Special Meeting- Ballot Referendum & Brownfield Development Authority
(Transcription from audio recording)
Minutes from May 9th Meeting
Meeting called to order:
Pledge of allegiance
Roll Call, Chris Smith excused, Present: Ken Fallowfield (KF), Ted Wood (TW), Guy Sauer (GS), Mark Evans (ME)
Public Input:
Gary Gatrell- According to 7.2 of Rules of Procedure that were adopted, says that the Clerk however, shall be responsible for making an audio tape recording of each meeting of the board. I am just asking if that’s being done.
Ted Wood: That has not been done, it will be done for future meetings.
Gary: It should be right now, because it’s right here, you adopted these on the 2nd.
Deb L: Brownfield Development authority, would like to hear everything board has investigated on that. Hoping we will, and maybe open it up to question, because curious about what that’s about. Maybe they’ll talk about it a little bit.
Close public input.
Action Items: Ballot Referendum Ordinance #1 2012. Discussion. Each of you have a copy of the resolution from the attorneys.
Guy: I understand some of this stuff was discussed prior to our last meeting and not all board members were present while it was talked about. Is that correct. Before the meeting??
KF: I’m not following the question
GS: I understand that some of the board members were talking to the lawyer with other people present from the audience before the meeting started, about this
KF: That could be correct.
GS: What did that entail?? Legally nothing can be done unless the board is in session.
KF: I believe attorneys were acting and responding according to their rule of law and their authority. Nothing was said or done, that I believe, that was outside the bounds of what can be done. The attorneys are not going to give advice that they cannot give without due cause at that time.
GS: Was the attorney for us or was the public also using the attorney??
KF: I don’t believe the public has any... anything to do... I know Ms. Lindgren did speak with the attorney
Deb: Because Jimmy Evans was speaking to the attorney.
KF: Hold on! And I do know that other people, Mr. Evans, I don’t know specifically or paid attention to what they were talking about.
GS: The lawyer is for the township board members, correct??
KF: I can’t dictate who he talks to outside this forum.
GS: If it has to do with township business, it has to be done in front of all board members.
KF: As I said, I wasn’t privy to those conversations and don’t respond to that.
ME: Guy, are you saying this document here may be inappropriate because of what was discussed??
GS: I feel there was some controversy that was said about how to stop this, and I feel that some of the information being given is not all the information that’s being given out.
KF: There was some question as to whether or not the committee did exist, I however
believe as I still do that the people should be able to decide this and that’s where we’re at?
GS: Even if the committee did exist it would be null and void in a courthouse.
KF: There was discussion with the attorneys and that was fair to now. Made sure all the t’s crossed and i’s dotted and we ended up with this, and this is what was brought to this board, and I believe it is prudent and should go forward.
GS: I think we should read it out loud for everybody.
KF: That’s the plan.
KF: (Reads Resolution) Joyfield Township Resolution #1 of 2012, this is from our attorneys, and this is pursuant to the action that was taken previous. People wanted this on the ballot, which is a good idea, I think. Whereas on March 7, 2012, the Joyfield Township Planning Board enacted Ordinance #1 of 2012, ...............Planning Commission......................Published on March 14th in the Record Patriot................requesting a referendum filed with clerk on April 5th.............
submitted to registered electors at Primary election on August 7th, 2012..........be approved and take effect... Yes/No.
Deb: What goes on the ballot?
KF: This is not time for public input at this time.
Deb: OK
GS: What does go on the ballot??
KF: What goes on the ballot is actually pretty clear, from “shall” to “NO”.
GS: (Reading through again, to be clear). So ordinance 1 of 2012, is that where it starts??
TW: (Corrects KF) This is actually Resolution #4
KF: I stand corrected.
ME: I move to adopt the resolution.
KF: We have a motion on the floor, do we have a 2nd??
GS: I’ll end up seconding, but I don’t..........
KF leans over and whispers to TW.
GS: are you ??.........are they asking for the planning commission? are they asking for the board approved in March?
KF: If you want a legal opinion you’re going to have to take other course, other actions for that, I’m not an attorney and I do not represent one at this time.
ME: I think all it’s asking is the board made the motion in March, do you want it to take effect yes or no. If they say no there won’t be a planning commission, if they say yes there will be, that’s how I read it.
KF: As a lay person, I would agree.
Deb: makes out of turn comment...
ME: I’ll 2nd it.
KF: You 2nd it?? I have a motion on the floor that’s been seconded, is there any further discussion. Can I have a roll call vote?
TW: Saur-Aye, Evans-Aye, Wood-Aye, Fallowfield-Aye
KF: Motion Carried
Discussion on Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, I believe Mr. Wood went to the meeting. Do we have discussion for the board??
TW: Essentially what is taking place is that the Benzie County Board of Commissioners are attempting to establish a Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, which lets them use grant- a variety of funds in creative ways to take blighted contaminated property, improve it, clean it up, whatever they want, enhance it into a package so a developer can come in, do the work or they can contract the work. But essentially it’s a means which blighted properties that have been taken off tax rolls can be put back on the tax rolls. It makes it more desirable for a developer to come in and work on a project, rather than putting their own money into it and having a longer recovery period. They can use tax income financing to recover the cost of some of this work. It can be used for infrastructure improvement, demolition, asbestos abatement, and similar types of projects. Depending on who you want to refer to as an authority, there are concerns that the Brownfield money that’s available is limited. But there are two or three different programs out there that .............but according to the interest of our board, our commissioners, they can use this money to go out and take a mobile home off a 5 acre parcel, clean it up and put it back on the tax rolls. Now, I can’t say for sure that they can or can’t do it to that extent, primarily. A previously used gas station that had underground tanks, you have a problem. You can clean it up, put it back on the tax rolls, sell it, develop it. If you’ve got, my favorite is the building in honor with the question mark on it, it is blighted that’s the kind of project that might qualify.
KF: Gillison’s also is technically a Brownfield, in that area, I know there are some test wells right in that area. What would constitute a brownfield?? Would Agricultural or chemical....?? What’s contamination?? Chemicals from what???
TW: If it has......petrols, uh... derivatives or whatever.
KF: DDT? something like that?
TW: Something like that and it’s derived from oil. If it has other contaminated products that we use, like in a dry cleaner business or something like that. Uh, if the soil is contaminated and toxic, it’s a means by which they can use funds to clean it up and put it back on the tax rolls.
KF: Who or what entity would determine a Brownfield in this township??
TW: To the best of my knowledge, we would have a say in the application of funds...and projects that might come into the county that they determine are a brownfield problem.
KF: Would the township have a fiduciary responsibility for that clean-up
TW: I can’t say that they would, anymore than we already do. It’s a means by which they can use a variety of funds to clean up a contaminated site.
KF: State funds, county funds and township funds??
TW: I don’t think it’s township funds, I think it’s more like grant money and state money.
KF: I guess I should clarify. Let’s say the county determines a brownfield in the township. The state funds are dried up, are we now saddled with that clean up?? And does the property owner have .....
GS: You’re asking questions that, it’s like a blight order and this kind of stuff.
KF: A blight ordinance I have dealings with that,
GS: At this time we do not have anything that qualifies under
KF: I disagree with that, I think Gillison’s is a technically Brownfield and that’s why that test well...
GS: The thing is that I’m saying is that all property and all buildings are taxed in our township.
KF: I understand that, but as far as Brownfield’s go, we do have and I know of one possible Brownfield at Gillison’s, the test well is across the street at that new little wine place across the street. I did have dealings with that test well. And I did also have dealings with blight ordinance directly and lost that case, and I don’t know if we had a financial responsibility as a result, but I do know we
ME: I heard Ted say it can go back on the tax roll. Does it have to b
KF: I’m new to this Brownfield.............
The discussion continues... many questions raised. KF’s concern is if the township taxpayers will be saddled with any cost for cleaning up any contaminated sites.
TW expresses there is no action required at this time.
KF: Wants to opt out at this time, and in a couple of months when they have their feet under them, might be better. Board member missing, so it’s best not to take it any further at this time.
KF: Discussion of tabling it. Opting out. Do not have to join right now. Can wait.
KF: If we table it, do we have any responsibilities. My question why the hurry, is there a deadline looming and if so, can we opt in opt out or table without sanctions.
TW: Have no obligations.
KF: Motion to table, motion carried (while Guy was out on the stoop talking on the phone.)
KF explains to Guy what they did. I know Ted went to the meeting, might as well talk about it while we’re all here.
Adjournment.
G. Gatrell- Just for information on property down there. Back in 60’s .... would have a hard time with liability down there. 5 gas stations down there.
KF: Do you belong to the bar association??
GG: No I’m just sayin’.
No comments:
Post a Comment