The Delhi Charter Township Board of Trustees met in a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 in the Multipurpose Room at the Community Services Center, 2074 Aurelius Road, Holt, Michigan. Supervisor Goodrich called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

Members Present: Supervisor Stuart Goodrich, Treasurer Harry Ammon, Clerk Evan Hope, Trustees John Hayhoe, Jerry Ketchum, Paul Krepps, Roy Sweet

Others Present:
John Elsinga, Twp. Mgr.
Lt. Jeff Cook, Delhi Div., Ing. County Sheriff’s Office
Rick Royston, Fire Chief
Sandra Diorka, Superintendent of Public Services
Tracy Carney-Miller, Dir. of Community Development
Wendy Thielen, Assist. Twp. Mgr. of Human Resources
Tricia Vander Ploeg, Admin. Assistant/Dep. Supervisor
Amy Finch, Assistant Twp. Clerk/Deputy Clerk


COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

Mike Hamilton, 4541 Sycamore, Holt, spoke to the Board regarding the beer tent event requested by 2 Feathers Roadhouse. Mr. Hamilton asked the Board to reconsider the 10:00 p.m. ending time for these special event beer tents.

Steve Dougan, 14th District County Commissioner, 2455 Pine Tree Road, Holt, thanked the Board for working with the Ingham County Drain Commissioner’s office regarding the maintenance and repair of the Burgess, Keller’s Ridge Branch Drain.


SET/ADJUST THE AGENDA

HOPE MOVED TO ADD LATE AGENDA ITEM NO. 8-I – UNDER CONSENT AGENDA – UTILITY AGREEMENT – FOR SANITARY SEWER – DELHI GARDENS, PHASE 2.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: All Ayes
MOTION CARRIED


FY 2005 ANNUAL REPORT – INGHAM COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT – DELHI DIVISION

Lt. Jeff Cook, Ingham County Sheriff’s Department-Delhi Division gave the 2005 Sheriff’s Department annual report. (ATTACHMENT I).



NEW BUSINESS

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-016 – INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER SPENDING RESOLUTION – HEATHER HAVEN DRAIN

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated June 12, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT II).

AMMON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-016 WHICH AUTHORIZES THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER TO SPECIAL ASSESS THE TOWNSHIP AND PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG HEATHER HAVEN DRAIN FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS OF SAID DRAIN.

Paul C. Pratt, Ingham County Deputy Drain Commissioner, stated that an actual cost or percentage has not been committed to for the maintenance and repairs of this drain. Heather Haven is currently in a two-year drain assessment, which began December 2005 and because of this, the chemical application and treatment of the detention pond will not be billed earlier than December 2007. The residents will be notified in July 2007 of the special assessment. In the normal maintenance assessment it is customary to assess the Township 15% as a public heath, safety and welfare benefit. The ponds at Heather Haven were privately owned up until the earlier part of this year when the Drain Commissioner acquired them. Mr. Pratt stated that the pond treatment itself will probably not exceed $5,000; however, with attorney fees, etc. it is estimated that the amount will exceed the two mile limit. Mr. Pratt stated that the Drain Commissioner does not see this as a long-term solution, but it is necessary for the short term. The long term goal is to come up with maintenance and education plans that will eliminate the yearly treatment of the ponds.

Supervisor Goodrich stated that the resolution references two miles of drain cleaning. Mr. Pratt stated that two miles is a measurement. One pond will need to be cleaned and the Drain Commissioner would like the authority to clean the second pond. The reason the mileage is referenced is because the Drain Code sets it out that way as to how much can be assessed. The Drain Commissioner can assess $2,500 per mile or part of a mile. There is somewhere around one and two miles of pipe in Heather Haven and therefore, that set the limit for the year at $5,000. The Drain Commissioner is approaching the Township for approval of this resolution because he feels that the cost will exceed the limit.

Supervisor Goodrich asked which pond would be treated. Mr. Pratt responded that the southern most pond would be cleaned.

Trustee Krepps asked if the Drain Commissioner would pick up half of the estimated $10,000 cost. Mr. Pratt stated that the law states that there is a limit on how much the Drain Commissioner can charge the user, the limit being $2,500 per mile of pipe. If the cost exceeds that limit, permission is needed from the municipality, which covers more than 20% of the total cost. The percentage references drains that would go into more than one municipality.

Frank Badalamente, 1900 Persimmon Path, Holt, stated that he is against the fact that the Drain Commissioner is assessing a 100% increase to maintain this drain.

Rick Royston 4754 Loch Lomond Drive, Holt, stated that he lives on the north pond of Heather Haven Subdivision. Mr. Royston stated that the neighbors currently maintain the pond; however, the pond is getting to the point where more needs to be done. Mr. Royston stated that it is good to know that, as a property owner, he can now go to the Drain Commissioner for help in treating this pond.

Trustee Krepps asked where the $2,500 per mile figure originated. Mr. Pratt responded that the amount came from the Drain Code. The code puts the upper limit on what can be done without approval from the local government.

Supervisor Goodrich stated that it is his understanding that the Drain Commissioner will not pay any of the costs associated with the maintenance of these ponds. Mr. Pratt stated that the County’s General Fund pays for the office and general staff, but the actual maintenance and day to day service provided for the pond maintenance comes from user fees.

Supervisor Goodrich asked if this assessment was only for the residents whose property abutted the pond. Mr. Pratt stated that the entire district would be assessed. Clerk Hope stated that even though not all of the residents live on the pond, their stormwater runoff goes into the pond and the maintenance of the pond is still critical to the whole system.
Trustee Krepps asked if this represents a one-time assessment or the beginning of an annual assessment. Mr. Pratt stated that it is his thought that the pond treatments will be an ongoing process for the foreseeable future; however, it is his hope that the ponds could eventually become self-cleansing ecosystems. Trustee Krepps asked Mr. Pratt if he has ever seen where an assessment was charged and lifted if the need ceased. Mr. Pratt answered in the affirmative. This assessment is not a permanent assessment. The assessment is done in an annual or sometimes two-year assessment, each time it is a new assessment and the public and municipality have the right to appeal the assessment.

Trustee Ketchum asked how many properties this assessment involved. Mr. Pratt stated that he was unsure of the number, stating that Deputy Drain Commissioner Cramer has been handling this. Trustee Ketchum asked if the residents have been notified that the Township Board is considering this resolution. Mr. Pratt stated that he feels that there is some knowledge of this assessment because some of the residents requested that the Drain Commissioner take ownership of this pond. As this assessment will not take place until a year from now, notice will be sent to the residents then. Trustee Ketchum stated that if the Board approves this resolution without the residents’ knowledge, it would be too late for them to let the Board know their feelings on this assessment when they receive the notice from the Drain Commissioner next year. Mr. Pratt stated that if this is how the Board feels, the pond treatments might have to end at some point.

Supervisor Goodrich asked what would happen if the Board did not approve the resolution this evening. Mr. Pratt stated that the pond would get cleaned until the $2,500 cost limit was reached. So for this year, with the legal fees and pond acquisition costs, the pond may not get fully treated. Approval of this assessment would raise the $2,500 limitation for this year, but without approval, the Drain Commissioner will still go to the $2,500 limit, but will not exceed the limit.

Trustee Hayhoe stated that he did not see any drainage issue, so he feels that the cleaning of the pond benefits only those that live within close proximity of the pond. Trustee Hayhoe stated that he fears this could set a precedent where all ponds in the Township would have to be taken care of by the Township. The Drain Commissioner does not own many of these ponds in the Township. The maintenance of the ponds not owned by the Drain Commissioner becomes the responsibility of the subdivision.

Trustee Ketchum asked if the Township were to deny this resolution, and only a partial treatment were performed, would it cost more next year to treat the pond. Mr. Pratt stated that he did not feel that there would be a spending resolution next year because costs associated with acquiring the pond would not exist next year as they did this year. There is an ongoing treatment need with these ponds, but Mr. Pratt stated that there would not be a need to approach the Board each year for a spending resolution. Trustee Ketchum stated that he has a problem with approving this resolution without the residents’ knowledge.

Supervisor Goodrich stated, that to his knowledge, this is the first time this type of request has come before the Board. Supervisor Goodrich also would like to hear from the residents before approving this resolution. Supervisor Goodrich stated that he would like more information on this topic and have it brought back to the Board at the next Board meeting on July 18, 2006. Supervisor Goodrich would like to see a notice sent to the residents to inform them of this meeting. Mr. Pratt stated that mailings can be done; however, the cost will be charged to the residents.

Twp. Mgr. Elsinga stated that the Drain Commissioner’s challenge is that he has only a certain amount of money per year, per mile to spend for drain maintenance and repair. In the past, the homeowners were providing upkeep. Acquisition costs of this pond have used a portion of this year’s money and the treatment fees for this year will exceed the allotted money. If the pond is not treated, sooner or later, it will be a nuisance to the whole subdivision. Because other members of the subdivision contribute to this pond via stormwater to the pond, they are being asked to contribute to the upkeep.

Twp. Mgr. Elsinga suggested to Mr. Pratt to provide a better understanding of the district that contributes to the pond to the Board and stated that this information would be put on the Township website. Twp. Mgr. Elsinga stated that this would not be a public hearing, but a mailing could be sent to the residents inviting them to be part of the discussion.

KETCHUM MOVED TO POSTPONE THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2006-016 UNTIL JULY 18.

Roll Call Vote on Postponing the Motion:
A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope
MOTION CARRIED


RESOLUTION NO. 2006-017 – INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER SPENDING RESOLUTION – BURGESS, KELLER’S RIDGE BRANCH DRAIN

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated June 12, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT III).

SWEET MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-017 WHICH AUTHORIZES THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER TO SPECIAL ASSESS THE TOWNSHIP AND PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG BURGESS, KELLER’S RIDGE BRANCH DRAIN FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS OF SAID DRAIN.

Paul C. Pratt, Ingham County Deputy Drain Commissioner, stated that there is a row of houses that have an easement in their backyards and when the residents moved in they did not understand that it was there. This is a process that the Drain Commissioner no longer approves of called a dry detention bed. The drain crew installed piping, similar to a French drain, which is eliminating a lot of the standing water; however, the down stream end of it is still mucky and soft. The residents are still unable to use their backyards. This project would get the old stones and geotextiles out of there that was part of the original detention basin. Topsoil will replace the stones and grading and leveling will take place to allow the residents to have a backyard.

Mr. Pratt stated that the entire subdivision will be assessed, as the dry detention basin is where their stormwater runoff goes.

Supervisor Goodrich stated that this is a one-time assessment with an approximate 20% assessment. Mr. Pratt agreed that it is a one-time assessment; however, because this drain does not go into any other communities, the Township at large and its residents are affected 100%.

Trustee Hayhoe stated that this assessment would benefit approximately four or five residents who backup to this basin. Mr. Pratt stated that the assessment would benefit the whole subdivision because all of their runoff stormwater goes to that basin.

Frank Badalamente, 1900 Persimmon Path, reiterated some of his previous comments (under Resolution No. 2006-016 – Ingham County Drain Commissioner Spending Resolution – Heather Haven Drain).

Bill Long, 3760 Kirkland Ridge Drive, Holt, stated that his yard backs up to the dry detention basin. He spoke in favor of the Drain Commissioner’s maintenance and repairs of Burgess, Keller’s Ridge Branch Drain.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Hope, Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe
MOTION CARRIED

UPGRADE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER SECURITY SYSTEM SOFTWARE AND ADDITIONAL CARD READERS

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated June 15, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT IV).

KETCHUM MOVED TO APPROVE THE QUOTATION FROM SAFETY SYSTEMS INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,629 FOR THE UPGRADE OF SECURITY SYSTEM SOFTWARE AND THE INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL SECURITY CARD READERS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER.

Trustee Krepps asked why the Township would switch from the swipe card system to a proximity card reader system. Twp. Mgr. Elsinga stated that this is a different system, basically upgrading the software to create a singular card system.

Tricia Vander Ploeg, Administrative Assistant/Deputy Supervisor, stated that Safety Systems Inc. still produces the swipe card system that is currently being used at the Community Services Center. The cost of the new system is $430 higher than the old system. The software will support either system. Ms. Vander Ploeg stated that the POTW uses the same type of cards (not the system, but the cards) as the system being proposed tonight. If the cards used by the POTW were compatible with the new system, additional cards would not have to be purchased for the new system at the Community Services Center.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum
MOTION CARRIED


PROPOSAL FROM ALTAMAR DECORATIVE CONCRETE, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DECORATIVE CONCRETE PATHWAYS FOR THE VETERANS MEMORIAL GARDENS RESTROOM/PAVILION PROJECT

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated June 12, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT V).

KREPPS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL FROM ALTAMAR DECORATIVE CONCRETE, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DECORATIVE CONCRETE PATHWAYS FOR THE VETERANS MEMORIAL GARDENS RESTROOM/PAVILION PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,622.80.

Twp. Mgr. Elsinga stated that this sidewalk would connect the other sidewalks currently placed at the Veterans Memorial Gardens. In addition, Altamar will repair some of the sidewalks that were previously installed.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum, Krepps
MOTION CARRIED


ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT

PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE – CASE NO. 06-811 – PORTION OF 6308 BISHOP ROAD – TAX PARCEL #33-25-05-07-176-015 – BISHOP DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC – R-1E, ONE FAMILY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TO C-3, HIGHWAY SERVICE, SECOND CONSIDERATION (PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 596).

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated May 26, 2006 from Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development (ATTACHMENT VI).

HAYHOE MOVED UPON SECOND CONSIDERATION, TO APPROVE THE REZONING OF CASE NO. 06-811, A PORTION OF 6308 BISHOP ROAD, TAX PARCEL #33-25-05-07-176-015 (3.35 ACRES), FROM R-1E, ONE FAMILY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TO C-3, HIGHWAY SERVICE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR MAY 8, 2006 MEETING, BASED ON THE PROPOSED ZONING BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP (ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 596).

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Ammon, Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet
MOTION CARRIED


FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – WOODED VALLEY, INTRODUCTION AND FIRST CONSIDERATION

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated June 14, 2006 from Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development (ATTACHMENT VII).

HOPE MOVED UPON INTRODUCTION AND FIRST CONSIDERATION TO SUPPORT THAT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5.23.2 OF THE DELHI CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE THE DELHI TOWNSHIP BOARD HEREBY FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, KNOWN AS WOODED VALLEY, RESULTS IN A RECOGNIZABLE AND SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT BOTH TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO THE ULTIMATE USERS OF THE SITE, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:

1. THE LONG-TERM PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND NATURAL FEATURES BY MINIMIZING THE LOSS OF TREES ON THE SITE WHICH WOULD TYPICALLY RESULT FROM DEVELOPMENT, THE PRESERVATION OF WETLAND AREAS AND HABITAT, AND

2. THE CREATION OF APPROXIMATELY 6.93 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, REPRESENTING APPROXIMATELY 25.76% OF THE ACREAGE WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN VIA THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL IN THE AREA OF THE TOWNSHIP THAT IS ANTICIPATED TO REMAIN PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PREVENTING THE CONVERSION OF NON-URBANIZED LAND IN OUTLYING AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY.

AND THAT THE REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM THE DELHI CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN A HIGHER QUALITY DEVELOPMENT AND THAT THE SITE PLAN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INCLUDING ANY PERMITTED MODIFICATIONS.

FURTHER, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WOODED VALLEY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF 26.9 ACRES IN THE 4300 BLOCK OF WILLOUGHBY ROAD (TAX PARCEL #33-25-05-11-376-011 AND 33-25-05-11-354-011) PURSUANT TO THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 5.23.2 AND SECTION 5.23.3 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR JUNE 12, 2006 MEETING. THIS ACTION WILL HAVE THE SAME AFFECT AS A REZONING, CHANGING THE PROPERTY’S ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM R-1D, ONE AND TWO FAMILY HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PD 06-01, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. ALL OF THE DIMENSIONAL DEVIATIONS FROM THE UNDERLYING ZONING ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND HAVE BEEN CLEARLY INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN, AND

2. THAT THE TOWNSHIP ZONING MAP BE AMENDED TO REPRESENT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS “PD06-01” AND THAT THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SPECIFICALLY APPROVED AND PRESENTED ON THE FINAL PLANS PRESENTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTED WITH A JUNE 6, 2006 REVISION DATE, AND

3. THAT THE PROJECT RECEIVE PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND

4. THAT THE PROJECT RECEIVE THE SOIL EROSION CONTROL PERMIT FROM THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, THEREBY REMOVING THE “CEASE AND DESIST” ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED BY THAT OFFICE FOR THIS PROPERTY, AND

5. THAT THE TOWNSHIP AND THE DEVELOPER SHALL EXECUTE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.23.8(6) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE IMPROVEMENTS.

Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development, explained to the Board why this motion was so lengthy. Ms. Miller stated that Township Attorney J. Richard Robinson informed her that anytime there is a provision within the Zoning Ordinance that mandatorily requires a finding affect, the Township Board needs to specially make that finding, not just by reference to the Planning Commission’s findings.

Ms. Miller stated that this development is located on the north side of Willoughby Road between Miriam and Limerick Streets. The property is a predominately wooded, vacant site. The property is currently zoned R-1D, which would allow for 112 units to be built there. The Planned Unit (PD) section of the ordinance provides for a density bonus anytime there is open space in excess of 20%. That is how this development grew to 117 units.

Ms. Miller stated that the first step in the PD project is to have the developer sit down with the Community Development staff to have an initial conversation. The next step is to submit to the Planning Commission for Concept Approval. Concept Approval is where the developer presents a very initial outline of what the development might look like under the PD concept. At that point, the Planning Commission has the ability to subjectively study the development and make comments about how the development might function better, in addition to suggesting what things they may like to see incorporated into the development. The whole process is a very interactive and unique opportunity that normally does not happen when a developer just simply plats a subdivision.

In this development there was an opportunity to have walking trails, shorter roads and utility runs, in addition to having 80% of the lots having frontage on the shared open space and to develop public roads instead of private roads.

Ms. Miller stated that the Planning Commission questioned how the open space would be maintained and not developed, now and in the future. The developer approached the Planning Commission with a concept of doing this development as a Site Condominium development as opposed to a plat. This creates a master deed, and within the master deed, the Township is granted a conservation easement for all the open space identified in this process. In addition, if in the future, the condominium association were to dissolve, the conservation easement remains. If the condominium association were not performing the physical maintenance that was required, the Township may, but is not required, to perform the maintenance and levy the portion of the costs to each of the property owners within the development.

Ms. Miller stated the differences from this development as opposed to the requirements of an R-1D district development. Differences include a minimum lot size reduction from 6,600 square feet to 5,000 square feet and a minimum lot width from 66 feet to 48 feet in addition to maximum coverages up from 30% to 35% and reductions in the setbacks. These modifications create smaller lots, which create the opportunity for a common open space.

The next step in the process is the Planning Commission’s public hearing. Questions arose regarding the loss of trees, drainage to and from the site, as well as traffic. A traffic impact analysis was done which found that the level of service at all of the adjacent intersections would not be affected.

Ms. Miller stated that the approval of a PD creates a new zoning district that is specific to the development. The plan that is referenced in the motion becomes a part of the new district regulations.

Because this is a condominium development, the condominium section of the ordinance also applies and action needs to be taken relative to that section specifically. Ms. Miller stated that at this point, if the Board chooses to approve the PD, they will in action will need to approve the Tentative Preliminary Condominium Plan. Ms. Miller stated that some modifications were made to the condominium section because, in the past, the Board did not see a site condo development until the development was complete. To avoid this, a Tentative Preliminary Condominium Plan was implemented. Once the Board approves the Tentative Preliminary Condominium Plan, the Planning Commission has the authority to approve the Preliminary Condominium Plan.

Ms. Miller stated that the action taken place so far is that the Planning Commission has recommended to the Board the approval of the Planned Development, which is the zoning district. They also recommended to the Board the approval of the Tentative Preliminary Condominium Plan. They also made a motion approving the Preliminary Condominium Plan conditional on the Board’s approval of the Tentative Preliminary Condominium Plan.

Trustee Sweet asked about the sidewalk on the south side of Willoughby Road that was mentioned in the June 12, 2006 Planning Commission minutes. Ms. Miller stated that the sidewalk ordinance states that a sidewalk shall be constructed on Willoughby Road in conjunction with this development; however, there is an approximate 6’-8’ evaluation change off the north side of Willoughby Road. Normally, a sidewalk would be built back further than is shown on this plan. Ms. Miller stated that an alternative to the ordinance could be to have the developer pay, into a restricted fund, the cost of the sidewalk construction. The Township could decide how sidewalks in this area would best be served and access the funds at that point to construct the sidewalks.

Ms. Miller also stated that the cease and desist condition in the motion was due to the fact that the Drain Commissioner’s office issued a cease and desist order because the developer had started to do some of the clearing on this site in order to accommodate the development. Ms. Miller stated that a property owner could remove trees on their property regardless of what is pending with the Planning Commission. However, the Drain Commissioner’s order stated that all actions regarding approval of what may be pending on this property shall not be done until this order is lifted. Although the Drain Commissioner’s office does not have legal authority over the Board’s actions as they might pertain to approval of this project, their objective is an important one. The developer was unaware that a soil erosion control permit was necessary, which is the reason for the cease and desist order, and has since applied for the permit and is waiting for it to be issued. Once the permit is issued, the cease and desist order will be lifted.

Twp. Mgr. Elsinga commented on the restricted fund, stating that a sidewalk would be difficult to construct at this time and a restricted fund could be a good solution. Ms. Miller stated that she likes the restricted fund for this development, rather than a sidewalk agreement, because once the development has been turned over to the owner’s association, the agreement becomes the association agreement to pay. Treasurer Ammon stated that one of the strong points for having the money put into a restricted fund is that when sidewalks are constructed on Willoughby Road, the association is set for their sidewalks.

Treasurer Ammon stated that the sidewalk issue does not have to be acted on at this meeting. Ms. Miller confirmed Treasurer Ammon’s statement. Treasurer Ammon stated that he would like to see the topic on the July 18, 2006 Board agenda.

Robert Hubbell, representing Wooded Valley, LLC, 1020 S. Cretys Road, Lansing, stated that they are working with a contractor by the name of Chad Kloha, Kloha Construction, and are confident that he will be the general contractor of the homes.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Goodrich, Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon
MOTION CARRIED


CONSENT AGENDA

A. Approval of Minutes – Committee of the Whole Meeting of June 6, 2006

B. Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting of June 6, 2006

C. Approval of Minutes – Special Meeting of May 31, 2006

D. Approval of Minutes – Special Meeting of June 7, 2006

E. Approval of Claims – June 1, 2006 (ATTACHMENT VIII)

F. Approval of Payroll – June 15, 2006 (ATTACHMENT IX)

G. Supplemental Water Agreement No. 217 – Water Service Agreement between Delhi Township and the Lansing Board of Water and Light – Cedar Ridge No. 2 (ATTACHMENT X)

H. Sanitary Sewer Acceptance for Wyndham Hills Condominium (ATTACHMENT XI)

I. Utility Agreement for Sanitary Sewer between Delhi Charter Township and Delhi Gardens, LLC – Delhi Gardens, Phase 2 (ATTACHMENT XII).

KREPPS MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.

Trustee Sweet asked for some explanation on the late agenda item, (Item I – Utility Agreement for Sanitary Sewer-Delhi Gardens, Phase 2). Twp. Mgr. Elsinga stated that this is an agreement to install sanitary sewers. In this case, the agreement also requires the developer to extend sewers approximately 150’ to the end of the development and further south along College Road. The Township is willing to pay for half of the extension as only 50% will be beneficial to the developer, the other 50% is located in Alaiedon Township. The estimated cost of that is $1,250, which will come out of the sewer fund.

A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Hayhoe, Hope, Ketchum, Krepps, Sweet, Ammon, Goodrich
MOTION CARRIED


REPORTS

SUPERVISOR

INGHAM COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION AUGUST 3RD MEETING
The Board reviewed a letter dated June 8, 2006 from John W. Midgley, Ingham County Road Commission (ATTACHMENT XIII).

Supervisor Goodrich stated that the Ingham County Road Commission has invited Delhi Township, as well as several other Townships, to attend their August 3, 2006 meeting.


GLENBERRY DRIVE MEETING

Supervisor Goodrich stated that he and Trustee Sweet attended a meeting with the residents of Glenberry Drive regarding the construction taking place in that area. Supervisor Goodrich stated that the questions asked by the residents were answered during this meeting.


TREASURER

SUMMER TAX BILLS


Treasurer Ammon stated that the 2006 summer tax bills have been printed and mailed. The Treasurer’s office will start collecting payment on these bills July 5, 2006.


PETTY CASH ACCOUNTS

Treasurer Ammon stated that he and the Director of Accounting have notified all the departments that they expect to have all the petty cash accounts turned into the Treasurer’s office by July 1, 2006. Petty cash can be received in the Treasurer’s office. Treasurer Ammon stated that he may be asking the Board for an increase in their petty cash account.


TOWNSHIP MANAGER

MONTHLY REPORT – APRIL/MAY

The Board reviewed the April/May Manager Report (ATTACHMENT XIV).


RECYCLING CENTER DROP-OFF

The Board reviewed a letter dated June 8, 2006 from Keith L. Granger (ATTACHMENT XV).

Steve Reed, Chief Operating Officer, Granger Container Service, Inc. introduced himself and Tonya Olson, Director of Governmental and Public Relations for Granger Container Service, Inc. to the Board. Mr. Reed stated that Granger Container is excited in having the opportunity to partner with the Township in achieving some of the Township’s recycling goals.

Mr. Reed stated that Granger looked at what their relationships are with the townships that they provide service to and stated that the majority of the residents in Delhi Township use Granger as their service provider. Granger is looking at the possibility of providing some equipment and trucking, at no cost, to the Township as a way to give back to the community.

Ms. Olson stated that the drop-off recycling program was the main discussion Granger had with the Township regarding their recycling needs; however, in the future, Granger would like to discuss managing hard to handle items and yard waste disposal as well.

Supervisor Goodrich asked what percentage of Delhi residents use Granger as their service provider. Mr. Reed stated that he believes over 70%.
Treasurer Ammon stated that he feels that it is time for the Township to move forward with this project. Treasurer Ammon further stated that this service should not be limited to Delhi Township residents.

Supervisor Goodrich asked what needed to be done to move forward with this project. Twp. Mgr. Elsinga stated that Granger has already looked at the Township’s plans and their containers are larger than what was previously designed for. A wider footprint would be needed for their type of vehicles and comfortable parking for the residents.

Sandra Diorka, Superintendent of Public Services, stated that because the capital investment will not be needed for the containers, the Township will save approximately $90,000. Granger had a footprint that needed enlarging right now and another footprint for the anticipated future. If the Township were to enlarge to the future footprint, there would still be a net savings of $60,000.

Supervisor Goodrich asked what the length of time the agreement would be for. Twp. Mgr. Elsinga stated that the agreement would be for approximately 10-20 years. Mr. Reed stated that Granger would work with the Township on what they wanted to accomplish.

Supervisor Goodrich asked if the center would be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Mr. Reed stated that he thought it would be opened for 18 hours a day. Ms. Diorka stated that the center could be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if the Board would like.


LIMITED COMMENTS

Frank Badalamente, 1900 Persimmon Path, questioned the referencing of the Future Land Use Map in the motions.

Mr. Badalamente also questioned why the fines collected under Ordinance No. 111 (Michigan Vehicle Code) were not reported on during the monthly Sheriff’s report. Supervisor Goodrich stated that it will be in a separate report in the future.



TOWNSHIP MANAGER cont’d

BUDGET AWARD

Twp. Mgr. Elsinga stated the he received notification from the Governmental Finance Officers Association that Delhi Township has received, for the second time, the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award.


ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 10:16 p.m.


FYI
1. Letter dated June 8, 2006, from Tracy Miller, Dir. of Community Develop, to Leo Urban re: Proposed Beer Tent.
2. Ingham County Health Department’s News Release dated June 6, 2006 re: Recreational Waters.