending lawsuit from the bags partners.
We have high concern for the 28page lawsuit laying over there on the table.
After reading it, we found many discrepancies of the facts and what truly transpired.
We have documentation of the case. We're willing to share the timeline and where to find the laws that back up um some of the things that are needed here. Um we'd be happy to share that. We've been involved from day one.
Second, it's of grave importance that we move forward with our determination of our minimum lot size in egg district. On page five of today's packet, there is a Michigan University Extension handout.
in the document in bold letters and I quote, "With the potential for such a significant increase in the creation of new parcels for development, all municipalities and the few counties having authority to approve land division should review their land division ordinance immediately."
unquote.
Whitewater Township's master plan lists rural character as a high priority and our present minimum lot size in our egg district is less than 1 acre which sets us up for high density development. With our neighboring townships already at 5 acre minimums, we are a corridor for developers.
Acme Township has a 5acre minimum in egg to protect the e agricultural economy in their 2019 master plan.
Peninsula Township uses 5 acre minimums to protect their watershed and their fruit industry. By keeping a less than one acre minimum, we are essentially inviting every developer who wants to avoid the stricter standards of Acme and Peninsula. This puts unfair burden on Whitewater's roads, schools, and groundwater. With our neighboring townships already with 5acre minimums and our own recreational district having 5acre minimum, it's imperative that our egg district have 5 acre or greater minimum to protect our master plan. I'm happy to hear that the board has asked the planning commission to place this on their agenda. So, thank you for making this an urgent issue to protect our beautiful rural land.
All right. Who else would like to make a public comment this morning?
Angry old woman.
Too bad Tim's not here. I can't get my apologies.
He did tell me to shut up. And there are witnesses, but I'm a good person. I'll let it go if he ever apologizes. I already apologized to the people he insulted in the room. I wouldn't say that he insulted him. I'm going to say he's scared of >> Excuse me. Can Can you address the issue?
>> I am addressing the issue. I can say anything up here I want. I can walk in this building, ask a question, and not told them to be shut up. And that's exactly what you're doing to me now.
Please stop it. You work for me. I don't work for you. I already sat there well-versed in the rules. I wasn't going to speak today, but cuz my buddy's not here to get an apology, I thought I'd just bring it up a little. But my other problem is, please refer to the policy and procedure manual in its correct name. It's called the Administrative Policy and Procedure Manual because if we don't call it the right name, you can't find it anywhere in your system.
So, it's not a it's not a P&P. It has another word. Thank you.
All right. Who else would like to make a public comment this morning?
Anyone? Okay. Then moving along with our agenda, we do not have a public hearing.
Um next we've got Don Coons here as well as Deb Braber. So to talk to us about um land division act changes and we've got quite a bit of reference material in your packet. So >> yep, go right ahead.
So, what I'm going to try to do is just give you a little bit of history of land division and kind of give you get you up to speed a little bit on what the legislaturator legislature has done um to change land division. So, original land division act a little bit of history first so that you in case you don't understand how it works. Original land division act was enacted March 31st of 97. Excuse me. So March 31st of 97 couple of things that that were done is there was um a definition for parent parcel and parent track. So in flash in time March 31st of 97 there was part parent parcel and parent track. A parent track was contiguous properties that were owned by the same owner. Not common owners not but the exact same ownership. So that can create a parent track. So the rules with the land division act pertain to those. So then with that there was prescribed number divisions that were given for each parent parcel/parent track. And so what the new law is doing is it's changing it. So the township in a way has some more options sort of. Um but so you you have different options and that there's the things that you guys are going to have to decide so that we can decide how to move forward to create a new land division ordinance. So a couple options are you can do nothing um and then the new law will go into effect March 24th of 2027.
So if you do nothing in essence um what will happen is each parent parcel will be allowed to create 10 parcels for the first 10 acres. Well basically anything under 20 acres. So right now the act allows you to create four parcels for the first 10 acres which 10 acres up to 19.99 acres could create four parcels and then an an additional parcel for each additional 10 acres full 10 acres.
So the new law will allow 10 parcels for the first 10 acres. Now mind you they haven't changed the definition of parent parcel. So parent parcel is still going to be as of March 31st of 97.
So the only parcels that this would impact of creating 10 parcels would be parcels that haven't been split yet.
So new they haven't changed that definition of parent parcel. So if we if if you keep things the way status quo, we we would need to still, you know, we still need to update our land division ordinance, but that would only affect those parcels. You also have the option to you can you can actually allow more divisions for the first 10 acres than what the state has allowed. You can allow more.
You can't allow less, but you can allow more for the first 10 acres. And you can also draw a new line in the sand. So instead of it being March 31st to 97, you can draw a new line in the sand and say every parcel is now a parent parcel moving forward.
So you guys will need to decide. These are some decisions that we need the board to decide as to what you're going to want to allow. And I'm not asking you to do this today, but you will need to decide. Otherwise, the law just goes into effect. Now, if you do decide to do a new line in the sand, we would recommend January 1st of 2027 because then it would coincide with whatever that 2027 assessment rule is and and then it would be an easier tracking other than coming up with some other date that um the state has established.
So those are the basic questions that we need you guys to decide is of whether we're going to have a new line in the sand, whether we're going to stick with the March 31st of 97 as being our date for creating or tracking from parent parcel or parent track. And also if you're going to allow more divisions for the first 10 acres than what the state is allowing.
So there no doubt Linda provided you with more reading material than you care to read about land division. Um but there is Linda remind me was there um a red line version in there?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, >> there is.
>> You can see there's really not a lot of changes made to the act but they're very impactful.
the changes that are allowed. And obviously from from what you know the legislators have approved, they're they're wanting to be able to give people more options to have affordable.
I don't get that up here or not. But so I think a lot of this wasn't it really targeted by the need for affordable housing, right? Particularly in the more populated portions of the state.
>> Yeah. Although obviously we're seeing a lot of um rising prices for land, right, >> and homes up here as well.
>> Very much so. Very much so.
>> Yeah.
>> So, do you guys have any questions about it or it >> I have one and some statements later, but I guess um so the deadline that we have to act on is what? Well, if you if if you don't do anything, um March 24th of 2027 is when it goes into effect, I believe.
>> So, we have a about nine months, too.
>> No, you don't. I'm not going to give you nine months.
>> No, I'm You do. Yeah. Yeah. But >> I'm just saying that because if it get the can gets k because we still have to create um a land division ordinance. We still have to modify our ordinance. You know, no doubt have the attorney review it. New application probably. So there's So I'm just trying to encourage you to not kick the can down the road.
>> We've already lost three months here.
>> Well, I I think the other thing is just reiterating what she already said is if if we do nothing, the state law will change. The state law will be in effect and it'll allow more divisions on on our existing.
>> That's at a minimum anyway. I mean, you you're not going to be able to get away from that. Um, you're still you're still gonna if you do nothing, which by doing nothing doesn't mean that's a a wrong thing, but you would probably just want to establish that what your intentions are of doing as opposed to just not doing anything. But if you if you don't make any changes, if you keep the March 31st of 97, you're still going to get the 10 parcels for the first 10 acres. You don't get to you don't get to change that, >> right?
>> That's only for parent parcels.
>> And do we have any kind of a assessment as to how many of those parent parcels are still intact?
>> No.
>> From the original date?
>> Is there a way to figure that out? and in our >> well being that um personal record >> being that there were previous practices were that we didn't have a retiring number system >> um yeah I don't see how I would I mean the amount of time that would take to track that I mean >> and and I'm not sure what use it would be >> well because either way you it's either going to be that parent parcel or you're going to create a new line in the sand and Everybody is a parent parcel.
>> So that would allow many many more divisions if you adopt a new date.
>> Yes. Right.
>> Is it saying, "Okay, we're going to say from this date forward."
>> So in keeping with the master plan, you would want to just keep the March date, but then kind of square up our own land division ordinance.
>> We would need either way. We need to square up our land division ordinance.
Yes. Yep.
So, can I ask you since it's hard and you you mentioned in that separate meeting that we had a week and a half ago um that um the issue of not retiring parent parcel numbers um that by the previous assessor that was employed by the township years ago >> years years ago I mean and this has been in act for 30 years >> right and how how is it then when you get a land division application, do you have to deep dive into that parcel number to find out if it was a parent parcel back in 1997?
>> So, that's like deed research kind of thing.
>> Um, it can be deed research. It can I mean, usually we can tell if it's been split um by what is in our database.
Even if they didn't retire a number, they would still have the division data in there.
>> Okay? Even if the number wasn't retired, it it would still show in the land division notes that it had been retit.
>> Okay.
>> I have some other things to add to that.
I guess you know, number one, the master plan does reference the need to update the land division ordinance because of the shortcomings that are evident in it.
And uh but then also I would describe the fact that there's some planning issues involved here in terms of how what's what's the path that that you want people who want to build homes follow? Do you want them to do land divisions on existing roads or do you want them to do um subdivisions >> in roads that are newly built and off the existing road network. So, I think there's some some scenarios that we need to look at in terms of what we would want to have in the township as far as new building sites. Are they stripping off the road frontage or are we going to try to build subdivisions?
I mean, if you if there's going to be another couple hundred homes built in the township in the next 5, 10 years, whatever, is it better that they be all on existing roads or do you want new roads built?
>> I think that's kind of what what would drive the conversation about um the original parcels and and all of that.
So, I think maybe some illustrations of those scenarios would be helpful for both the planning commission and the board in my mind.
>> illustrations of >> illustrations of what what it looks like if you divide off existing frontage.
If if you are going to have lots that are just lot splits or parcels coming off existing roads or would you or would is it preferable to see new subdivisions get built with private roads going off of the existing?
>> So that's not really a question you're asking me. No, I'm just kind of more or less I'm just saying before we get to the question of how dealing with these existing parcels, we should I think understand the implications of of that.
Um, so it's probably best done with some graphic illustrations of potential land divisions along existing roads versus subdivisions.
>> Do you follow that or is that >> I do, but that's really just not coming from me, I guess, is what?
>> Right. Right. Right. No, I I think that's a another another meeting to describe that before we launch into. But Randy, I think your point is is that a larger parcel can be purchased, even an existing parcel of some size, and then um they can submit a site plan for for a site condo, which would use our zoning ordinance specifications for minimum lot size that exists within the zoning ordinance. for example, using what Connie Hymore mentioned, the the um 200 by 240,000 square foot, which is just short of an acre. Um and they can make that proposal to the planning commission. They can and >> and and result in quote unquote, you know, density of of lots without individual lot splits as specified by the land division ordinance. I >> Yeah, I guess.
>> So, it's not just the land division ordinance that controls that. It's also getting back to what Connie said as far as the minimum lot size. Excuse me. If the audience would like to have a conversation, if you can step outside just so we can all hear.
>> Right.
>> Right. So, there's two ways to develop property. Either you're dividing off individual parcels or you're creating a subdivision or condominium, >> a site condo or a or a PUD >> or a PUD or something where it's an integrated development with new roads and you're not just stripping off the road frontage for lots. And so the question is is you know what's what's the best for the township? I mean in terms of what do you want to see here?
>> Land division ordinance or land division act initially also gave um bonus parcels for someone that didn't just create curb cuts all along the road. They gave they gave two bonus parcels for someone that's creating a new road basically that all the parcels would access off from that >> kind of like tried I think maybe tried to address that kind of same thought.
>> Right. Most most communities that I've worked with would seem to suggest that they want to have the condominium subdivisions being built rather than the road frontage stripped off because you create driveways and you're just crew, you know, it's it's usually not a good.
So anyway, I think maybe we can illustrate that maybe at a future meeting.
>> So would it be best for you to take that back to the planning commission and explain that to them? had a conversation about the planning commission looking at this issue as well. And >> yeah, that there's zoned areas specifically for development and also protecting our rural areas, >> right?
>> And getting preferably in getting people into planned unit development kind of projects where you could do some open space preservation as opposed to when you just carve off 40,000 square foot lots along the road frontage, >> right? That's really in some people's minds the opposite of preserving real character.
So anyway, I guess I think that would be helpful that for the planning commission to look at that and then and you're right that we don't have a lot of time. This is nine months.
>> We really don't have a lot of time.
>> No. And I get a little I get I don't have any problem with taking this to the planning commission for their input, but I also have the sense that their their plate is quite heavy. Um I think that they've been taking on more than past planning commissions have as far as quantity of topics and throughput of work.
So >> I'm cleaning up a lot of things >> and you know I just get a little worried about loading that wagon too heavy.
So figuring out what we need from them versus taking responsibility for >> I guess the underlying thing in my mind is how we define that original parcel.
Are you want want it to be conducive to land divisions along existing roads or would you want to encourage condominium subdivisions in the future? I don't the the land division I don't believe the land division act or ordinance can dictate whether they have to build a private road or they have >> no but but if if >> we just by the number of parcels that's really what the land division >> right so once you exhaust the number of parcels then you're done and >> 10 years you then there's redivision rights >> so so then you'd be into another kind of development which would be the the kind that the township may may prefer.
>> So, and I I guess yeah, I mean what we are going to need in order to try to do something with the ordinance is whether you're going to want a new line in the sand for the date, whether you're going to want to allow more parcels than the 10 for the first 10 acres.
Um, >> so if there's a new line, excuse me, if there is a new line in the sand, then that is going to result in likely more, >> however you craft it, but yes, >> more lots.
>> It would it would allow many more divisions.
>> So, you could you could say, "We want to keep a parent parcel definition the same, but we're going to say our new date is January 1st instead of the March 24th of 97." So you can I don't know what I really can't think have to think through that as to what benefit that would be except for the the parent parcels starting January 1st could the parent parcels as of March 31st to 97 could then split 10 times.
>> So you could potentially have many more splits than you would if you'd left it as a 97.
>> Um >> right >> depends on how you write it. Yes. Yeah.
But even but you can keep it as is as the March 31st of 97 and change your date still. If you're wanting to allow people to start this process sooner than March 24th and 2027, you you can do that. Um and just keep the parent parcel the same as March 31st to 97, which means the only people that are going to get the additional divisions are the ones that have not been split yet. It's still a parent parcel.
And it would also um if you establish a new date for parent parcel um anybody that's like maybe in the middle of a 10-year waiting period would immediately have splits. Right.
>> Depends on how you write it.
>> Yeah. Right. only if you're changing your parent parcel that it's not going to I don't believe it's going to change the 10-year waiting period if you're keeping your date as the the definition of the original parent parcel redisions haven't changed redivvision definitions haven't changed >> but I I was um just make sure we're understanding each other in the example of establishing a new parent parcel date of say for example January 2027 if I now say This parcel is a parent parcel now.
Y >> maybe in the past they were still waiting for the 10-year period for divisions.
>> So that was probably a child parcel. If it was a child parcel, we have a new date, then yes, they would be able.
>> So now they're instantly eligible.
>> Correct.
>> And that that could >> instantly eligible for the new division rights, not not redivision. They're it's all brand new. It's got a new >> Yep.
So that would convey enormous amount of divisions to the the property owners.
Enormous.
>> I have to say most of the townships that I work for um no one has I don't think any of my boards have made a decision yet, but they all seem to be leaving leaning toward the March the the 1997 date, >> keeping it as that was the parent parcel.
But >> I think that speaks to our master plan better.
>> And that's just kind of um not even a straw pull, but I mean just talking like this. It tends to be >> not steering you one way or another.
It's it's not >> so they're they're leaning towards allowing fewer blitz more than likely >> basically. Yes.
basically >> in favor of >> the the parent parcels would still get the additional six parcels.
If it hasn't been split, if those people haven't split their property yet, they would get the additional no matter what that that you can't get away from. You can give them more as you'll see from but I don't think that's >> Yeah. So, no matter what, they're going to be allowed additional splits.
>> Period. That you you have you're gonna have to endure that no matter what.
>> I do have another webinar today at 1:00 um that's put up by Fahhe S Schultz and so we'll see what that we've only had one webinar on it so far.
Um, so just he Schultz usually puts out good good webinars. So we'll see how that goes.
So I think the other thing that occurred to me is um and I I did not bring it with me today but um looking at the you have both survey results and workshop comments on associated with rural car. Sure. And parcel size. I think there were specific questions that were asked on parcel size.
Um, so I I think it's very important for the board. I mean, I I'm trying to remember how old that data is. I think maybe about maybe maybe two and a half, three years old.
>> Three.
>> Yeah. So I I think it's important to to look at that. Um and and then the other thing is is that we have known that there are some things in the land division ordinance that we should probably make sure we revisit and assure is the current content what we want it to be. Like one thing that I know that I came upon several times is that there's not a clear definition regarding irregular shaped parcels. And and then it leaves us in a gray area which causes a problem potentially for the zoning administrator when they review um the length to width measures. Um when I tried to check on in the state law it looked like they didn't specify that either which I thought was really highly unusual but um I think that would be beneficial for us to define how length to what is calculated on irregular shapes. Um the other thing is is that our land division or ordinance um is allowed to supersede the state law on in certain areas and um that standard 4:1 ratio that the state um specifies that as well. Ours specifies it for all all parcels no matter how many acres they are which can also cause difficulty during the land division process for for the surveyor and what do you do when you have a leftover piece because of that constriction. Um it it's something that I think we should talk about and consult with our attorney.
And to your point, the issue of the 4:1 is in the zoning ordinance as well as the land division ordinance. And I think yes, we need to uh address that. I don't think it should be in two. We should have the requirement in one place, not two because there's potential for the way it's defined to be different. And then um also it's important to know that the land that the lot size requirements are in the zoning ordinance, not in the land division ordinance.
>> Right. So, >> we're going to change any lot size requirements. That's a zoning ordinance amendment, not a land division ordinance amendment.
>> Yeah. And I agree that having the same requirement duplicated in both documents is is a danger of of having mismatch in the future.
Some of the definitions are different between >> Oh, and the def we have definition problems, too.
>> I think so. I can't remember exactly, but >> So, there's a a pretty good amount of work on this. Um, are there other questions, Wendy? Questions that you have or comments?
>> Nope. Having taken the citizen planner class recently really helped. Okay.
>> So, um I I guess Any questions for Deb?
So, we I also included in the packet just for people's reference, Don and Deb both sign off on land divisions. They both have their functions that they go through when a land vision application is received. A copy of that is in the packet if you wanted to look at it and for the public.
So, any questions for for Deb? She's taken the training as well.
I'm looking for my one piece of of the um that is Yeah, it looks like that land division application on page 15 of your packet.
And this is something that they um improved this recently within the last year or so where they you can see that processing these land divisions. They've tried to tighten it up and it's it's quite a list of things >> when somebody comes in to just make sure that mistakes aren't made um and that adequate information is provided.
Any other questions for Deb at all?
I guess the only question I would have for Deb. Do you feel like land divisions are stable, increasing, decreasing?
Any input on that?
>> I think a lot of people are just waiting to see what the uh changes are going to be because it's going to have a huge impact. I think people are just kind of waiting to see what's going to happen because if they have a 10 acre or more parcel and they can get 10 splits out of it where they can only get four today, they may be waiting. I mean, it's not it's only a few months out.
I think we've only had what, three land divisions so far this year. I think the last couple of years we've had 10 to 15 a year. So, I guess it could be slower, but there's been a lot of changes this spring.
Okay. And and actually Deb just brought up that point again. You know, if some people are kind of, you know, viewing this as, okay, I'm eligible to do land splits again if I've got 10 acres.
Currently, they can only do four, but in the future, they will be able to do 10 actually.
And some of that we can, as Dawn mentioned, we we can't escape some of that. We can escape this whole resetting parent parcels, which would I think make the whole number explode.
I >> think the issue is not if you develop property, it's how.
>> Okay. I I also think the comment about what's the policy of the um neighboring townships is relevant.
>> Um I've I've been aware of the Acme rules.
Um I think they have a lot less a land in general than we do, but you know, they've got that 5 acre minimum in their zoning ordinance. Um I'm not sure about Clearwater Township. I'm I'm not aware what their rules are.
So if you just kind of go which one which way. So you go Elk Rabbits Township. So tiny I'm not sure I'd consider that. We could look at Milton Township and we can look at the township to the south of us. I don't recall the name of that township right off. Do you remember Wendy?
>> Union Township just south of us. So just south of Island Lake and there's probably a different township also to the to our south uh east corner.
Okay. Um so why don't we at least talk about next steps so we're clear on what's going to happen on successive agendas. So um we're missing two board members today. Should we have this back for discussion again?
at the end of June.
Um, I also haven't had a discussion with the attorney about this.
>> I I think it should be an agenda item in June.
>> Okay. Do we want to get an attorney review or an opinion on this as well?
I think we can put that in the in get set that in in motion, but um I would offer to do a presentation with the illustrations of what I'm talking about with lot splits and subdivisions and covering images of other places that I know have grappled with this. Some in Michigan, some elsewhere.
>> Okay. So, we'll put this on the agenda for the end of June.
>> Okay. to reconvene on this and then you will provide how do you want me to say that some illustrations.
>> Yeah. Brief presentation with illustrations.
>> Um in the past I seem to remember a planning commission member I think it was probably Denise Pelatin um providing some statistics on larger parcels.
Is that helpful? that helpful?
>> Well, we c we did a query of the parcels in the township that were greater than 20 acres when we were looking at the winery ordinance like how many. So, we can easily do that if you want to see how many parcels above a certain size exist and then color code it on a map.
That's sometimes helpful to to see where the larger parcels are.
>> So, you think that data is already available?
It's we could just send an email and get it back that afternoon from the county.
Oh, >> okay. Could you bring that as part of your information?
>> Sure.
>> Okay.
>> And maybe Don has some other resources as well with parent parcels and I don't know what she >> I think I asked that question. She said that was hard. I asked you the question about how many parent parcels have not been split and I think you said that would be very difficult to come up with that analysis. Is that right?
>> To just >> can you approach the >> come up here to the mic so they can hear you?
>> I I wouldn't be able to just do a query in the database to to find out. I mean it would be a step by step like stepping through >> look at each parcel and >> Yeah.
estimates?
>> No.
>> No.
>> I mean, because if I did an estimate, that would be just based on >> a guess.
>> Largely largely we have I would say we have more parent parcels left than we've had child parcels created.
We've had a lot of land divisions, mind you, but there are still a lot of parcels that haven't been split.
And there's really no way to identify that in on a map that that without going through a lot of effort to illustrate.
>> I mean, I don't know if um if GIS has um I we didn't even have GIS.
I don't when we didn't even have GIS when land division when it was enacted >> and in whitewater township in a couple of townships that I worked for and I didn't work for Whitewater then is I created tax maps at that time to identify parent parcels and parent tracks like created boundaries of this is a parent track or this is and then we knew what the parent parses were and that's the nice thing about if we are going to change the date of having you know January 1 or so the 2027 assessment rule would be our new parcels if you were changing the date. Um but >> we can explore that outside the meeting here >> and see what's available.
>> Yeah. So I think one other thing to just keep in mind and you know I don't have an exact number that but in general I think about half of our land area in white water is egg possibly a little bit more correct I I think it's more I would but that might be helpful to just talk about that too you know because we already know the recreational district has a 5 acre minimum per lot size. So it's it and plus it especially depending on how you do the math. So much of the portion of the recreational district to the south of here is owned by the state. It's not even available for people to build on.
So that's that's a totally different situation that area of the recreational district. And I'm just thinking about parent even if I went by the number of parcels that we have that are retired.
Um that was you know only the time period from which that and I don't even know when it was it was changed over. Finally Eric did change over to using um retiring number system.
>> Um but even that I mean this has been in place for 30 years. There's been parcels that have done redivisions now. many parcels have done. So it couldn't even go by a number of parcels that are retired to give you.
>> When you say retired, it means that all the splits have been >> No, it's anytime that there is a land division. Now, a retiring number system is whenever that legal description changes, that parcel number gets retired. So even if it's a combination of two parcels, um splitting off a sliver to sell to a neighbor, anytime the legal description changes, that parcel number gets retired. Now >> where where >> and that's a countywide >> practically statewide, I would have to say system. It's not >> and ours are still having the parent parcel number and then a -1 or -2. Is that what you mean?
>> Parent parcel. So if we have a par parcel that ends in a 00 if if that is split changed in any way that number gets retired and then there's new numbers for each resulting parcel is created. So we do have a retiring number system now and we have had for a number of years um but it wasn't since the beginning of March beginning of land division.
So, like I said, I even I couldn't even go by the the number of retired parcels that we have because some of those parcels were child parcels that have been split again or even just a a lot line adjustment. So, if I have a piece of property, I want to sell my my neighbors a 20 by 3,000 foot strip. I can do that without and be in violating as long as they're going to combine it with their parcel.
But so that's that parcel didn't lose any of its divisions. It's still a parent parcel, but they just shaved off some property and sold to a neighbor. So that parcel got retired, but it still would be considered a parent parcel. So it's it's just not as easy as just I mean I literally would have to step through every parcel. Sorry, I'm just not willing.
to illustrate the point we couldn't do some theoretical parcels like if you had a 40 acre parcel in in the township it's zoned egg it's on a road you know here's one scenario where all the um you know given us a certain set of circumstances this is what you get and this is an alternative to that um wonder if that would help the planning or >> that's not the assessor I'm not a planner person >> yeah well but we need your review of what would meet the land division ordinance.
>> I I I do review far as the I mean I I'm not part of the planning process. I'm just I'm not saying I'm not willing to assist in but I >> I'm not a planner person. Um and >> okay, >> I mean I just don't have scenarios aren't aren't any part of my >> I'm not a planner either. Correct.
>> Okay.
So, I for me, I just, you know, for for me, I just need the board to decide whether they're going to allow more divisions or not, change the date. Um, and if the township needs to change their zoning ordinances according to what you're wanting to do, you know, that's that's part of the the planning process of it, I would say.
But no matter what, this this new act is going to actually allow more divisions for these parent parcels like these. We talked about Randy, you talked about, you know, having some information on all parcels 20 acres or greater. So some set of that number is the really big parcels that will will definitely be able to be broken up into more pieces than what they have in the past. And um so now a 20 20 to 29 acre piece 29.99 acre piece would under the new act if it hasn't been split before would get 10 for the first 10 acres and then one for each additional 10. So they have 11 parcels in that 20 acre 20.99 or less acre piece.
>> And if they have enough frontage, they could do all of it, right? Just in one.
>> Yeah. I mean, it'd have to be a a a large frontage piece because we still can't have the depth. You know, the depth it can't be a bowling alley. So the the the depth can't be more than four times the width. So there's still that issue. And it >> right >> I I mean I don't know. you'd have to look to see on the on the map as to really how much that has really happened. Um, it would be hard to say that. I mean, a 10acre piece even would have to have a lot of frontage with not a lot of depth to create a bunch of oneacre parcels along a road.
Okay. Um I'm going to come back around to this question one more time regarding um having our attorney um just provide some guidance. Is that do we want to get just some cursory advice?
>> Think we should start with that soon.
>> Start with that too. So we'll have that also >> that concurrently with with >> with what you're doing as far as some of this other data.
>> Okay. We can change a number or two or we can do you know easily but >> the structure of the ordinance needs work we can do that concurrently with the bigger policy questions. I think this is one of the most consequential decisions the township's going to make in in some time quite honestly.
>> Yes. Yes.
>> Quick question.
Um, is that okay with the board question? Go ahead, Connie. If you could step forward, please.
So, when I'm very interested in land division and I heard the assessor refer to a redline document that you provided, Linda, for the board. Was that in the packet?
>> Believe so. Hang on just a second.
>> I I personally never saw it. I >> was going to ask about that, too. I didn't >> I didn't see it. Why did it wipe out the red lines?
>> Cuz I printed it in color and never saw that.
>> Um you know that that was a mistake here somewhere.
>> So So is that the document that's in there and it just doesn't show the red lines or there's something else?
>> I believe so. Either that or I accidentally flipped out the wrong pages possibly. So um I can address that and email that to you Connie.
>> I'd like that. And um email more expansive.
>> Okay, hang on. One one at a time.
Somebody said, "Can we make it more expansive?" You can put it on the website.
>> You Well, sure. Yeah. So, I can I tell you what, to make it easier for me, how about I just leave some copies here on the table later today and you can pick it up >> if you can email it to me because I'm heading I'm heading down state. Um, >> so so it's a different document than what's in the packet. It's it's the same document, but I either grabbed the wrong pages in error. Um it what it is it is this um marked up it's a Dawn provided this to me. So it's a copy of the original land division law with red lines on it as far as what was stricken or replaced. Right.
>> Yeah. So it's red.
>> You approach the podium please. Thanks.
Sure.
>> Okay. So, what the what the red line version is is just it shows the difference between what the original law was and what they've inserted is it would change.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, like I said before, there's really not a lot of changes to it, but the changes they did make are can be very impactful.
>> Sure.
>> This is changes to the state law that we're talking about, not redlinining our our land division.
>> No point. No, this is this is the state law marked up and it's a document that Don provided.
>> So before we can get to an ordinance trying to provide an ideas of ordinance changes for you, you guys have to make these decisions so that we know what direction to go on that.
>> Right.
So, would the um minimum lot sizes in districts that are listed in our ordinances supersede the new laws? That that would be a question like if you some townships have 10 acre minimum build sites in egg. So, I'm wondering if the new law if that minimum lot size in egg would have anything to do with the amount of divisions that are going to be allowed with the new law.
Okay, why don't we let Don come up here and speak to that?
>> So, that criteria hasn't changed any.
So, you can you can have 10 parcels. You can have a 1acre parcel right now that is or let's say a five acre five acre parcel right now that is a parent parcel. Just because the state allows you to create 10 doesn't mean you can. it. These these number divisions are allowable as long as they comply with the land division ordinance, the township land division ordinance, and the township zoning ordinance.
>> That's right.
>> So, just because you have a parent parcel doesn't mean you're going to be able to maximize to the point the state allows. You may not even be able to do anything without.
>> Yeah. there's one anacre parcels now that are parent parcels that wouldn't be able to do anything in either law because they don't have enough par parcel size.
>> And I think is isn't that the whole point on why the zoning administrator looks at a land division as well because just because you divide something off doesn't mean >> it meets certain usability criteria because the zoning ordinance.
So, the zoning is about using the land and the land division is about legally dividing it.
>> Yep.
>> Does that answer your question?
>> Thanks so much for letting me ask.
>> All right. And I think there was another one or two voices in the background. Are we covered with that? I will put copies of this redlinined um document in there and I'll probably put a note on the front because the information pertaining to what we've been talking about is like in the middle of a big document.
So apparently when when I pulled this out, I made a clerical error here. Okay.
And I will do that before the end of the day. Okay. And email to Connie. All right. Ready to move on?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
All right. The next thing we have on here, uh, planning commission report, Randy.
>> Okay. The planning commission met on May 6th, and of course, there was the joint meeting that we had with the township board on May 14th. Our May 6 meeting was long and productive, and the bulk of that went to the public hearing on bundle one of the zoning update that we've been working on. It includes addressing article 6, 7, 13, 12, 19, article 2, and article six. So, there's been a lot of material that's been updated. It was posted. Um, we had public comments on that and the planning commission will be producing an updated document for action, I believe, at the June meeting if uh if all the issues are are resolved. Um the next steps for article 6, however, are going to take a little different path in terms of the overlay zone on M72 in terms of doing some outreach to property owners and part parcels that likely have to be reszoned.
Um Gifles Webster also provided their review of the proposed whining ordinance and some insights and they have that generated more PC discussion and they're going to continue to work on edits to that language. And then of course the short-term rental survey uh was a subject of discussion uh that was before the joint meeting with the plan with the township board. So you saw the updated version and then of course the township board gave feedback on on the draft and more changes are being made and we'll be at the meeting next week on the 6th. So um upcoming there next Wednesday is our meeting again and that includes the review of the zoning updates except for the copud stuff um overlay zone outreach and then final short-term rental survey and launch and the winery issues are likely to be the main topics.
I think we're the idea is that the short-term rental survey would be launched here shortly early early in June.
>> That's what I remember stated at the meeting.
>> Yep.
>> Okay.
>> And that just just to reiterate for everyone that the short-term rental survey will be it'll be conducted on the phone and then there will be paper I think available. Why don't you tell me what?
>> Well, there are two parallel efforts to obtain public input. one through a random phone survey during which 100 people will be reached that they will have to call more than that in order to get 100. And then there is also an online version where people will be married mailed postcards with numbers to secure a uh access to the survey and then they'll complete it and we'll have information that'll be from those two sources of information, two sort two data sets essentially and then we'll be able to look at the results. And then there's also the paper option where if somebody wants to pick up a paper version, that right uh paper version at the township hall, they can do that as well.
>> Okay. And so all I assume all registered voters and property owners will get this.
>> Yep.
>> I realize those lists cross over, but Okay.
>> And then Epic has a proprietary list of phone numbers that they use in order to reach both cell phones and land landlines. Okay.
>> All right.
>> Oh, yeah. The meeting is at 6. The meeting is at 6:30 next week.
>> Yeah. I think there's a special notice out there about the time of the meeting.
Okay.
Next, I have uh parks report. Chief Morgan had to to leave. So, um, actually, we're going to have to pick up these, um, discussions on the park report and the recycle bins. That'll be added here at the end here. I missed that.
So, all the park items. So, okay. So that brings us down to consent calendar.
Does anybody want to remove anything from the consent calendar?
We need to remove bills for approval to add those three items.
>> Okay.
Anything else?
Um, I would like to after the bill's approval, I'd like to have a brief discussion about the revenue and expense report that we have.
>> I just have a question. This isn't necessarily removing anything, but the IT support PO approval, we we give a blanket purchase order for a block of time and then as people need it, they are get charged against >> gets deducted against a balance. Yes.
The last one um was almost a year ago.
Right. And the reason we do it that way is it's provided at a significantly discounted rate versus just if we were to ad hoc pay for the service, the bill rate is much higher.
>> And so it's been a year since we've been going through that. So that's about the >> the cost of >> ongoing technical support. Like I've called Noah from time to time when I've had problems and he's fixed it. Okay.
>> And it includes um time required for him to set up a new laptop like we pay for the capital expense of a laptop.
And then and then there's the setup and delivery to who whoever's the user.
All right. So motion um at this point we can make a motion to approve the amended consent.
>> I'll make that motion. Melnik >> and I'll second that. Slopesa.
>> All those in favor?
>> I >> I Andy I didn't hear you. Do you approve that motion of the consent? Okay. Those opposed none. So that motion passes to pass the consent calendar as amended.
All right. So bills for approval. Wendy, just adding those three.
Uh the invoice for the new cameras for social explorations, the CSI for the firet truck, and then uh K's invoice.
Okay.
>> The dollar amount on social explorations, please.
>> 1325.
>> You don't have it. Oh, here.
All right. Ready to talk about bills for approval then?
Um uh do we need a a motion then to approve the bills at this point by themselves Wendy?
>> No, just in general.
>> Okay. And then um let's get into the revenue and expense report briefly here.
Let me get down to this. I think it's on page 40.
>> We we need a motion to say we approve the bills for agenda. That's how that was. Yeah.
>> I don't like to do it because I'm the one putting them in. I just don't feel like I should be the one doing that.
>> All right. How about I make a motion to approve the bills for payment?
>> And I'll second that. Milnick.
>> Seconded by Milnneck. All those in favor?
>> I.
>> Those opposed? None opposed.
Um and we do have some of those that are preferential.
>> Um as a followup, Wendy, um the CSI is critical to be paid, as is that social explorations to repair our cameras.
I'd like to mention that was after the last thunderstorm that stopped. Yeah.
>> All right. So, page 45 here. Let me get to that.
So, I know that Wendy's been doing a lot of work on it. Doesn't look like it went to the right page.
I'm looking for the revenue expense.
There it is. I said that incorrectly.
47. So, um, we're in this new fiscal, this is for the new fiscal year. So, um, and it was ran as of the end of April.
So, it's one month, correct, Wendy?
>> And so, I went through and looked through here. There's this this new thing's been reformatted by BSNA. So, it shows the percent budget remaining. Mhm.
>> So you can look down that right column and you know most of them are at a high percentage of a remaining balance but but there are quite a few in here and you know it is our responsibility to review this in a detailed manner because the sooner we review it and catch errors the better. So as I look down through here I did see a number that kind of were a flag if they're consuming a lot of money after just the first 30 days.
And so, for example, um, and this is kind of a an odd category. It's just under the first page there under the general fund, and it's a a account says miscellaneous sales. I'm not sure what we put in miscellaneous sales, but we have very little money allocated to it.
>> That would be the cash receiping by the treasur, not by me.
>> Okay. So, thanks for clarifying that.
So, um, >> sorry, what is that again?
>> It's whatever cash receipts she puts into BSNA, those are going into the revenues. And so, whatever they've deemed as miscellaneous sales, it's been put in there.
>> That might be somebody buying a zoning book or or something like that.
>> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thanks for I'm learning how to navigate this quickly, too. I know that you live in this world. So, um, under expenditures, the first one under township board expenditures, there's this pension pay that caught my eye. You know, it's it's showing um a budgeted amount of only $1,100 and um and that we've almost exhausted that amount of money. There's only 8% left. So, that's where that last column is really helpful. So BSNA just caught on um that the pensions were not being split right and so I don't know something happened in their system at the beginning of the new fiscal year and so I had just fixed that with them. Um so I'll I'll look into that why that shouldn't be yeah like that. So I'll fix that.
Okay. The other thing is is um under just for everybody's awareness under that auditing and accounting services I assume this is the mayor castarison costs. Yep. Right.
>> So we put $45,000 in for the budget and um this was a bill that was paid recently $10,000. So I'm trying to remember if that was just one bill or not. And it looks like this this document retained some possibly some hot links. I guess no I'm wrong.
>> Only if you have BSNA open.
>> Okay.
>> Gotcha.
>> All right. Um we also had some late fees. You know, this is on page 48 of the packet. Late fees in here under the general fund. a very small amount of money, but obviously this is getting back to this issue that we'll talk about later in the meeting about um spending money that's actually not allocated in the budget. So, stuff like that. So, we need to make sure we're we're not doing that kind of thing. So, if there's late fees from it being paid late, where would you suggest that go?
>> So, we just need to make a budget amendment. That's what you're saying.
>> Yes. if if if that's something that we want to if we want to track something like that at that level of granularity.
Yes. Versus you have the option of putting it under miscellaneous.
Um that would be my immediate suggestion as far as options. Um I know that the more um budget items we have the more difficult it makes your jobs. It's a tradeoff as far >> I'd rather I'd rather know that it's a late fee rather than a miscellaneous expense, you know.
>> So, um, so I'm looking for anything else here.
So, so there was another one down here under the elections department. I was surprised to see a Medicare charge that came in.
>> So was I. Cuz that's wrong.
>> And that's Yeah. So again, those are opportunities to try and fix those.
Um, and I I think all board members need to start looking at it carefully. Um, I also saw that we went over um, and this is on page 49, the border review for uh, meals lodging. You know, we provide food to the border review uh, during March. And so I'm not sure why that's >> that was the amount. I went back and looked to make sure that >> shouldn't that have been posted against the prior fiscal year?
>> Uh I can only post it for when it was received.
>> Okay.
>> So yes, true.
>> Okay. Because it was delayed probably because that was I know I did that visa bill whenever. Yeah.
>> Okay. But obviously we didn't allow enough money. So we need we need to make a budget amendment on that. Also >> go back to that Medicare expense in the election. That's still from the conversion. Those are little things that are just like still popping up and going, "Okay, that's something I need to look at."
>> So, yeah, >> not something that I've entered wrong.
>> Okay.
>> Um, and I noticed this um township hall and ground snowplowing services, you know, half the money's been expended. Now, we did have those storms in April and there might have been some lagging payments there. I will still be as I'm trying to finish up the fiscal year, I'm trying to go through and make sure that everything is in the correct fiscal year. I believe it was um as much as I've seen in here. So, um yeah, that might actually be true.
Okay.
And then getting down into the zoning administrator planning, there was a small charge for um software support which we didn't have money budgeted for that and I'm not sure normally um I'm not sure what that particular charge was.
I'm not sure either. Um I was probably something that's automatically set up.
So when we have put things invoices into the system and it's for software for instance we already have um something that's defaulting for it. So and if you know we don't know any different that's where it goes.
>> Okay. So that way somehow yeah that needs to get reallocated and and again I'm not sure whether this was some kind of individual situation versus anything to do with social explorations but I will be very anxious to try your hot links. I think that sounds like a great idea.
Okay. And I'm looking down to see what other highlighted ones and so and I'm happy to provide you this this version that's highlighted if if you need it. Um there was uh an on call wages item here in the fire department where zero was budgeted but so I wasn't really explained that. So um I guess recently Josh and I had to talk about how that he and Tim decided in the budget that it would be going under a different um line item. So I need to change everything now in my system. So, it'll be a lot of work for me to actually go through the payroll and make the different amounts into different accounts. So, I that's something that I need to go do. And so, I will make sure that those are all correct. Okay. And then there was also um a professional service that was quite expensive that almost exhausted his his balance in there. So, it's getting really close.
And I'm not sure if that was one or multiple charges. It was the same thing in the fire department. They're down to 2%.
>> He's really good at um making sure what should be where. So, um I will talk to him about that one.
Yep. And let me see if I got any more yellow in here.
And bear with me as I scroll down my screen.
But I think that's that's all that I had. But I guess I'd like to It's really important that we start looking through this closely every month because it's a lot harder to untangle it if we let it go. Yeah, it's a lot harder to see it if you don't look at it. And we are supposed to be looking at it monthly.
>> Just have one question. Under planning commission publishing $290. I don't know what was published.
It could be um uh public hearings.
>> I was going to say is that like how much does it usually cost? I guess I didn't 70. Yeah.
>> I was thinking document publishing, but that's that's the public hearing then.
Okay.
>> Yeah.
Any other questions?
>> One point on the public hearing stuff.
Did you know that the Elk Rapids paper is now being delivered south of 72?
>> Yes. She received a grant. So Sarah, my deputy, actually called and said, "Hey, can we get it here at the town hall?"
And she said, "Good news. We're going to >> do that anyway." So yeah, it's awesome.
>> That was not known to me till last week.
>> Yeah.
>> When you got it in the mail.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Do we know does Island Lake qualify for that too with their We can >> ask Rod Revant about that.
>> Okay. All right. So, I um I'll make a motion to approve the uh or I usually this is to receive and file, but motion to approve.
>> You didn't technically take it out of it. You just wanted to discuss it.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, you're saying we don't need a motion for that.
>> All right. Moving on. Unfinished business. Um, so all of the park stuff, we are moving that after new business.
So we won't discuss that. Uh, boat wash update.
So that's on page 120 of your packet.
So Tim put in an update here. So there's been some activity here in the month of May. Um, just for everybody's benefit to review, we received only one uh bid on the job for $75,454.
Um, the engineering estimate for the project had been roughly $45,000. So there's a significant discrepancy. Um, so both Tim and I met with Walton Contracting as the bidder and talked about the the breakdown of the cost and trying to understand why it was so high.
So, we went through that with him on the phone and then we actually had a followup um where we met um with some of the subcontractors as well at Whitewater Township Park a few weeks ago to just you know look at the site again and talk about what can we can do to reduce the cost because the 75,000 is really substantially more than what we had planned for and budgeted for. And so then after we did that and we generated some ideas, um last week Tim and I met with C2AE, uh the engineering folks and the project manager and um what they're going to do is they asked for a couple pieces of information. So the original design that C2AE came up with um the water was coming all the way from the well head which is right behind the bath house which is a quite a long ways and it was felt that that was a lot of the excessive cost to run a a large water line and we talked about do we really need it? Do we not? Another element that we um had was they had originally had the electrical service to the boat wash also creating a termination point at the future um park ranger station which is right as you're driving in at park ranger station and boat wash in close proximity. And so based on that, we came up with based on the ideas from the contractors and the ideas from C C2AE, um we came up with the idea to instead run the water from the dump station, which is about half the distance. And so we're hoping that will generate some significant cost savings. We also talked about getting rid of um there was this huge concrete pad for the boat wash um mechanical equipment to sit on top of a raised concrete pad. And um looking at other boat washes in the area, they just just use a gravel pad. And so um there's a couple of these relevant changes. And so what we are recommending is that we move ahead and have C2AE adjust the drawings. They'll they can work on that.
I've asked them for a bid, but um I only got them. They asked for water pressure and water flow rate at the dump station just to make sure that that idea would work. I supplied that to them yesterday.
And so, um, I think it'll only be, um, I haven't gotten a quote yet, but I think it'll be less than the amount that Wendy and I are authorized to have them redo the drawings and rebid the job. And because of the timing now, we'll probably do it in the fall if we can get an acceptable bid.
So, that's a lot of lot of talking. It will have to be rebid out. Yeah. Later in the summer.
>> Yeah. what I had asked them to try. We would really want to try and bid this if possible by late July, early August with work being done after Labor Day.
So that that's kind of what we came up with. So it fits with the park schedule, right? we would even though some the other thing um we talked about is having on there the option of trenching versus boring the original drawing said you have to bore everything and I think it opens up the possibility to other contractors if we just say you know get it in the ground that's all you got to do is get it in the ground we don't care how you get it in the ground >> where's the location of the boat wash actually is it in >> I just you drive into the park um you see kind of that split that happens where you go right if you want to go down to the boat launch area or go straight to go into the camping park >> where the road is for >> right yeah right there on the right hand side you'll see there's a really large gravel area and we've already ex um the brownwater discharge permit is still in process with the DNR so actually right now even if we had agreed to a contractor we don't we could probably do the construction but we couldn't operate the boat wash until you get the water discharge permit and we don't have any reason to believe that it'll be denied.
It's just >> delayed. It it hasn't been they received it and acknowledge receipt. They haven't given us the approval yet.
So, we were going to follow up on that as well.
So, if everybody's comfortable with it, um we will go ahead and proceed. I would expect within a week I'll get now that I gave the flow rate and we got plenty of flow of water at the dump station. And so, um, I would assume we'll get a an estimate from C28 regarding the number of, uh, hours and the price to redo the drawings.
It's not huge.
>> Did you have a question?
>> I just wanted to real quick say I was I actually called Tim yesterday. I was going to talk to him about that a little bit >> because I did go over there and look at it and I got a couple other guys to come look at it and everything you just said I was going to bring up that you know they were there's $20,000 into running the waterline as it they engineered you right out of that job. So I just wanted to everything you just said was good and it's going to save you a bunch of money and I actually you I can't think of anything you didn't cover that I was going to bring up. So >> Okay. Well, and I'm I'm hoping too that um you would be interested in quoting um I I think the other thing is uh um initially there was some thought that you know is is but this can be easily finessed. We were doing two two wash ones. Um but that's not where all the money is getting lost. That's that's pretty cheap actually. The power washers are the cheap part of the project. It's all the infrastructure in the ground that's costing the money.
>> So with that though, we do need to deal with the existing quote per the sealed bid process. A sealed bids good for 90 days. And so we we do need to deal with um the Walton contracting bid. And so um there's a motion in here. So I'll make this motion to reject the bid from Walton Contracting for the boatwash station project.
>> Second that motion, Melnik.
>> Okay. So motion made by slopes, seconded by Milnick. All in favor?
>> I I >> I.
>> Those opposed? None opposed. All right.
All right. Next, we've got website status.
Wendy.
Um, so Brick House has not received his $1,500 deposit yet in snail mail or via check. So he we have not started anything yet. Oh wow. Do we have any idea where because we already approved that, right?
>> Oh, that was at the last meeting. Yes.
And was mailed to him. So >> he doesn't have the contract.
>> He he he does not have the money in hand yet. So he would like, you know, before he starts anything.
>> So it was a contract, but it had a deposit.
>> I think wasn't the contract 3,000 and the deposit was 1,500.
>> Correct. Yes. So, is that something we can >> um I'm sure it'll just be in the next couple days here so we can get started on things.
>> Do we have any idea from the treasur's office if they send it out?
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah, it was sent It was just sent like, you know, the next week and then it's snail mail. So, or two weeks, you know, 11 days later.
Okay.
Give me a break while I make a note for myself here.
Okay, the next item I have is Treasury corrective action response. So that's on page 121. So just one page down from the boat wash.
Okay. So, this is this letter we got from the Treasury in response to our audit filing. And there was uh you can see there right in the middle. Um a request for uh corrective action and it involved actual expenditures exceeded amounts authorized in the budget. We actually had some discussion on that earlier at our here at our meeting today. uh non-compliance with uniform chart of accounts issued by the department of treasury and bank reconciliations not performed timely.
>> What page I'm sorry again?
>> 12121.
So this is something that um we discovered late. They have the wrong email for me and um we never got anything snail mail or email. So we we discovered this as part of working with Mayor Caster. So um I did get some feedback from Jill on responding to uh bank reconciliations not performed timely.
So um this was on the agenda for everybody's awareness um and the need to respond to this really in the next couple days. So comments, Wendy, >> I sent you the emails that were responded from uh Gabbridge and Manor Caster and that they have kind of differing views. You know how detailed it needs to be, but obviously we need to do something in response.
>> Okay. Um I believe in separate conversations. You told me the uniform chart of accounts that it has been addressed.
>> Yes. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, the one thing that's hard about this is um you know, this is an audit that covered through March of 2025. So, we're talking about stuff that was four months in the audit, right?
Yes. This is about the first four months. and and some of this I'm not sure may or may not have been present from the prior board. But the point is you're talking about a lot of old information and there's a possibility this still perpetuated through a portion of the fiscal year that we just closed out. So this is something that's a very lagging measure, but we still need to respond to it.
>> Right.
>> And so uniform chart of accounts has been addressed. I think Jill spoke in the last meeting to the fact that um we have had Mayor Caster helping us with the bank reconciliations and I think her final training is when she returns in June is what I believe she stated in the last meeting.
>> So hopefully at that point that that will be good to go at this point. Um, and then you sent me a separate note on do we need to still talk about what we just talked about as far as the actual expenditures exceeding the amounts authorized.
>> I think we know our plan going forward and that you know as a board we all agree that was the point of having on the agenda.
>> I think that's the point of discussing it. So certainly what we did today monitoring is okay but that's kind of after the fact. And do you want to explain to to Randy and the public about BSNA and the difference that exists with having BSNA and Oh, it's yeah, a huge difference.
So, uh BSNA is the software that is going to help us actually, you know, monitor all of this a lot accurately and have everyone having access to it is uh a huge deal. Um it did um adjust the chart of accounts as well. That's why that's not an issue anymore.
um and having the actual expenditures in front of you, you know, as they're happening is um a much better way to assess what's happening other than, you know, after the fact in reports. So So um I think you said I just want to make sure I understood it correctly, that with BSNA, you you actually do get a popup if you try and enter correct an invoice for payment, right? It doesn't have adequate funds >> or if it has no budget at all. budget, >> right?
>> Okay. So, obviously we know from just what we look through today. Um, but there is a way to override that, >> I believe. So, I haven't that more.
Yeah. But in any case, yeah, we'll we'll try to make a process in our system in in our office as well trying to catch those.
>> Yeah. Because because there could be two reasons for spending more money on something, you know, it could be that valid. we didn't we didn't anticipate and adjust the budget funding for an item. But the other reason could be you might be trying to put it into maybe the improper account. It's an error. And that was I think the example of that overtime that you pointed out.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. So, there's a couple reasons for that.
>> And so, my plan was to to work with Monday here hopefully this afternoon to to respond to the Treasury. and um you know yeah we've gotten a little bit of different advice between Gabbridge and Casterson. So, um, just about how detailed really, but not the basic.
>> But I think at this point it's important for us to I mean we're late because we didn't get the letter timely and so I think it's important that we reply and then they will let us know if they want more information and we'll continue to follow up. But I think we're all clearly acknowledging and aware of these issues for sure.
>> So let me ask has there been any response to this letter at all up till now? No.
>> Uh, yes. I sent them a note back and just said, "I just received this. My email is wrong."
>> I also went online and reset myself up with uh an ID and password because you have to respond online. And when I did that, I found that they had the wrong P.O. box. So maybe that's why we didn't get any mail. Um, and and so I I noticed these other errors in the system and there was not a way for me to repair the address. And so I I added um they had an area I could put comments in. So I added that into the comments that there was a problem with my email and I I unfortunately have received nothing back from them other than an ID and password.
>> That was just recently, right?
>> Yes. This this was uh earlier this week.
I got set up on that. And so, yeah, I mean, I've communicated a couple times.
I don't get anything back except for an ID and password. So, I feel like I'm talking to a computer, not a person. Oh, and their phone wasn't working.
>> And these are from January and February.
So, we don't know honestly what's with them until we send something formally.
>> The phone their phone system was not working, right?
>> Yeah. So, I >> see they have a question mark in front of supervisor. I might have turned it off.
>> That was the error in my email. Yeah.
So, okay. So, I I think once we put together the final response, we can distribute that to the board just so you have a copy of what we did.
>> Okay, moving on. The next item here, there's nothing in the packet on this, is um follow up on uh scheduling a civil infraction special meeting.
So, after getting information from everybody, um I landed on the date of June the 30th, that's a Tuesday, at 6:00 p.m. I continue to have conversations with um Elk Rapids Township and the village up there. I have a reservation to use their governmental center meeting room. And so that's a double room that has adequate capacity.
And uh so that was just rounding things out. I think I sent a note to all board members and Kheld and LIAA so that they would put that on their calendar. And so the intent on that is um Peter Wendling, our attorney, will be there to give an overview of civil infraction. I provided him past meeting minutes from last September as well as some of the some of the relevant uh public comments um that were made um so that he can make sure he addresses that in his presentation. I recently sent all the board members an email saying if you have any lingering concerns or questions, you need to get those to me so I can get them to Peter.
the meeting will be much more efficient if if that can be built into his presentation to answer those questions.
People can still ask additional questions, but I think the better he's able to address that in his presentation and have the similar issues together, I think will will make it more understandable by both the board and the public.
So, any input on that? The meeting will be livereamed much like a regular meeting.
>> Yes.
>> And an agenda items just to include enforcement policy. So what I was going to have him do is address the overall civil infraction and have him do the presentation first. Um then we can have some public comment after that. Um we can continue to have board discussion after the public comment. Um and then I'm going to include in the packet um the same information I provided previously the recommendation from the attorney is there's three things that we need to do and they would be um update the enforcement section on the general ordinances. The general ordinances already indicate civil infraction, but that language needs to be standardized across all of them. So that's about five general ordinances.
Um, we need to adjust the enforcement portion of the zoning ordinance to also be that same consistent language of civil infraction.
It currently says misdemeanor and 90 days in jail. And then the last thing is we have our ordinance enforcement policy which I brought to the board about a month and a half ago. We already have an ordinance enforcement policy and procedure.
I rewrote that and added a flowchart and Peter Wendling had some adjustments to it as well. And so I had him reook at that again to make sure that that's the way it needs to be. So that that would be at this meeting after the presentation and after the discussion that other documentation would be there and we could take action on updating the general ordinances directing the PC to update the zoning ordinance because that has to go through them first and that has to go through public hearing with them and then come back to us for approval and then we could adopt also the revised ordinance enforcement policy that includes a flowchart, simplified language, all that stuff and that will be part of his presentation, >> right?
He can answer any questions on any of those proposals.
So, concerns with that plan at all?
Okay. All right, then we will proceed to put together that packet. So, it's going to be a busy June month with um with all of that.
Okay, moving on. We've got um discussion on moving township pensions to Mers.
Okay, I I asked him to work on this in his role as deputy supervisor. He had a discussion with the MS people. They said transitioning the pension is is very simple and easy. Um I believe he set them up to come and make a presentation at the 625 meeting to us and I think the only thing they said they needed from us was plan documents which I've sent you've sent those our 218 agreement um all of our current uh plans and what they entail.
Okay.
So, >> remind me the the reasons. I know we've had issues with John Hancock. Is there what's what's the benefit to going to MS?
>> I think that the MS person probably can address that more, but John Hancock, I mean, there's pros and cons to both. Uh pros for the John Hancock is it's very portable. Our employees can take it with them. Um it's accessible to them, that kind of thing. It's actually costs the township less. By the way, uh a MS program is more um for retaining employees. Um it's not as easily portable. They would have to go to another municipality and but they could buy in their time, that kind of thing.
It's a state program. Um I think that it has to be funded. It's funded a little differently as well. It's not as risky to have the MS program. you know, it's a guaranteed amount of money while the John Hancock is, you know, more on the stock market, that kind of thing. So, >> so you can buy years of credit in the MR system.
>> Yes.
>> Which you can't do in John Hancock.
>> Correct.
And it it is um a thing that people who routinely work for municipalities, for instance, the fire chief or a teacher um you know, that kind of person would would be interested in the Mers.
>> So that might be something to help retain employees.
>> Correct. Or Yeah. Or even >> attract employees.
So um yeah, I think it it is good to um further understand that as far as the portability and >> if you want um if if somebody wants to um roll over the MS, how how and how how does that happen >> to to like a private IRA type of a thing?
>> I don't know.
>> I'm not sure. But we need to ask those questions because that that's important.
Yeah.
>> So the people that are participating is um and we would have to understand too if this was I don't know how many um former employees we have correct on the John Hancock program because if it's going to impact them that matters.
>> Correct.
>> So um so th those are important questions.
So, I guess I want to ask this question again just because I know we we have had problems with um posting of, you know, Wendy does the payroll every other week and we have had issues with lagging posting of money to our employees and and that can be a really big deal on their ability with as good as the market was last year and this year so far. It can be a big problem if money isn't posted on a on a like a repeatable cadence. And we go through two companies, right? We we deposit to Acure and Acure deposits to John Hancock.
>> Correct.
>> So it's not a it's not a direct thing.
>> Yeah.
>> So um can can you enlighten us a little?
I know you've talked about this before with us, but like what's your assessment of that process at this time?
>> They have uh poor customer service as well. Um it's just a it's almost like you're trying to put in this piggy bank and then they take it from that piggy bank and then they're going to wat it, you know, that kind of thing. You don't really have very much control over it.
I'm not sure how the MS system um changes that. I think that MS is at every conference, every, you know, MTA event, so they're readily accessible.
Um, and it's a just a special thing that, you know, because you work as a public servant, you can be um, but I think it might be an annual where you pay to it annually. So, I'm not sure.
So, I think it has a different loading system to it as well. So, >> so we would need to understand this, >> right? the pros and cons of all that.
>> I mean, and I guess we all need to be prepared for there might not be a great solution, >> right? So, I I just think it's mostly important that everybody know, >> you know, what the portability issues are and what is reasonable to expect regarding um being able to see acknowledgement >> um on what time interval.
But right now you're you're doing these transactions every pay period. Is that correct? Correct.
>> Yep.
>> Yep.
>> Every two weeks.
>> So just like she does social security and and there she she does um >> deposits both for the employee contribution program as well as our quote unquote retirement program.
>> Right. And then there's Voya too that two people participate in.
>> Yeah. The Voya is the employee contribution, >> right? Yeah. But yeah, so if MS is less work for me, I'm all for that, too.
>> Yeah. Well, and then there's the that reliability thing. And honestly, I meant to check my account yesterday, but I didn't get around to it to just just see. But you can see when you look in a John Hancock >> account, right, >> big gaps.
>> You can see I mean your the Malap >> the MS gives it to you quarterly. So I don't know about if they have a portal or Yeah. So just good good for people to know.
>> Yeah. Okay.
Next one is um Josh. Well, Josh is supposed to be here, but um because he is not at this moment, why don't we go to the Let me do a time check here.
We're at an hour and 45.
Did you guys Oh, he's driving in right now. How about we take a five minute break? So, make a motion to take a fivem minute break.
I'll second. Okay. So, if we can be back here at um 10:50 50.
unmuted now.
>> Okay, Josh. So, we uh grouped all your items together and I know there there's se several. So, um would you like to talk about grants first?
>> Yeah. So, >> page 71 in your packet.
up here.
>> It's the water and ice rescue enhancement project.
>> Yep.
So, it is the deadline for the tribal grants is the 31st. It has to be postmarked by So, this is the spring cycle. Uh, so the intent is to just upgrade our ice and water rescue equipment. We have three suits right now, one of which has a hole in it, so I mean it still works, but you get a little bit of water when you go in.
>> Uh, so >> defeats the purpose.
>> Uh, it's still it's still functional, but it's just at that point where it's time to replace that equipment. So my intent is to go for a tribal grant to get our life vest up to code um and our ice rescue suits, getting a dry suit, gloves, helmets, all of the things that would just go in the kit for water rescue and ice rescue. Did >> I can't remember, did you use this last winter in December, the issue in Kasca County?
>> Yep. We used it at the call in Kasca County and we also used it on a call on Elk Lake that turned out to be nothing, but we still entered the water. So, >> okay. All right. So, it sounds like even if you don't get this grant, you need this. These these are items that will be on the docket for replacement in the next fiscal year.
>> Do you mean the current fiscal year?
>> Um I didn't budget for them in this fiscal year. So we'll have to I'll have to reconvene and look at the budget, but there >> all right. So, um, I'll make a motion to authorize Whitewater Township Fire Department to submit a Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chipoa Indians 2% grant application in the amount of $7,995 for the water and ice rescue enhancement project.
>> I'll second that, Melnik.
>> So, motion made and seconded. All in favor?
>> I I >> opposed. None opposed.
Okay. So, your next one get on to this.
>> The next round is December. Is that >> Yes. Yep.
>> All right. So, the next grant is on page 78 of the packet. Apparently, I that finger my computer.
All right. So, this one is um FEMA assistance to firefighters grant.
>> Yep. So, they just released um when the federal government opened back up the Department of Homeland Security, they um reinitiated the assistance to firefighter grants. These are 5% match grants. It's very similar to the fire protection safety grant we got last year, but this is uh specifically for either purchasing turnout gear, fire apparatus, um things of that nature.
looking through the list of their high priority items that they would fund uh and trying to match it with where we're at as a department. Uh the biggest thing that we talked about as a team is purchasing a gear extractor, which is essentially a wash machine, a gear dryer, and um new storage racks for our turnout gear. Uh currently we have to go into Trevor City Fire or into Metro Fire to wash our gear and it's a a whole day process. So the intent is to apply for this grant. Um we're going in at the lower amount. We're not going to go for like the we're not asking for a lot uh with the purpose of getting this installed. Uh electrical, plumbing, all of that is included in the grant as well. So >> can you explain to us the reason for washing like decam decontamination also why you can't just have a regular washing machine and what exactly this is you're asking for.
>> Yep. So that's a really good question.
Uh so a regular washing machine has the the drum spins at too many RPMs.
Uh these machines are designed to spin and they're a little more gentler on the gear. The faster you spin the turnout gear, the more damage you do to it. And it actually lessens the lifespan of the turnout gear. Um so it um essentially you you take years off of the permeability of you know it makes more permeable. You're going to get more carcinogens um in into you because of that. But the reason for the cure washer is that it's for the carcinogens. Um you know we go and fight a structure fire you come out. It used to be a point of pride. You know your gear was dirty and that was a thing. But now they're finding that, you know, if we wash our gear after every single fire, after every single training evolution, it is helping us at the end of the day.
So, we're trying to the the entire point of this is the the cancer mitigation.
It's why I got the tribal grant in the last cycle to do POS free gear. So, that way that helped potentially um mitigate cancer in the future for our firefighters. And now having a a gear washer, extractor, and dryer part of the process. next step of that process.
>> All right.
Any other questions?
All right. Motion to authorize the Whitewater Township Fire Department to prepare and submit fiscal year 2025 FEMA assistance to firefighters grant AFG application for turnout gear, decontamination, drying, storage equipment, and related install costs.
Um, I just noticed this says fiscal year 2025. Is that a typo?
>> Nope. That is the grant cycle for the federal government is 2025.
>> Okay.
>> Because of because of the shutdown, it Okay.
>> It's still money from that fiscal year.
>> Okay. So, I've made the motion.
>> I'll second that.
>> Okay. Motion made by Sopa, seconded by Hokima. All in favor? I >> opposed.
None opposed.
You have a soft voice there, Randy.
>> Skipped. I was reading something.
>> Okay.
>> All right. So, that's approved.
And then um on the following page, I think there is this is more of a discussion item.
So, I think uh Josh provided a list of potential improvements that we could apply for a grant to um the tribe here.
So, you want to kind of talk about what you've got here?
>> Yeah. So, on the park side, um obviously it's only been a couple weeks since I've been in the role. So kind of was seeing the grants come up and and in talking to Tom Bernicki uh and Linda as well and put together a little bit of a list. Uh you know the first project is obviously continuing to fund the boat wash station. Um seeing if they would provide another uh potential you know $20,000 or so to get that project over that final hump. Uh other concepts we uh talked about was trying to maybe get conceptual drawings uh going for grant money to get conceptual drawings to make our beach ADA compliant um at the at the township park. Uh the tennis court resurfacing project. We looked at the playgrounds uh mainly at high at the township park, not so much high prey of doing uh safety malts installation there.
Uh and then just some other little things that we were talking about is just trail wayfinding installation stuff kind of making it more interactive and uh and things like that just to better prove health of our residents if they're out hiking and knowing where our trails are. So just just some high level uh things in in a couple days that I tried to put together to knowing the grant cycle was coming up.
>> Yeah. So the the paperwork's due by May 31st.
>> Postmark by May 31st.
>> Postmarked by May 31st.
>> It's in two days. Three days.
>> As in three days from now. Yeah.
>> Three days. So Sunday. So um so a couple I would like to make a couple comments about a couple of these that I'm aware of. So, first of all, like you know, from what we talked about on the boat wash previously, you know, we really do anticipate the cost of the boat wash more like 45,000. The tribe already gave us 20,000 and um we essentially have already spent the 20,000 on the engineering services including topographical survey that we did late last fall in order to make sure the water would flow appropriately. the discharge water after you spray something off in order to get the groundwater discharge permit and to make sure that it wouldn't pool inappropriately and create a mud hole.
So, we basically have spent the initial grant for this project and that's important um to the tribe, too. They don't like you asking for more money unless you've >> um properly used what you've already been given. So, >> I'm not clear on that. We spent $20,000 on the topography of the >> It was uh >> topographical survey and it was um the engineering services from C2A to do the drawings >> and bid process.
>> One other item. Yeah, the bid process all that. There's one other item that I'm not recalling immediately. It was a small item, >> but we basically spent this money >> and on a 2% tribal grant, there is a portion to do this as a continuation project. So, we could state that we're requesting money from a project that we've already had funded through them.
>> So, this is this is one thing I know this is important to the tribe, their environmental group, and they've been very instrumental in assisting Lake Leela um with their boatwash stations.
they have sponsored and put their logo on every boat wash station. So, that's just information. I'm not asking for a decision right now. Um, I also want everybody to just make sure you're remembering correctly. We applied for money to redo our tennis courts um because we have some significant cracking. I mean, I'm concerned we could lose the asset if we don't do something soon. We had the cracks filled last year. Um, but you know, the cracks are big and continuing to get bigger. And so they turned us down on that one last year. So, um, I I'd have to pull the file to see exactly how much we asked for last year, but it is expensive. I mean, >> it's an expensive project.
>> We asked for significant I mean, that was a high ask project. Um, >> yeah, asking them for for Did we ask for more than 20 last time?
>> Significantly more than that. Yeah, it was like a $45,000 ask. And what they do suggest, and this is just for board information, is they ask for us to apply for more than one um typically because then they'll see the projects and prioritize based on their needs. This cycle I was not able to get what their because there's one cycle that they do education and another one that they do public service projects and they kind of pick their priorities and I was not able to garner that information this time around. So, So, I would say that um I've noticed like increased usage of the courts more recently in the last couple years and and I've been approached by a couple citizens about, you know, it's not just the cracks, just so everybody knows, like the um surface that they put over top of the asphalt base is significantly degraded. If you see it, you can see it's all spalled at this point.
So, that's something that we could consider trying to get again. Um, the next one I want to make a comment on is playground safety mulch. Okay. I believe right now we are non-compliant to playground safety because we have horrible amount of weed matting in there and that that is not that is not appropriate. Like you're you're allowed to have sand as a fall service, but it has to be loose. And if you had weeds with root mats in them, that that does not meet criteria. This is I mean that is something I think we need to do one way or another.
>> I remember walking out there and seeing how terrible condition.
>> It's embarrassing.
>> And then I remember the PRA proposing some improvements to the the equipment and we were concerned about putting the equipment on on top of >> a pretty rough surface. believe that was a discussion over a year ago and we haven't done anything which is that's on us. Um >> previous board too >> needs Yeah. Yeah. It has not been properly maintained. So I guess one question I have for you Josh is um I'm not sure how much accuracy that playground safety mulch installation has. I was kind of doing rough estimates based off of just what it was >> cost per square foot versus the square footage of what our playground was. I essentially did both playgrounds that and High Prey Park because if we're doing one even though the High Prey Park one is sand. I was just airing on the side of caution when I built that. But it could be significantly more, it could be significantly less. It really depends on what we choose. And the hide prey one, you know, size-wise is a lot lot smaller.
>> And I know that the the P got out there and helped deweed that a few years ago.
I'm s I haven't looked at it closely lately, but last time I looked, it was still in pretty decent shape, which I was surprised, but they've also got uh timbers enclosing their false surface.
And so they they've got a little bit of help on that.
>> It's contracted. So, so when you say mulch, is that wood mulch or are you thinking the other >> there? There's I mean there's the rubber mulch, there's the wood mulch, there there's a bunch of things to to that I haven't done the research on what exactly it was, but >> it's that let's let's ask for the grant.
Let's get some money coming and >> there's chips too.
>> Yeah.
>> So, um >> but it's definitely a project I think needs to be either grant funded or we need to prioritize.
So, I think the only concern that I would have um asking the tribe to help with that is, you know, they they may view that as gee, that's maintenance. You should be handling that. They they tend to more don't they tend to grant more free capital.
>> Yeah.
>> So, um >> they'd be more apt to fund new playground equipment as opposed to probably the >> but they may view the tennis courts that way, too.
Um the only thing is maybe they would understand the need a little bit more on the tennis courts as far as um it it's a larger amount of money needing help with larger expenses, but but they may view it the same way.
Okay, that's the end of my feedback on this.
>> I think the playground is important and I'd love to see that fixed. is the is like regular mulch or wood chips is one of the >> I believe so, but don't >> you could get like just yards of mulch from >> Yeah, I would I would need to look I have it all on my computer. I cannot >> There's ADA requirements there to concerned about.
>> Right. Well, not every playground has to be ADA with the >> Well, that could be a sidewalk or Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, it it's if if you guys are I mean, I guess what I'm asking what I could ask for is if I maybe I write two of them essentially this afternoon and early tomorrow and we could go for the boat wash and or tennis court. I mean, I I can do more than one >> and then I mean let them >> let them pick. If they pick all, they pick all. If they pick none, they pick none. Um, I I'm kind of tending to think that we we just need to do the playground. I I mean, I think we need to call we should be able to call a few different landscapers and >> get some help on how they would remove that that material. I mean, it is kind of a challenge long term because I think that, you know, we all know how that goes, removing weeds and then they come back at you. I do think we have a certain amount of supply of wood chips from the tree work we did late last fall.
>> Yeah. To see if they're compliant or >> I'm not sure if they can be used or not, but I I do know that I had asked Tom to try and put them in an area where it wouldn't be overly difficult to to repurpose them if we could use them.
like the idea of framing this as we're getting the surface where it needs to be so that we can add new equipment in there because we >> our our equipment is it is old.
>> It is old. It needs to be replaced. But before we replace it, we should get the surface.
>> We should do the surface first before putting equipment in for sure because we we have a giant footprint and do we need the giant footprint that we have currently?
>> Question.
I support getting several applications in.
>> Okay. So, are are you thinking all three of those or are you thinking just two of them?
>> I'd like the tennis court one and the playground safety.
>> I mean, the other thing I would say is yeah, the tribe's already given us 20 for the boat wash. I mean, I think their original intent was they were paying for half of it and everything is our site is prepped and everything. It's just costs have really gone up. And that is the other thing that the contractors told me. I heard it from two contractors that lately the engineering estimates are not sufficient.
Um like they were not shocked that we were way off.
>> There's so much uncertainty about fuel costs and everything. Correct. Yeah. Oh, um just thinking about it from a tribe perspective, if they are trying to get their bang for their buck and they've already given money to the boat wash, it' be less likely to, you know, give it again. Um and the safety mulch, I do feel like that's a maintenance thing I would don't think the tribe would go for. um tennis courts is getting something for the bang for their buck kind of I feel more and the beach like you know that's always personally bugged me about that beach.
Um so I'd be more inclined to do the the beach and the tennis court.
>> Do we really think we can get like an ADA or concept proposal? Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um I mean I would tend to give that instead of to a C2A. I would tend to give that to can't remember the the firm that did the Acme Beach over here.
It's part of my thought process behind the ADA compliant beach was I know that the discussion for the five-year capital improvement plan is coming up >> and in going to the tribe and asking they seem to sponsor conceptual projects frequently. So, if we can get money for the engineering for it, then we have that in our back pocket for when the five-year plan is >> put forward and and it can be something that now we say we have the drawings, we have the conceptual, we know what it's going to cost, we can add it in in the future if that is something we so choose to do.
>> Yeah. My only concern with that that that beach thing to me there's two things going on. you're having a lot of erosion problems which is um it's um causing problems with the hill >> and um and the grade I mean the part that worries me is stating with an ADA concept I'm not even sure that ultimately is going to be possible because of the grade would concern me um how they would deal with that And to me, it's two different things. It's what's the accessibility and what do we do about stopping the constant damage.
>> Can we make it ADA compliant?
>> I'm not even sure you can make it ADA.
Maybe to the side.
>> We did get just for what it's worth, we did get quotes for moving in sand for the beach and to like help the hill. And I mean, we're we're $3,000 a year in sand to keep the beach. That's what we spent last year.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> $3,000 in sand, >> right?
>> Well, and if you go out there, I just went by there the other day in my boat and um yeah, you can see they had quite a bit of damage during winter.
>> So, so you you lose the sand from blowing, but then um ice damage.
>> It's the way it sets. Um, I'd also like to point out, you know, that whole area has a pavilion that's probably in disrepair and needs repair and it used to have a playground right there that is no longer there.
>> I think these are all real good ideas to have.
>> So, and I am a little worried that the $11,000 project cost for that design and concept. Um, I'm trying to think how much they spent when they just had that playground install.
You know, the prior board did that. And I mean, that seemed kind of minor and it was still five, six grand. Quite a bit of money.
So, I'm just want to make sure the numbers are realistic.
Okay.
>> I don't know if that's helpful or not.
Well, I I think we need to give him specific direction so he doesn't waste his time because we're supposed to say yes or no to um >> park things. So, can we agree that the most important thing is playground safety mulch or really should say playground fall surface >> that needs to be done no matter what.
>> Yes.
>> So, if we think that needs to be done no matter what, I think that's the most urgent need. How long before you know that this is funded and could it wait that long?
>> 30 days.
>> Yeah. 30 30 to 60 days. But it >> usually >> if it's a project that we think we need to do, >> we can start >> we can start doing it and then if we get the funding, we reimburse ourselves. If we don't get the funding, the project's done.
>> I think that's what we need to do. Does every is that consensus? Everybody to do this.
>> Yeah.
So, I'm wondering if um like back to the confidence level of the cost.
Maybe maybe you should incre I'm concerned that you're going to have quite a bit of labor cost to just um remove the weed matting and then you have to pay for um delivery and installation of the fall surface. And so >> what is the board willing? I mean >> I mean I think it's more like 20,000 is what it's going to cost us. And I mean should we be asking for half the money?
Should we be asking for three quarters?
>> Well, are we talking about just high prey or are we talking we're not talking about the campground or >> I would say predominantly it's a problem at Whitewater Township Park. I'm not aware that there's an immediate problem at High Prey.
>> So I would focus this on Whitewater Township. Okay.
>> And I I'm I'm asking the question, should we increase the total project cost to 20? I think that's more realistic >> and do a 50% match >> and maybe do a 50% match.
>> I support that.
>> That good. Okay. So, we'll have him turn that one in.
And then I heard people talk about the tennis court and the boat wash.
>> The tennis court one is already written last year. All I got to do is change the date. So, >> a lot easier. Yeah, but you're gonna ask for less money this time.
>> I have the quotes from last time.
>> Yeah, but I think the last time, didn't you ask for like 30 some,000?
>> So, I'll change the I'll bring it down a little bit and increase our our match.
>> Is everybody okay with that?
>> Restriping this for pickle ball, too. I guess I don't >> That was part of the plan. Yeah. to have dualpurpose quartz.
There's also the potential on that, especially with the pickle ball. Those those nuts typically are on large casters, 4-in casters, and we could certainly um put that out to the public if they would like to help donate to the the actual equipment.
You know, that would save I mean, I think that was at least five grand.
Yeah. Just each set of nuts is a good thousand dollars.
>> You know, >> I think it would probably be in our best interest on the if I re rehash that one is just just the resurfacing.
>> Yeah.
>> As we had went for the whole project.
>> Yeah. Including all the nets and all that. So I think there would be people that would contribute to um net purchase. That's substantially how they did it up in Kiwaiten was um citizen contributions.
>> Okay. We going to stick with those two throw in the third one.
>> Okay. All right. You got that then? So, you're going to do the tennis court resurfacing and the playground. Call it, please call it, uh, ball surface all surface improvement.
Okay.
Now, Linda, is there a motion?
>> Oh, uh, sure. I can make a motion.
>> We do that in the past.
>> Yep.
>> So, I'll make a motion.
to submit grants to the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chipoa Indians for the projects of tennis court resurfacing and playground safety fall surface >> at Whitewater Township Park.
That's probably confusing. Strike that.
Whitewater Township Park. It would be confusing if you put that in there. All right. So, motion made by SLSA, seconded by Milneck. All those in favor?
>> I.
>> Those opposed? Not imposed.
Okay. So, I'm looking for what else I got for you. You also had uh uh did you give us a handout for uh youth baseball banners? So it's it's this paper you've got requests for uh banners. This is something we do annually.
>> Yep. So the Elk Rabbit Youth Baseball reached out to me every year. They request permission to play sponsorship banners along the baseball field fence.
uh they use the money that they get for these to offset their programming expenses. Uh and then for every banner that they put up, they donate $50 to the township. So, what I'm just seeking is just um approval uh for the placement of the sponsorship banners and to allow them to put it up.
>> Okay. And this allows them specifically to display the banners from the month of May through the month of July and then they must be taken down.
Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the placement of the Elk Rapids youth baseball and softball sponsorship banners at the township baseball fields during the 2026 season of May through July.
Uh, subject to placement does not obstruct spectator visibility or interfere with field operations.
>> I'll second that.
All right. Motion made by slopes, seconded by Hopesma. All those in favor?
>> I >> I All right.
All right. And then uh Josh, then you had another addition here, adoption of fire protection personnel work period policy.
>> Yep. So what this policy uh is and what it is not is on the surface it looks like a loophole to avoid paying town overtime to employees. Um but it it it is not. Section 7K is part of the fab labor standards act and was created for fire and law enforcement agencies because we don't operate on our traditional office schedule.
They don't work a typical Monday through Friday 8 to 5. Staffing is definitely definitely fluctuates based on availability, emergency incidents, weekend coverage, uh vac vacation coverage. So, a firefighter may significantly work more in one week than they do in another week. Um depending on operations, uh the proposed policy does not remove overtime protections. the employee compensatory time. Um, in accordance with federal law, what this policy does is establishes a recognized work and period structures specifically designed for firefighters.
Under this proposal, it would be a 14-day work period.
Personnel would receive overtime after 106 hours worked during that period.
Uh, the average overtime threshold remains consistent with federal law.
This is used throughout the fire service um everywhere um like I said because we don't have that typical Monday through Friday. And the reason I'm proposing it is we have a limited pool of people that can work. And so if we have to cover vacation or if I have to be out of town, some of my firefighters might have to work a 48 hour shift. And while we keep everybody under 30 hours on average, I can have somebody work 48 hours in a week, but then they don't pick up the shift for another week and they stay consistent under 30 hours as part-time.
But if we were to not do something like this, I would then be subject to overtime in that 48 hour window because overtime is anything over 40 after one week. So it's it's it's trying to simplify the system, make it a little easier. Um, overtime has been a thing um that we've we've done dealt a little bit with like a position like the full-time firefighter park manager position. It would not qualify for this because that is not primarily firefighting. This only prim this only affects people that are doing primarily suppression services. So, >> and >> so this basically states that they get paid straight time >> until they hit >> all hours worked.
Okay. They receive overtime only when they hit 106 hours during the 14 >> Yep.
>> during the 14 day week.
>> Because right now I have employees who might pull a 24 and a 12 and then they go on a couple calls and then they don't come to training because they don't want to go over 40 hours. And so it makes it very difficult to but just with the nature of our job, if we had a six-hour wildfire and then they worked a 24-hour shift >> in one week, they're they're getting close already to to going into overtime.
So this kind of protects us. It protects them. Um it stops them from feeling like they don't they can't respond.
>> Well, it also puts you in compliance to a federal standard.
>> Yep. And it gives us important >> puts framework in in the future if we were to ever move towards um full-time staffing which >> uh that's just it's just a >> just putting it in place and it does change for the fire department our instead of our workday ending at midnight. So, what we've came across is I have a person working shift from Sunday at 7 a.m. until Monday at 7 a.m., but at midnight that goes on one per pay period and then the other seven hours goes on the other pay period. And so, what this does is it defines that work week. It kind of takes our our policy that we have in place for the township and just says that our pay period for the fire department ends at 7:59 a.m. on Monday.
>> Right. And and this runs concurrent with our payroll.
>> Yeah. Minus that Sunday into Monday like >> keep it simple for Yeah.
>> Correct. Yeah.
>> For you. So I I just wanted to add that I did take an MTA at the conference, the MTA class by Chad Karsten, who's a Fehee Schultz employment lawyer specifically about employment law in FIRE. And he did recommend that every township have this kind of policy. So, >> and that's and Chad is who the reason this all came up is because when we were reviewing the full-time firefighter park manager position, he sent me a large like summary of the 7K rule, which is what helped write this. So, >> okay, >> makes sense.
>> And this should go to exhibit A in our employee personnel manual.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. 3.0. So this will be in Yeah, >> it's just >> they attach, >> right? Exactly.
>> All right. That's important.
>> All right. We're ready for a motion.
>> I'll make a motion to adopt the fire protection personnel work period FSLA section 7K policy as presented.
>> I'll second that. Motion made by Milneck, seconded by Hokima. All those in favor?
>> I I >> opposed. None opposed. Okay. So, this is a document that needs to be signed here, Josh, by myself and the clerk.
>> That's what it says here, >> I believe. So, if it's a policy, >> I'm not I'm just looking at the paper here.
>> Yeah, >> it's attached to the >> Yeah, >> I'm just setting that aside so it doesn't sink away before I leave. Just get it done. Okay. Are there any other Oh, yes. I think you have other items.
>> Yeah. So, the High Prey Park, last thing, uh, I did not get to meet with, uh, the gentleman from GFL, Travis. He called me and I was in another meeting, but he went out to the site and reviewed it. I left a message with him, have not heard back from him. So, essentially, uh, what the project is moving of the recycling bins um, and potentially placing them at High Prey Park. Uh, we are looking at two locations on High Prey. uh one on Old 72. Um facing on the east side near the uh the old mechanic shop there. Uh not fire station side, not tennis court side, but basketball court side. Uh and then the other location is up off of El Lake Road. Um closer to the trailers and the ras the black raspberry bushes that are there along that fence line. um he was just going to go look at both sites, see if they would handle their trucks, if we needed to gravel them at all. But it's um consensus is that's the best of the two places in the township at the current moment to keep traffic flow moving and not dealing with like when I pulled in here today like there was four cars backed up and you could barely get in to to dump your recycling. So, >> so I had mentioned before Park Road by the uh cell tower. Has that been looked at at all?
>> Um, it it has. Uh, the consensus was people if you're going to drive down the dirt road that they might go up to Elk Rapids to dump it because they don't want to drive down Park Road to dump the recycling. But that was just from my conversation with township residents because I've been I've been inquiring just random surveys when I talk to people of what they think and that was one that kind of people didn't seem to be too thrilled about.
>> I've also heard that um Elk Rapids is moving their recycling away from being by their governmental center because that's where they're putting up some affordable housing. I think it's an affordable housing project and so they're I believe they're relocating it close to their um com trash compactor.
So that's not going to be as convenient for people to to get to up there either.
I've heard the same concern about not wanting to go down that dirty dusty road and you know that probably will further aggravate the dirty dusty road if we send a truck down there twice a week.
>> Okay. So, um >> I remember a conversation about trying to improve Park Road, too.
>> Yeah, but I don't know that that will the road commission does not have a project for that this year. There's our portion that we own.
>> I can't I personally can't imagine a GFL truck meeting a camper in some of those sections there. That would be >> that probably would not be good. But yeah, so we're still in the conceptual um kind of conversations. Hopefully by the next board meeting, I should have a little clearer picture because he did go out and put eyes on both sites. Um so my recommendation is the M72, old M72 side um by the So if you were where the Christmas tree is, if you're coming in off of Elk Lake Road, there's the Christmas tree. It would be to the east of the Christmas tree along that uh um split rail fence right there. We'd put up a six, seven foot, whatever is allowed in the township privacy fence.
>> Six >> six foot >> and then make it wide enough >> east of the Christmas tree.
>> Uh yeah. So on this side, so basketball court side.
So if you're looking at the basketball courts, it'd be on that side.
>> I just have concerns about getting in and out right there. There's a there's a drive. Um, >> actually, >> Ry's still here. So, Randy actually went out with me just as a >> as a resident and as somebody that does excavating and all of that. And that was his recommendation, too, was that side.
I mean, it it fits. It's flat. Maybe need a little >> more like across from the fire station.
>> Yeah. Kitty corner from the fire station there. But that's just one option. I mean, we can still if it doesn't work for GFL, then we have to go back to the drawing board. So, >> so I think the the problem is if we put it next to the mechanic's shop, there will be a certain amount of cost more than likely for gravel plus fencing >> potentially. Correct.
>> And and then alternately, we would just have the fencing charge if we put it on off of Elk Lake Road off the drive there to High Prairie Park.
>> So, there's definitely a cost difference. And I think your first rough cost was >> probably what you say 10,000.
>> 10,000ish,000. Yeah, that's what we we kind of estimated.
>> Yeah, >> I feel better about those locations and what I thought we were talking about, but >> so it's just like I said once uh I called him at 8:30 this morning, I have not heard back from him. So he called me at 5:00 last night. So >> Okay.
>> So I mean just So does the board have any opinions for Josh relative to the two different locations off the that basically off the Circle Drive?
um versus um to the west of the mechanic's shop. So on the east edge of the Hyperra property along Old 72, it's where it would be.
>> I would defer to Travis and GFL, you know, what he thought was the best.
>> Yeah. And I know that in in my in my survey of township residents as I've been talking to people is there is concern with the Elk Lake just because of little leagues and kids. It is set far enough back that, you know, I've I've observed parking over there and nobody typically parks in that area, but we've also seen how congested it gets here and I don't want to end up recreating another problem somewhere else. So, >> didn't you tell me Josh? Either way, we're not planning on double stacking these anymore. They'll just be in a line. So, I think that traffic flow is important. If people can just drive by, stop for a few seconds, put their stuff in and then drive away versus this pull up, back up, turn around and all that, Jimmy. And >> y >> I mean that that hurts the ability plus the stacking to use this. I mean everything is bad about the flow back here >> and the snow >> and the snow problem. So >> I guess I'm most interested in the type of screening we're going to have around that thing. There's like >> Yeah. So, my my my thought my first initial knee-jerk reaction is like a privacy fence, like a wooden a nice wooden privacy fence to to to hide them essentially from being seen from the road instead of like the the chain link fence that we have here. Like, if we're going to do it, I wanted to make it look nice.
>> This one was to prevent the garbage from going overflow or animals, I guess, getting from the swamp. Yeah, >> the intent is to make it blend into the atmosphere of the park but also have recycling which is a it's a huge component so everybody uses it. So >> I do think there's some benefits if you do it off off road just in terms of the speed in which we could implement and also cost >> and there's multiple drives there circle.
>> Yeah. I mean I'd really like GFL's input. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I'm going to guess that they're going to say that circle drive up there cuz they >> I saw a truck in there the other day just >> oh hanging out >> hanging out. So >> So let's just plan on having another update at the next meeting.
>> I think it's June 11th was the next meeting.
>> Yes.
>> Saying we should probably make a motion to do that special meeting.
>> Oh, okay.
That in a minute. Okay, that's all I have. I believe all set. Yep.
>> Okay, perfect. Thank you.
Um, regarding this, I think the supervisor is authorized to >> Yeah, you are, but it just Yeah, it's just an an a more formal way of doing it, but you don't need to.
>> I don't think we need to do that.
>> And it's going to be in the minutes and you're going to post it and do all that other stuff.
>> Okay. So, um I believe we're up to the last item for today, which is um review the policy and procedure manual.
Um and and we are coming up to our three-hour limit as well. So, um keep an eye on that. This has been in our packet many times now, >> three or so times, maybe four. So, hopefully we can get through it today.
So, um I think I do have the correct red line copy in the packet or Tim put it in here.
>> All right. So, that's at the very end here.
And this was already looked at by the legal, >> was it?
>> I don't think so.
>> Then yeah, that changes everything.
>> Think it was.
I don't believe it has, but I guess I would at least like to get everybody's input here today as a group. I don't recall that this was looked at. I think this was just edits provided.
>> This is goes back probably four or five months, I think.
>> Right. And I also don't believe that we've been having these sections looked at by legal. So, let's just talk about this and then we can talk about if we need a legal review, but it's that's a good good catch. So, would you like to step by through this uh page by page?
I don't think that's necessary for me. I just have a couple of tools.
>> Me neither.
>> Okay. So, why don't you go ahead? Which page would you like us to look at, Randy?
>> And obviously, the footer needs to get fixed. I >> think on page 126, time sheets being approved by the supervisor or clerk. I think that should be clerk. Okay, let's let's get that page 26.
>> Um, which uh heading is it under?
>> Number one, board of trustees.
Last sentence.
>> Okay. So, on mine it's Yeah. 26 >> that' be 3.4 four page I guess the top it says page four of seven and in the packet it's page number 126.
>> I'm going to have to write some detailed notes here. Okay. So tell me again which it's item under item one board trustees >> last sentence by the supervisor or clerk probably and clerk.
Okay.
>> And then below >> 4.1 >> matches my thought on that. I don't that's what's being done now.
>> Okay. So, you want this word and added instead of or.
>> I think that's a good idea.
In the case of park personnel, the park and recreation manager, do we still want those kind of words in there?
>> Okay. Which administrator, it's 3.6H on page five of that.
>> 3.6 H FGH, the parks and recreation.
I'm I'm wondering if we need Yeah. Uh, >> it's the wording since we seem to still have trouble >> and and or administrator.
>> I like doing manager or administrator.
>> Okay, Randy, did you have another item? I did under number two where we were before. I would just add at the end a new sentence saying time sheets must be uh approved um by the supervisor and clerk.
>> All right. So that would be >> 3.4.2.
So it's basically using um >> the same.
>> Wouldn't it be using the same language?
>> Yeah, except the except the planning commission may not be involved.
That's only as applicable if there's if it's impacting the planning commission's budget.
Okay, I have a lot of notes. I'll apologize ahead of time.
Um, Wendy, did you have anything more you wanted to edit on this?
>> No.
>> Okay. So, I I've read this numerous times and um you know, if we if we kind of back up and look at the original language again of what was in here, it stated and any non-salaried board, commission, committee, or society member who accepts additional occasional duties assigned by the body is eligible to request compensation through the additional activities compensation program and it says through the additional activities compensation program but there's not like another document that is the additional activities compensation program.
>> This is where you need legal.
>> Yeah. The request must be prepared by the body's chairperson and submitted.
Okay. So that's what it said. It was literally a two sentence policy and then it talked about submitting hours on an approved time time sheet. So we've got this revision and you know one thing I think that has been debated or concern has been expressed is just defining who is non salaried and I think that partly came out of um some of our documentation where it uses the word salary like I think at one point it said like a salary for a meeting >> that stuff. So, um somewhere in here I think it is helpful to make sure that we indicate um because this revision has it broken up between board trustees and other township commission or committee people.
Um I think I'm a big fan of absolute clarity. So I think somewhere in here adding a note. I just put it at the very bottom of section one under trustees note. The supervisor, clerk, and treasurers um are salaried employees and thus ineligible for this program.
Um, I I just think we shouldn't assume because technically we're we're all board trustees. I've heard that said a lot.
>> Gets back to what Wendy's saying. We should have legal review. It >> I'm a big fan of absolute clarity. So, I I would suggest that maybe we need that extra note that that clearly states the supervisor, clerk, and treasurer are salarying employees.
and ill ineligible if that's what we want this to say.
>> You also need to clarify if a supervisor, treasurer, clerk are giving additional duties, does that allow them to participate? And if they're going to be compensated for any additional duties that are not within their salaried statutory duty, >> if they're given additional duties, wouldn't that then relate to a change in their salary? No, because those are not statutory.
>> But I think it also depends if it's a temporary duty, right, >> or a permanent duty.
>> Um, let me give you an example because we have real examples from our township.
When we've had a lot of problems retaining a park manager at Whitewater Township, it seems like they frequently terminate their employment right before the camping season, which makes it extremely difficult to manage the employees.
I do know that Don Glenn as just a regular trustee um came and I believe received approval for some amount of a payment for helping manage the park during that gap period for whatever reason which I'm not sure Ron Pop also filled much of that gap and was not compensated. Now, is that because he didn't apply for it or is it because he was ineligible? I think that we need to agree on which which is correct. Not really sure, but it's a great example about how you can have a temporary need that needs to be filled and and it may not be realistic that a regular trustee would be willing to do the work. So, how do you deal with that?
So then alternately um and is it their responsibility to bring it up to the board that they're not getting compensated? Um also I'd like to point out that I'm a FOYO coordinator and not getting compensated for that.
Just that's an example.
So the other um another example is something that's an ongoing thing. Let's just use the example that Wendy just brought up. Mhm.
>> She has been doing Voya. She is still doing Foya. There's no plan for that to change. We need to make sure.
So that to me is an example of a salary adjustment because it's not a temporary thing. It's a >> that is that's actually something different than what my salary would be covering though. So that's my point in this.
>> Okay.
>> Statutory duty is covered by your salary. That's not a statutory duty, but there's lots of those in this township, right? There are lots and lots and lots and those.
>> That's why we need legal.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> All right. So, um, other comment that I think is relevant based on what we've discussed so far today is, um, and I can get this over to legal, um, is just I'm a little bit concerned about is it too narrow in the section one under trustees when you have the wording. um it seems like it's really slanted towards the planning commission >> and is that is that what we really want to do on that versus should it be I I started trying to think about well what about other situations where help is needed >> um whether um what about situations like in the zoning board of appeal where maybe there's some significant need for um uh education and um zoning board of appeals. I'm trying to remember what we call them, but like if we need to really upgage their capability and if somebody needs to coordinate and plan training for them, that could be significant work to do that. Do we want to make sure that that's encompassed in this policy? I'm just a little concerned about just isolating that. And I thought about the parks. We have had in the past had a parks and wreck advisory committee.
What what about if there's need for one of the board members to take a larger role in assisting them with completing that work?
>> You know, we pay them for we pay the ZBA uh board rep and the parks and Rex board rep for a meeting fee, but what about if more is needed?
>> That's a good point. I I >> so >> I see a lot of those kind of >> so maybe we need a little bit more generic language such that I mean you would like it to be specific but you would also like it to cover more than just the planning commission. So, >> okay. So, >> I remember right this was a early draft from January or February when that was um and so we haven't really had the conversation about it.
>> The only thing I would ask is Wendy um I get the sense that you've got a little bit more detailed suggestions in there and I'm a little concerned about making sure I accurately capture those to send to the attorney. I think the attorney will catch them.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Um, so what I'm going to do with that, but it sounds like our concerns are really focused in here on on 3.4 and then you guys just had that note on 36H >> and that was just a simple thing.
Okay.
So, all right. I will take that to legal >> just so we don't have to keep coming back and changing.
>> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
>> So, the idea is you're going to broaden that to include a um similar policy but encompassing more applications potentially.
>> I'm not sure I followed you on that.
>> The the general policy remains the same.
It's just that we're broadening it to be clear that that includes potentially other um mechanisms for additional support.
>> Yeah. Just because I I think there's a lot especially when we start down that path of what are the statutory duties versus what are um and how that equates to a salary.
basically what Wendy brought up and all of the stuff that goes on in this township that is not covered by state law. I'm just noticing 3.12. It says the supervisor will present a letter of appreciation from the township board. I think that's been the clerk.
Well, yeah, there's that, too.
Could be andor. Yeah.
Well, and even in the case of I know most recently when we had uh one of our fire captains retire, it was um >> it was Josh.
>> And I think he brought that to a board meeting, >> but even Yeah, I think that's how that went down.
>> Okay.
There might be little things in here too that the lawyer catches such as we don't need to publish a notice of position vacancies or to publish uh I don't I don't agree with that.
>> That one's 3.6F.
>> I don't I think that labor law probably dictates that.
So your question is is that required?
Yeah, it seems like there's a reference somewhere else on general position of vacancy. So that's what all right >> and the personel.
>> So there's 3.6A notice of position. So, be developed based on current job description, posting, application deadline. Yeah, I guess you should look at this whole thing.
>> Okay. All right.
We'll see when they can turn that around and then bring it back to end of month meeting.
All right.
Uh just for safety's sake, I'd like to make a motion to extend the meeting beyond 12 noon.
>> I'll second it.
>> All right. Motion made by Slopes and seconded by Milneck. All those in favor?
>> I I Okay. Um so now we're down to uh announcements.
Got the next board meeting is June 12th, 6:30m.
>> Says 11th.
>> It says 11th.
>> I'm sorry.
>> Missed what you said. June 11th.
>> It says 11th on the >> Yeah. Did I say something different than >> You said 12.
>> Sorry. June 11th, 2026, 6:30 p.m. Are there any other board member announcements?
Okay. Second public comment. Any public comment Kim Angus um I took some time to think some things over after the last um meeting with the planning commission. And there was some discussion with our public hearings um because I didn't want to just uh make a statement based on my thoughts at that time. Um I would like to encourage board members to think very carefully about the statements that they're making.
I personally think it's unwise to make a practice of um openly, especially in meetings, criticizing the decisions of previous boards and commissions.
Questioning policy is one thing, but making comments that insinuate that decisions were not contemplated, were not thought about, were not reviewed, that standards were not applied is really unwise for the township in general in terms of future litigation.
Um, it is disrespectful to the people who have served previously and especially when the statements are inaccurate.
The planning commission did not rubber stamp every special use that came in front of it. We did not ignore pre-reliminary hearings. The reality is we addressed in my tenure there. We addressed a lot of things in pre-preliminary review before it ever came before the planning commission.
Ideally, before the applicant had spent money on engineering unnecessarily so that we weren't sending applicants back to change something and change it again and change it again. I've seen projects come through that were mandated changes by the planning commission that then the fire department rejected and made them go back and re-engineer the project.
It's not good practice.
Everyone that has dealt with our township knows that our planning commission that our zoning ordinance had severe issues.
Some of those rubber stamp approvals were because we couldn't push certain area issues. We were missing, as most of you know, pages of our landscaping ordinance. You can't enforce something that we can't locate in the building.
And for a lot of those decisions, we also had genuinely, and it has been corrected now, so I'll say it more openly, we couldn't define where our commercial district was.
It wasn't on the books. We had no record and we couldn't locate it.
That severely hampers how far you can push a prospective developer when you can't even define what district they're in.
So, I would ask you to think carefully when you decide to make public comments criticizing previous decisions.
You may or may not know what those previous individuals were dealing with in terms of ordinance, in terms of application, and in terms of records.
You may not know how many meetings had already been done with that developer.
when um a project comes forward that meets 100% of the guidelines that we have on the books, there's no reason it shouldn't be approved at the first meeting. Thank you.
>> Andy Steelman, 7315 Chris Broad. I just wanted to address a couple things. I used to be um very much for 5 acre minimums and things like that. I'm from the country and it's always nice to have your neighbors further away so you can have your space and and all that and um and you know keeps things rural and keeps people you know spread out so it's not so cityike. But a few years ago, I went to a meeting with a whole bunch of farmers and uh I came away with a different sort of thinking and uh there's a couple a couple points. Um one is the farmers talked about, you know, when years are bad or whatever when things are not going good, they may have to sell off a piece of property. And it's one thing to sell a a oneacre piece of property versus having to sell a five acre piece where maybe the one acre would do and get them through. The five acre piece makes them lose a hunk of their farm that they didn't really want to lose. And that was a big concern amongst a bunch of them. Um and that you know that they talked about that a lot.
Uh similarly um as a as a builder and you know I help people in developing and stuff like that smaller properties are more affordable. Um if you try to say hey you can only have 5 acres um acre here is anywhere from 25,000 to $100,000 an acre around here. Pretty average. And I don't see property values going down anytime soon. In my life they never have. Um, so, uh, and if they did, it was just for a minute, you know, a year or two and then it's back. Um, you know, people can't afford to pay $125,000 for a piece of land so that they can build their little family house on it.
So, that's a concern. I know you guys have lots of ways around that to make it good for people and such, but just want to make sure everybody's thinking about that. Um, that the cost is just unbelievable for, you know, large acreage and things like that. So, something to think about when you guys are coming up with how to divi divide properties. But guys say, I used to be all for it and then I started to think about everybody's concerns and it might be better for the general public to be able to have smaller pieces and smaller properties and such and then it keeps the farms bigger. Maybe in the middle of all the houses and stuff, there's still this great big nice, you know, farm with houses around it. But anyway, that's it for me. Thanks, guys.
>> All right. Would anybody else like to make a public comment at this time?
Okay, now we're into board comments discussion. We did have a specific item listed here uh Randy that you asked to put on the agenda.
>> I did. And since the uh meeting on the 15th, there was a question that was raised by the public that I have thought about a fair amount and I wanted to address. And the question was simply this. How how did confidential township information regarding alleged misconduct become public on social media before the township board even had a public hearing on the m or public meeting on the matter? Thought about that and that's that's a good question. I think it deserves a clear and straightforward answer. Um so I don't and I know by other several other board members feel the same way here. There there were Facebook posts about the clerk a few days before the meeting on the 31st. It was reported that Rachel Steelman made one post and there was also another anonymous one.
There may have been others. I'm not sure. But the simple answer is that I don't know how that information was circulated or provided to the authors of the Facebook posts.
I do know that there's no evidence that I'm aware of that privileged information was disclosed by anyone. I also know that there are several ways that information could have been disseminated. I'm not going to go into each one of them, but this issue surfaced internally long before the March 31st board meeting. Of course, you know, no one can control what others post on Facebook. People post whatever they want and we all know that the standard for accuracy and truth on Facebook is low. Um, I do think that Whitewater Township residents are smart and I think most will look at what motivates people to post rumors and unsubstantiated claims using inflammatory terms like embezzlement and so forth. Um, you know, I think you only see that term on Facebook, but anyway, I felt like I needed to to say that. Um, and there was unfortunately there's there's damage when that kind of stuff is done. Time and energy is sucked away from what's really important. There's a lot of important business the township needs to deal with. And I think we kind of double down on a narrative that Whitewater Township is a place where people fight with itself. And that's sad for me to see, but I I see that over and over again.
Um, so that's all I'm going to say about that. And then I guess also I guess I would mention about the the point about the planning commission not knowing how property is zoned but still requiring certain things is crazy to me. And then how can how can you require property owners in the township to comply with the zoning ordinance when you can't tell them how their property is zoned? Um, you know, there's the township's gone a long way in the last few years to make things more clear and and uh and make requirements as transparent and and direct as possible and there's still a long way to go.
>> That's all I have.
I'd like to contribute to that in saying that um if a board member were to release FOYA information before the FOYA coordinator, that's actually against the law. And if they happen to have talked to any kind of media outlet without permission, that's also against policy.
Um that's all I'm going to say about that. I I also had another board discussion. I just wanted everybody to know that um EPS is actually going to install keypads before the next meeting here at the township hall trying to make it safer. Um there's been public comment about that before about panic buttons and the safety of this hall. So I just wanted to add that.
>> Uh can I ask the question about that? Um so will there be a single code or will it be tied to um employee? It it can be turned on and off and it's um a single code.
>> Okay.
>> And you're one of the people.
>> Okay. So, so it will be no no more.
>> No, there's no key.
>> No, there's a key and then you'd have to do the code. So, it's like a it's like an Yeah, it's like an alarm system. Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. Yeah, that'll be interesting to learn about that.
So, um I would just like to make a comment about this and it is I I appreciate um Randy you um bringing those concerns from the public to to the table for discussion. Um unfortunately, we're missing two board members today.
So, um we'll see if we need to circle back to this. But um you know as I sat and thought about this more um last September we adopted uh u ethical conduct and governance policy for the township and it covers all employees whether elected or um employed as a a regular employee. And as I look through here, um, you know, the sections that I keyed in on at the very beginning when it talks about the principles of of what this ethical conduct and governance is as far as what was applicable to this situation of this Facebook post, you know, the fourth item noted under the actually the fifth item noted under the principles was respecting others, being civil, fair, and professional in all dealings. And certainly what happened um was not what I would call professional and fair.
Um there's also a section there section 8 talks about confidential information to not share or misuse township records and conversations and information learned as an official must not be used for any kind of personal gain or purpose.
um you know there there's free speech but there's um appropriateness and ethical conduct and um I'm not sure we will ever know who did this for sure and I can I bring up the fact that the only person that hasn't signed that in our township employee or elected official okay the treasurer Jill Ktor there.
Well, I will certainly be happy to follow up on that.
So, and it does state in here that that everyone shall sign this annually is what it says in here. I think that's on the last page. So, yeah, it says here annual agreement. All covered individuals must sign Yep.
>> Uh the following each year that they have read and agree to follow the code of ethical conduct. I do think that's a little bit um difficult to enforce upon an elected official >> as I learned but um I I would I would hope people will learn from their mistakes is what I would end with.
So it's very distressing to me personally.
Okay. Uh oh, one last note to self here.
Um, I wanted to make sure everybody was aware that the trial that was scheduled today for the zoning ordinance violation, which was a short-term rental violation, uh, was adjourned. Um, and, uh, we're awaiting a new trial date, and that that's due to some movement of the, uh, the person that's charged their attorney.
>> So, it's just postponed.
>> It's Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
legal maneuvering. Yeah. Have they asked for more time? Right. So anyway, okay. I'll make a motion to adjurnn.
>> I'll second that.
>> Seconded by Milnneck. All in favor? I I All right. Meeting adjourned.
Vidéos Similaires
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Jury seated in the Frisco Track Meet stabbing trial — opening statements set for tomorrow
Wfaa8
343 views•2026-06-03
Monkton family worries husband who murdered wife could inherit all of her assets
WMAR2news
152 views•2026-06-02
ترمب وأسواق المال الأميركية.. كيف أنعش "رأسمالية المطلعين"؟ - شرق غرب
AsharqBusiness
282 views•2026-06-04
They Dismissed Every Black Juror in the Karmelo Anthony Trial — Every Single One
Tim_Black
406 views•2026-06-04
Crashes involving e-bikes can mean gray area regarding insurance coverage
fox31
210 views•2026-06-05
