Delhi Charter Township Board of Trustees Minutes

The Delhi Charter Township Board of Trustees met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 in the Multipurpose Room at the Community Services Center, 2074 Aurelius Road, Holt, Michigan. Supervisor Goodrich called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.

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

Others Present: John Elsinga, Township Manager
Al McFadyen, DDA Executive Dir.
Marian Frane, Dir. of Accounting
Mark Jenks, Director of Parks and Recreation
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

SET PUBLIC HEARING – FY 2007 – GENERAL FUNDS AND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated October 31, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT I).

KREPPS MOVED TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED TOWNSHIP BUDGETS FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2006 AT 7:45 P.M.A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:

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

AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO RESOLUTION NO. 2005-046 – FY 2006 GENERAL FUND BUDGET

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated October 31, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT II).

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

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO RESOLUTION NO. 2005-051 – FY 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND BUDGET

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated November 1, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT III).

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

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO RESOLUTION NO. 2005-048 – FY 2006 FIRE EQUIPMENT, TRAINING AND APPARATUS FUND BUDGET

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated November 1, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT IV).

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

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RESOLUTION NO. 2005-047 – FY 2006 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND BUDGET

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated November 1, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT V).

SWEET MOVED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RESOLUTION NO. 2005-047 FOR THE FY 2006 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND BUDGET.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-033 – TRANSFER OF FORECLOSED PROPERTIES

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated November 1, 2006 from Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development (ATTACHMENT VI).

AMMON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-033 WHICH OBJECTS TO THE TRANSFER OF FORECLOSED PROPERTY TO DELHI CHARTER TOWNSHIP AND TRANSFERS THEM BACK TO INGHAM COUNTY FOR THE LAND BANK AUTHORITY.

Treasurer Ammon stated that most of the foreclosure properties are lands that are either errors in surveying or very small parcels that have been abandoned. If the Township objects to the transfer, the Land Bank will take them over and either transfer the deed to the adjoining property owner(s) or if the parcel is large enough will sell it as a developable lot or restore the parcel to make it developable.

Trustee Sweet noted that the resolution in the Board backup shows that the approval of the resolution is taking place on the 8^th day of October and should be changed to November.

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

PURCHASE OF A WIDE FORMAT PRINTER AND SCANNER

The Board reviewed memorandums dated October 31, 2006 from Sandra Diorka, Superintendent of Public Services and November 2, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT VII).

KETCHUM MOVED TO PURCHASE A VIDAR SPECTRA 600e SCANNER AND A CANON iPF8000 PRINTER FROM BIG SYSTEMS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,890.

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

INSTALLATION OF LINER IN CONCRETE SANITARY SEWER ON EIFERT ROAD

The Board reviewed memorandums dated November 1, 2006 from Sandra Diorka, Superintendent of Public Services and November 2, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT VIII).

HAYHOE MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL FROM INSITUFORM IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,900 TO INSTALL A 220’ LINER IN A 21” CONCRETE SANITARY SEWER ALONG EIFERT ROAD.

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

INSTALLATION OF A NEW MANHOLE ON EIFERT ROAD

The Board reviewed memorandums dated November 1, 2006 from Sandra Diorka, Superintendent of Public Services and November 3, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT IX).

AMMON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE BID FROM E.T. MacKENZIE IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,896.22 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW MANHOLE ALONG EIFERT ROAD.

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

PROPOSAL TO RAISE MANHOLES – SCARLETT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The Board reviewed memorandums dated October 31, 2006 from Sandra Diorka, Superintendent of Public Services and November 2, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT X).

AMMON MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL FROM SCARLETT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,880 TO REPAIR AND RAISE TO GRADE SEVEN (7) SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES ON HOLT AND AURELIUS ROADS (AND CEDAR STREET).

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

ACQUISITION OF A PIPE WHEELED RANGER TRANSPORTER FOR THE CUES SEWER CAMERA VAN

The Board reviewed memorandums dated October 31, 2006 from Sandra Diorka, Superintendent of Public Services and November 2, 2006 from Twp. Mgr. Elsinga (ATTACHMENT XI).

SWEET MOVED TO PURCHASE A PIPE RANGER WHEELED TRANSPORTER FROM CUES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,395.65 FOR THE CUES SEWER CAMERA VAN.

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

FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – EVERGREEN VILLAGE, INTRODUCTION AND FIRST CONSIDERATION

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated October 24, 2006 from Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development (ATTACHMENT XII).

AMMON MOVED UPON INTRODUCTION AND FIRST CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FROM EVERGREEN VILLAGE (PD 06-02), TAX PARCEL NUMBERS 33-25-05-20-300-001 AND 33-25-05-20-300-009, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PER PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2006-001 AND PURSUANT TO THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 5.23.2 AND SECTION 5.23.3 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development, stated that this planned development has been in the works for approximately two years. It is located on the southeast corner of Grovenburg and Krantz Roads and contains 248 condominium units, 192 of which are single family detached homes. Twenty are attached duplex-condominium units and 36 are town home style condominium units.

The development has a total of approximately 90 acres. Of the 90 acres, the developer will maintain 31.5 acres as permanent open space with a conservation easement granted to the Township to ensure that this open space is preserved. The condominium association is responsible for the maintenance of the open space. The Township is granted the authority, if the open space is not properly maintained, to do the maintenance and charge it back to the association. An approximate 12 acre wood lot that is located in the southeast corner of the property is included in the open space which will house walking paths. Ms. Miller stated that there is a likelihood that the developer may engage with the Ingham County Parks Board to facilitate an easement for the inter-urban trail system that would link from the school complex through this development, south through the Township’s property and to Burchfield Park.

This approval by the Township Board would authorize the entire planned development project including the construction plans for Phase I.

Ms. Miller stated that a traffic analysis impact study was conducted. The report showed that there would be no required modifications to the streets/intersections by the Ingham County Road Commission (ICRC); however the ICRC is requiring a passing flare at the entrance of the development and the paving of Krantz Road.

Supervisor Goodrich asked if any public attended the public hearing. Ms. Miller stated that two residents attended the hearing. In Ms. Miller’s opinion, the residents were not in opposition to the project.

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

PETITION FOR REZONING – CASE NO. 06-814 – EDWARD ROSE PROPERTIES, INC. – NORTHWEST CORNER OF HOLT AND COLLEGE ROADS – TAX PARCEL #33-25-05-13-476-004 – A-1, AGRICULTURAL TO R1-D, ONE AND TWO FAMILY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR “PARCEL A” AND A-1, AGRICULTURAL TOC-1, LOW IMPACT COMMERCIAL, INTRODUCTION AND FIRST CONSIDERATION

The Board reviewed a memorandum dated October 24, 2006 from Tracy Miller, Director of Community Development (ATTACHMENT XIII).

HAYHOE MOVED UPON INTRODUCTION AND FIRST CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE REZONING OF CASE NO. 06-814, NORTHWEST CORNER OF HOLT AND COLLEGE ROADS, EDWARD ROSE PROPERTIES, INC., A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL #33-25-05-13-476-004 CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 40.02 ACRES REFERRED TO AS “PARCEL A” IN THE REVISED REZONING REQUEST SURVEY WITH A DATE OF 10/6/06, FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL, TO R1-D, ONE AND TWO FAMILY HIGH DENSITY AND TO REZONE PART OF THE SAME PARCEL CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 5.85 ACRES REFERRED TO AS “PARCEL B” IN THE REVISED REZONING REQUEST SURVEY WITH A DATE OF 10/6/06 FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL, TO C-1, LOW IMPACT COMMERCIAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BASED ON BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE DELHI TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN, INCLUDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

Ms. Miller stated that a public hearing was held regarding this project on September 11, 2006. By request of the Planning Commission, the developer adjusted the location of where the commercial line was. The Planning Commission took action and provided their recommendation to the Board on October 23, 2006.

The original rezoning request from the applicant, Edward Rose Properties, Inc, was to rezone “Parcel A” from A-1 to RM, “Parcel B” from A-1 to C-1. “Parcel C” is not subject to this rezoning request because it is almost completely covered with regulated wetlands.

Ms. Miller stated that the Master Plan designates this property as being appropriate for high density residential and commercial office development. High density residential is typically implemented by the R-1D, R-1E and RM zoning districts where the commercial office is typically looked at as C-1 or C-2 zoning districts with C-1 being the low impact commercial.

Ms. Miller stated that there is a total of 47.07 acres. The A-1 to RM requested rezoning is for 40.02 acres and the A-1 to C-1 requested rezoning is for 5.85 acres. There is 1.15 acres that is not included in this request.

Treasurer Ammon stated that the petitioner was requesting RM rezoning and the Planning Commission recommended R-1D rezoning. Treasurer Ammon asked Ms. Miller to please state the differences in the zoning or what options might be available depending on the different zoning.

Ms. Miller stated that the R-1D, one and two family high density residential zoning, has a permitted by-right density of 6.6 units per acre for single family and 8.7 units per acre for duplex development. There is a height limit of 2.5 stories or 35’ maximum. There are no other Ordinance requirements for development. The R-1E, one family high density residential zoning, has a permitted by-right density of 6.6 units per acre for single family and is standardly single family homes with a height limit of 2.5 stories or 35’ maximum. There are no other Ordinance requirements for development. The RM, multi-family residential zoning, has a permitted by-right density of 6 units per acre and is typically apartments with a height limit of 3 stories but with a 35’ maximum.

With the RM zoning, there are other district specific requirements for development. A Special Use Permit is required for over 6 units per acre to a maximum of 12 units per acre. Parking areas must be setback a minimum of 20’ from adjacent residential properties. The Planning Commission may require fencing along all property lines that abut non-RM zoned properties. A minimum of 35% open space is required. An additional 100 square feet of recreation space is required for each bedroom in the development. Parking lot landscaping is required which includes one tree and 100 square feet of landscape area for every ten parking spaces. A 20’ landscaped buffer strip is required along property lines that abut residentially zoned properties.

Trustee Ketchum questioned the total number of units on each parcel with the R-1D zoning. Ms. Miller stated that by-right, 8.7 units per acre of duplexes could be developed on each parcel.

Treasurer Ammon questioned if the units would all have to be duplexes. Ms. Miller stated that they could be mixed duplex and single units.

Trustee Ketchum questioned the height restrictions. Ms. Miller stated that the building could not exceed 35’.

David Rice, representing Edward Rose Properties, Inc., stated that he would like to ask the Board to consider and revise the recommendation from the Planning Commission to the original rezoning request of RM and C-1.

Treasurer Ammon asked Mr. Rice if the Board determined that the RM zoning would be the best zoning for the parcel, would the developer return for the Special Use Permit to increase the units to a greater density than six units. Mr. Rice answered in the affirmative, stating that the approximate density would be slightly over nine units per acre.

Ms. Miller stated that the Special Use Permit process requires a Public Hearing and the Township Board may impose any reasonable condition on the Special Use Permit that is related to the health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community.

Supervisor Goodrich stated that if the request for rezoning is approved, the Board would not be required to grant anything over six units per acre. As well, the rezoning of this piece of property would not necessarily mean that this developer (Edward Rose Properties, Inc.) would be the one to develop this property. Supervisor Goodrich also stated that the owner of the property has the right to sell the property and the person that purchases it has the right to develop it as long as it meets the guidelines that the Planning Commission and Township Board of Trustees says meet the zoning of the area.

Ms. Miller stated that at the Planning Commission level, it was stated the perhaps the R-1D zoning was more appropriate and then to encourage a future developer to consider using the Planned Development process to facilitate the development. The one point of concern with that recommendation is that a density bonus is based on a Planned Development which is based on what can be development by-right in an underlying zoning district. If this property is rezoned to R-1D, the underlying by-right density is 8.7 units per acre. Thus a 45% open space would entitle the developer to a 20% density bonus resulting in 10.44 units per acre available under the Planned Development process. By using the RM zoning, six units per acre by-right are allowed or six to twelve units per acre with a Special Use Permit allowing Township control.

Treasurer Ammon asked if any of the 45% open space abuts properties on College Road. Ms. Miller stated that she did not believe that they were adjacent to the College Road pieces with the exception of the small piece that comes out to College Road.

Trustee Hayhoe asked if the Board would have more control with the RM rezoning. Ms. Miller answered in the affirmative, if the Board ultimately believes that apartments are not an inappropriate use or are not any less appropriate than rental duplexes for that property as there would be a lower starting point density in addition to greater control through a Special Use Permit. Trustee Hayhoe stated that he may reconsider his motion.

Trustee Krepps stated that R-1E would remove the option of duplexes and apartments. Ms. Miller stated that R-1E would be single family homes by-right at a density of 6.6 units per acre. Trustee Krepps asked if the R-1E zoning was ever considered for this property. Ms. Miller stated that the Planning Commission discussed the R-1E zoning; however, they chose the R-1D zoning. Trustee Krepps stated that from his perspective and from what he has heard from people he has spoken with is that they are concerned with three story apartment buildings being placed in their backyards. Trustee Krepps stated that the R-1E zoning would limit the development to single family homes on that property which would keep with the transition idea going from east to west. Ms. Miller stated that if you think of the transition as only going east to west, she would not disagree with that rationale. But when you look at the transition of not only existing zoning but also the master planning for land use and consider it from other directions besides just east to west the transitional zoning is very clear for high density residential. Additionally, there is text in the Master Plan that talks about situating multiple-family development adjacent to infrastructure and road systems that can support it. Thus, the conversation at the Planning Commission level was not that apartments were inappropriate, it was more of a discussion of where they where placed on the site and the density at which they were developed.

Ms. Miller stated that the Township is required by State law to make sure that the Township’s zoning decisions are not exclusionary. Less than 2.5% of the total property in the Township is zoned for multiple-family development, 16% of the total dwelling units are multiple-family units. Considering the Township’s growth over time, it is important to ensure that the overall growth of multiple-family opportunities can keep pace as a proportionate share of the growth. So, if multiple-family is not appropriate for this location, it should be determined on the Master Plan where they are appropriate. Trustee Krepps stated that the equation did not include mobile home parks. Ms. Miller stated that the less than 2.5% total property included mobile home parks but the total dwelling units did not include the mobile home parks.

Supervisor Goodrich stated that the residents that he has spoken to stated that they were not in favor of the three story buildings. Ms. Miller stated that in any of the high density districts, the maximum height above the average grade of the ground is 35’. In the RM zoning, three stories are allowed but the first story would be half underground.

The following people spoke in opposition of the proposed Petition for Rezoning (R1-D) – Case No. 06-814:

The Board received letters of opposition of the proposed Petition for Rezoning – Case No. 06-814 from the following people (on file in the Clerk’s office):

Trustee Ketchum stated that he served on the Planning Commission for a year as a Board of Trustee member. During that time, there was discussion regarding keeping up with multi-family dwelling units compared to the remaining types of housing in the Township. Trustee Ketchum stated that at that time as with the present time, he does not see a need to rush to make sure that the Township has high density equal to low density. Trustee Ketchum stated that it is his feeling that the Township is trying to give away too much of the Township too fast. As for the rezoning approval earlier in this meeting (PD06-02) Trustee Ketchum stated that it was expected that the area around the new high school would be developed. Trustee Ketchum stated that with the slow down of the housing market, he would fear that the property would not be developed fully or the units could possibly sit empty. Trustee Ketchum stated that he would not be supporting this motion.

Trustee Krepps stated that he agrees for the most part with the points made by the residents and by Trustee Ketchum. Trustee Krepps stated that he agrees that the property owner has the right to sell the property for purposes of development and that the developer has the right to request rezoning from the Board; however, the Board’s responsibility is to look at the larger interests of the community besides the property owner and developer and make a decision on that. Trustee Krepps stated that he would not be supporting this motion.

Trustee Sweet stated that when this item first came to him he questioned what could be done to safeguard the interests of the residents on College Road. Trustee Sweet stated that he also looked at the Future Land Use Map which showed that for thirty plus years this area has been designated as multiple-family. If multiple-family zoning is denied, what is being said to the land owner of a designated multiple-family parcel.

Trustee Krepps stated that the Board is often presented with requests that are different than what the Master Plan calls for. It appears that the Board is moving up in terms of density and rezoning. Trustee Krepps stated that the Board has been reminded that the Future Land Use Map is a fluid document and he feels that it should be fluid in this instance.

Trustee Hayhoe questioned if the Board were to deny the motion on the table, could a motion be made to rezone the property to RM giving the Board more control of the project.

Treasurer Ammon stated that the Board needs to remember that the land is available and the developer is available. Possibly in the future the property may not be able to be sold. Treasurer Ammon stated that he is very concerned with the impact that this may have on the College Road residents. Treasurer Ammon stated that Trustee Krepps mentioned that the Board needs to represent the homeowners as well as the developer and property owner, but Treasurer Ammon stated that the Board needs to represent the rest of the Township as well by allowing people to come to the community or by allowing residents to stay in the community. Treasurer Ammon stated that with the Special Use Permit process the Board would have more control over the project to protect the College Road residents which would provide more housing in the Township.

Trustee Krepps stated that with the R-1D rezoning there would not be a Special Use Permit. Supervisor Goodrich concurred.

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

HAYHOE MOVED UPON INTRODUCTION AND FIRST CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE REZONING OF CASE NO. 06-814, NORTHWEST CORNER OF HOLT AND COLLEGE ROADS, EDWARD ROSE PROPERTIES, INC., A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL #33-25-05-13-476-004 CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 40.02 ACRES REFERRED TO AS “PARCEL A” IN THE REVISED REZONING REQUEST SURVEY WITH A DATE OF 10/6/06, FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL, TO RM, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND TO REZONE PART OF THE SAME PARCEL CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 5.85 ACRES REFERRED TO AS “PARCEL B” IN THE REVISED REZONING REQUEST SURVEY WITH A DATE OF 10/6/06 FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL, TO C-1, LOW IMPACT COMMERCIAL.

The following people spoke in favor of the proposed Petition for Rezoning – Case No. 06-814:

Mr. Seehase and Mr. Corey were representing the owners of the above mentioned property.

The following people spoke in opposition of the proposed Petition for Rezoning (RM) – Case No. 06-814:

Mr. Youdes stated that he feels that a conflict of interest exists as Treasurer Ammon is related to one of the co-owners (of the property in consideration of rezoning).

Trustee Ketchum stated that he has not changed his mind on the rezoning of this property. Trustee Ketchum stated that he does not feel that this project fits as the entrance to Delhi Township.

Trustee Krepps stated that a project such as this could bring with it an increase in crime and greater demands on the police which could affect the Township as a whole. Trustee Krepps stated that in his opinion, medium density residential in this area would fit well.

Treasurer Ammon responded to Mr. Youdes statement in regards to the conflict of interest. Treasurer Ammon stated that he has no financial ties to this property; however, if it is the Board’s pleasure he will abstain from voting.

Trustee Hayhoe stated that he is comfortable with allowing Treasurer Ammon to vote on this motion. Clerk Hope stated that it is the position of the Michigan Townships Association that there needs to be a direct financial gain or interest to abstain from voting. Trustee Ketchum stated that he does not believe that there would be a conflict of interest by allowing Treasurer Ammon to vote. Supervisor Goodrich agreed with Trustee Ketchum.

Mr. Rice stated that in summary they would try to be good neighbors. Edward Rose Properties are long term owners of properties and have a very good record of maintaining properties.

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