A TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE PUBLIC!

In politics' usual display of power, Elk township board members:
Linda VanDolsen, supervisor
Marilyn VanVleet, clerk
Frances Arquette, trustee
listened to the public's concerns, and even took a vote of confidence for three proposed building ideas. Then these three elected officials voted to build a larger stand-alone building which was the public's least-favored of all the ideas.
Such disregard for voters leaves me speechless!...

Myths, Misconceptions, or Misrepresentations

Myth #1: The current building cannot be added onto without bringing everything up to code- The building inspector, Tony Gagliardo, has repeatedly instructed Elk township residents that only what is changed will have to be brought up to date--why are we taking one person's word for truth? Tony may be reached at 745.2722

Myth #2: The current building cannot support the load on the floors- Three local contractors assessed the building inside and upside and outside and downside. They did not come to a consensus as to the structural viability of the building, but two employees from a reputable architectural firm did spend 7 hours inspecting the building (including pictures from the crawl space) and found it to be worthy of an addition, and mentioned that it had 35-50 years of useful life left in it--again why are we taking one person's word for truth? Dean DeKryger of DK Design may be reached at 779.4002

Myth #3: The current building's occupancy rate is less than 30 people with all the weight in the building now-where is this figure coming from? In speaking with a retired fire marshal from Kalamazoo, and DK Design's office, seating for meetings (chairs only) would need 7 square foot/person. This leads me to believe with a footprint of 33x22 foot(current township hall), even with the filing cabinets and desks and tables taken into account, we should be able to fit 50 chairs in any meeting--why are we taking one person's word for truth?

Myth #4: The fire regulations do not allow for more chairs set up-WHAT? Exactly where is this info coming from? See above Myth #5 for a fire marshal's perspective--and why are we taking one person's word for truth?

Myth #5: The proposed project is considered to be a mixed use project by Lake County, and therefore, is not a Class C commercial building project-not supported by the Lake County Building Dept or the aforementioned architectural firm. This building proposal may be a mixed use proposal, but it is still a commercial building subject to commercial codes and regulations.--why are we taking one person's word for truth?

Myth #6: One or two members of a township board can decide to spend $155,000 without a vote of the taxpayers-by law a majority of a township board must vote during a scheduled meeting after a motion or resolution has been made. This must be a matter of public record and documented as such. It is true, however, that the board of a township may vote by majority to spend $155,000 on anything they deem worthy, and unless the voters use their power of referendum or (heaven forbid) recall, there is not much that can be done after the fact.

Annual Township Meeting coming up...

The annual Elk Township Meeting will be held on March 26th, Saturday, at 10:00 am with a special meeting held immediately following. The supposed purpose of this special meeting would be an open forum of which citizens have requested:

• At that meeting, present three separate building plans
• Include approximate costs of each plan
• Citizens present at the special meeting would then vote on which plan they would like to see the township build.

It remains a fact, however, that a standing township board is not bound by a citizen's vote in a town hall meeting. The board would be bound by a vote during a regular election such as the board allowed in November of 2008. At that time, the citizens were able to vote on borrowing the sum not to exceed $200,000 and use current funds of $125,000 to add on to the current township hall. This vote went down in defeat. A letter from the auditor after the 2008 audit showed the township having "an unreserved fund balance of $251,797," and the auditor recommended that the township could use $125,000 of the fund balance with a years worth of operating capital remaining. The current township officials would like to use $155,584 of tax payers monies to add on to the current township hall even though we only have "an unreserved fund balance of $281,178,"according to the audit for 2010. This means we would have less than a years worth of operating capital, and the money would be gone for good. Over the past two years, according to existing audit records, we have accumulated $29,381, or $14,690 per year. This is taxpayers' monies which should allow for taxpayers to have a say in where is goes. However, according to our representative form of government, any elected official acting on your behalf may spend such balance of money as they deem fit. Your only say-so is at meetings where motions are being made and seconded and passed, or at the voting booth. I encourage every citizen to make their voices heard at the annual township meeting this Saturday at 10am.

Business, Building, and Bull...

Wow, how time does fly along with the ugly, white stuff. It's been awhile since an update, and I've not heard any crying, so you must be staying informed all by yourself. Anyway, as far as business, the current board has met Dec, Jan, and Feb with not much noteworthy to report.
Remember that on November 18, 2010, this board voted 3-2 to hold a public forum concerning the proposed building project. This will come up later, so keep reading.

Sauble Township super has asked surrounding townships to help with the costs of the recycling program that Sauble and surrounding township residents have been utilizing for garbage control. This is a free service for the area residents.

Doug Mann and Lou Fitz have been appointed to the Fire Board as representatives of Elk Township, they are replacing outgoing Corey VanFleet and Carol Draper (Fire Board only).

Bob Nalbach passed away in December, and will be missed as an electrician and neighbor.

Blossom Fairbanks has been appointed to the Cemetery Board.

Board of Review appointments are as follows: Don Arquette, Philip VanVleet, and Yvonne Kibbe with Kay MacDonald being an alternate. If anyone else is interested in being an alternate for Board of Review, let Linda VanDolsen know.

Bob Englebrecht, Elk Township Assessor, has reviewed area commercial properties and classifications and found the following:
Properties classified as exempt:
7th Day Adventist Church, Community Service Center
Properties classified as industrial:
Fischer #3 (gravel) Haliday Sand & Gravel
Properties classified commercial:
ABC Redi Mix
Most other businesses are classified residential as they are operated from homes, although a few businesses will need a physical visit in the spring to accurately assess classification.
Any questions pertaining to this may be directed to Bob Englebrecht at 231.883.4141

2011-2012 Salary Resolutions include a raise for trustees to $95 per meeting, and a raise for deputies to $12/hr, not to exceed $500 annually.

Under New Business at the Feb Board meeting, the Agenda states:
Building Project Public Hearing Reconsideration...
According to the Feb meeting minutes draft, there was a
"Motion was made by Frances Arquette to rescind the previous motion to hold a public hearing pertaining to the building project, seconded by Marilyn VanVleet," and passed 4-1...
then a second motion was made,
"Motion to carry under old business the building project and carry a question period of no more than 10 minutes was made by Frances Arquette, seconded by Linda VanDolsen," and passed 5-0.

So, just to recap this proposed building bull:
In Nov, Arquette seconded a motion made by John Fairbanks to have a public forum meeting when any citizen could have their questions answered concerning expenditures to build a proposed township hall.
Then in Feb, Arquette rescinds the motion she seconded and passes a new motion to limit citizens to a collective 10 minutes of questions (and hopefully answers) before the board votes to use $155,584 of taxpayer's monies.
And you will have no vote on the matter of this expenditure. Might want to make your voice heard at the next board meeting on March 8, 2011 (hopefully you will be included in the 10 minutes).

Board Answers....

December 12, 2010

To: Lou Fitz

From: L. VanDolsen, Supervisor

Subject: Public Comment Questions

Attached please find the answers to the questions you submitted from public comment. I was not sure what date you were referring to for the "town hall meeting", and thus, I was not sure when the 2 week's deadline would be. If by town hall meeting you meant our regularly scheduled 14 December board meeting, I could not respond 2 weeks before that date. If you meant a future special or open forum meeting on this project, then I have complied with your 2 week request. If I don't see you at the 14 December meeting, I will mail this to you instead of handing it to you personally. Thanks for your questions.

Sincerely,

Linda J. VanDolsen, Supervisor Elk Township, Lake County,MI

/ljv

Bid Process: Competitive bidding is not required by state law. MT A was consulted to confirm this. We are not using federal funds nor are we encumbering the township with a mortgage. The board accepted the recommendations of the subcommittee as regards the choice of general contractor and civil engineer.

Money: This township board has spent $350 on drawings and $1,500 for a survey of the site done my Abonmarche, Manistee, plus $300 on trustee's salaries for an open forum and special meeting for this current project. Total $2,150. Mr. Peterson has not yet billed us for his services for this most recent set of drawings, meetings, and site visit that have taken place in the September to November timeframe. The site had to be resurveyed because the survey done for the previous proposed building project was incomplete. The previous survey did not include the entire site out to Toma and up to Bass Lake Rd. so the precise location of the easements at the comer of Toma and Bass Lake were not shown.

The law states that a licensed civil engineer's or a licensed architect's stamp/seal must be on all building plans. Ivan Peterson is a licensed civil engineer in good standing and can therefore do the working drawings and stamp the plans.

Township funds will be built back up as they have always been - by our annual revenue accumulation. Our goal is to maintain one year's operating cost in the general fund.

Cost Proposal: All code requirements for this project have been met. Underground electrical costs will be determined by Great Lakes Energy. This cannot be done until the site stakes are placed for the building footprint.

Old Building (current Township Hall): The Proposed Development Plan for the Elk Township Site was adopted by the board in April 2010. Phase II of the plan addresses the repurposing of the old hall and adopts the most popular ideas from the community. The most popular idea is to repurpose the building to serve as the historical and cultura center for Elk Township where the township's historical records can be properly preserved, archived and displayed. Once the hall is vacated, renovation and preservation can begin as revenues become available. Old building's safety: As has been explained many times, the combination of the weights of the filing cabinets, office furniture and the people attending a meeting are too heavy a load for the current structure.

Contract Document: Contract dates and payment schedules TBD because at the 18 November, meeting nothing was decided except to have another meeting. The subject of liens was discussed by Mr. Riggs, Mr. Fairbanks and the Supervisor at length on 18 November. It is the supervisor's responsibility to consult with the contractor and verify that the waiver of liens is correct before payment is made.

Floor Plan Document: Interior floor plan and design derived from inputs from the entire board and contractor. Interior materials include ceramic tile flooring, with a neutral color palate for walls and trim. Everything is to code.

SidelEnd View: It is proposed that exterior colors will be pale gray siding, white trim on windows, and the natural gray of the exterior stone with a black metal roof. There will be no double entry door because it is not energy efficient. There will be a handicap accessible single door with sidelights. Entry is situated to open on the parking lot and allow for easy drop off and pick up of persons, deliveries, etc., and facilitate handicap access and snow removal. Landscaping will be minimal because of woodland setting, but there will be low maintenance shrubbery on either side of the front porch/door. The entire circumference of the building will have stone mulch from the slab edge to the end of the overhang. The proposed exterior colors will match those of the old building and give a feeling of continuity to the site.

Site Plan: There is no danger of sprawl; remember our population and where we are. As far as siting the building to make it easier to sell off property, that is not a consideration, but rather it is sited to facililate and lower the cost of a future addition should future growth require it. A separate septic system is required because: (1) The current one cannot handle the "highest and best use" of the proposed building as well as the requirements of the old building. (2) The proposed building is too far from the current septic and the fall is not adequate to ensure proper flow. Per the code a well upgrade is not required.

Questions from the community to the Board

Open Letter to the Elk Township Board:

Date: November 28, 2010

To: Linda VanDolsen, Elk Township Supervisor

From: Elk Township Citizens

Subject: Questions about the Elk Township building project

Cc: All Elk Township Board members

Linda,

In regards to your statement at the Elk Township Special Board Meeting on 11/18/10, “Please submit your questions in writing”, a group of Elk Township citizens are taking this opportunity to respond to your request for written questions. Attached are two pages of questions that the Elk Township Citizens (ETC) have compiled. We respectfully request that answers be provided in writing, so that we may share the information with each member of this group. We are submitting these questions now to avoid a lengthy and confusing town hall meeting and, by doing this now, provide you time to prepare and deliver the answers a minimum of two weeks prior to the town hall meeting.

Our intent is not to try to stop a building project and not to be negative. Rather, it is to better understand if the township Board is acting in the best interest of the taxpayers when considering a project and expenditure of this magnitude.

Your prompt attention to this request is greatly appreciated. Please call me with your questions. (231-266-5040)

Lou Fitz (Spokesperson for ETC)

The Questions:

November 23, 2010

• Bid Process

• At a special meeting held 11/18/10, Elk Township Supervisor, Linda VanDolsen, stated (paraphrase) “Legally, no open bids are necessary because no money will be borrowed from a banking institution.” Understanding that competitive bidding is in the best interest of the township, why is there no competitive bidding on this building? We strongly urge the board to use competitive bidding in this building project.

• Money
• Has any money been spent on this project as of this date?
• Did the Board pay for the architectural drawing given to Board at the 11/18/10 Special Meeting? And is an architect going review and affix his/her stamp on this drawing?
• How are you planning to build reserve township funds back up after spending for this building project?
• Is the board willing to reduce the township savings to less than one year’s operating cost and sign the proposed contract?
• If yes (this will reduce savings to less than 1 yr. operating cost), by how much is the board willing to reduce the Township savings?
• $238,000 (current savings) – $155,584 (total listed on cost proposal sheet) = $83,000 would be left in savings. $83,000 is 2/3 of the annual budget. (All figures are approximate.)

• Cost Proposal Sheet document (from 11/18/10 meeting)
• Why is there no provision for a fire suppression system on Proposal Sheet? (required on any commercial building)
• Why was no specification sheet submitted with the bid? (i.e. electrical service, insulation thickness, furnace capacity, etc.)
• Why are the underground electrical costs not part of the bid ($155,584 not correct total amount without this cost?)
• Volunteers on this project.
• How is the township going to be compensated for volunteer labor? And who’s going to keep track of volunteers’ time? I.e. if framing-in, roof, siding cost is estimated at $16,800 and less time is needed to complete tasks because of volunteer labor, how is a new, lower cost figured?
• Does Township have insurance for volunteer labor – proof?
• Who are the subcontractors?
• Names of subcontractors and how were they selected?
• We request that subcontractor’s bids give a breakout of estimates as to labor and material costs separately.
• Is the General Contractor shown on the Cost Proposal sheet licensed, insured and bonded to build a Class C Commercial building? Does the Civil Engineer meet the same requirements?
• Chapter 13 Public works projects reads;
• Under MCL339.2011, a township may not engage in a public works project costing $15,000 or more, unless the plans and specifications for the project are prepared by a licensed architect or licensed professional engineer, the land is surveyed by a licensed land surveyor and the work is supervised by either a licensed architect or a licensed engineer.
• Furthermore, under MCL 129.201, if the public works project exceeds $50,000, the principal contractor is required to furnish both a performance bond and a payment bond to the township for the completion of the project in accordance with the plans and specifications and for the payment of all subcontractors, laborers and material suppliers.

• Old Building:
• What’s going to happen with the old building (if it’s so unsafe i.e. electrical, floor unsafe etc.)

• Missing from specs provide at 11/18/10 meeting
• Basement! Why no basement? (it’s the cheapest part of the building and overwhelming supported by the citizens at previous town hall meetings held about this type of building)

• Contract Document (acceptance of proposal) (from 11/18/10 meeting)
• Lien releases: What provisions are going to be made for release of liens conditional and unconditional, partial and full? (Partial Lien Release)
• What is the start date of the contract?
• What is the completion date of the contract?
• What is the payment schedule (how and when will monies be paid)?

• Floor Plan Document (from 11/18/10 meeting)
• Building size is 28 X 60 (1680 sq ft) is $92.61 sq ft to build at $155,584.
• Who decided on interior design?
• Floor – wood ceramic or vinyl tile?
• Walls – wood, woodwork, colors?
• Meeting room size: Is meeting room adequate for future use?
• Approximately 702 sq. ft. wall to wall - allocated to meeting space, including coffee area.
• Bathroom – Need a urinal in bathroom
• Building inspector will require two entrance/exit doors in the meeting room area.

• Side / End View Document (from 11/18/10 meeting)
• What color is exterior siding?
• Comments and suggestions about outside of building.
• Outside should blend with the land (not just tan)
• Landscaping on outside = what is design?
• Is rock on outside real rock? Real rock is a natural resource of this community and should be used.
• Roof – shingles or metal? If metal, is it seamless? (It should be seamless!)
• Entry door
• Why oriented on North side of building?
• This group of citizens would like to see a double door entry on the west side of building with a second (required) exit from the meeting room on north side of building?

• Site plan (from 11/18/10 meeting)
• Building orientation on lot
• Why is it located on the center lot (of 3 owned lots) and not on the North lot (to avoid sprawl)?
• This group of citizens would like to see the new building on the same lot as the old building (Would make 2^nd lot available for resale if township decided to sell it later)
• Why is the septic system not common use for both buildings?
• Do we need to upgrade our well pump? Previous building investigation showed that pump needed upgrading.

The township residents hope for answers to the above questions in writing.

Special Board Mtg...Nov. 18, 2010

All board members were present for this special board meeting, which mostly was called to review documents for a new building project. A building project? Wasn't that voted down by the majority of the voting populous of Elk Township, you ask. This is a valid question, but one which has not been answered by this board. In fact, not very many questions were answered at this special board meeting. The current supervisor, Linda VanDolsen, has made it abundantly clear that she does not answer to the people of Elk Township, she answers for them. The board dealt with many of their own questions, including the cost of the bid...only one bid, by the way...which was $155,584.
This amount is more than half of our current undesignated funds, and will leave less than one year of operating expenses in the budget.
This bid includes some things, but not everything for a turn-key operation:
It includes a "civil engineer" to draw up building plans, and oversee the project at $60/hour + mileage.
It includes earth moving by Tim Fischer.
It includes general contractor, Steve Riggs, and whatever subcontractors he decides to use.
It includes electrical by Bob Nalbach of Harper Lake Electric.
It includes framing, roofing, concrete, drywall, interior finishing, insulation, tiles for flooring, and siding.
It does not include extra parking, building excavation, a basement, a fire suppression system, underground electric service, well pump upgrade, a specification sheet for materials, a breakdown of labor vs. materials, or a urinal in the unisex bathroom.

The board spent plenty of time answering it's own questions with Steve Riggs, such as why this bid is $100,000 over that of board member John Fairbanks, who was investigating a slightly smaller building with mostly volunteer labor. Oh, wait, that question was not really ever answered, just some smoke blown about like, there was no labor cost involved in Fairbank's bid. So the public is left wondering are labor costs really $100,000 for a 28' x 60' building?

The public is left wondering many questions because the super, VanDolsen, informed the public at the special meeting that no questions would be answered at the meeting. If you wanted answers, you must submit questions to the board, and they would answer in writing at their leisure.

So, the questions of multiple bids... why will there be no multiple bids on such a large project?
budget... do we actually have the monies for such a large project?
how will the board recover from such a large investment... we will be left with less than one year of operating expenses, is this wise?
these questions have yet to be answered, oh, yes, they must be put in writing.
So, the public is left with the impression that the current board does not really care about what the public thinks is responsible governmental spending.

The super finished this part of the meeting, closing down public comment as soon as possible, with a request for a motion.
What she received was a motion by board member, John Fairbanks, to table such discussion (super wanted a vote to proceed with building plans) until after a public hearing in an open forum/ townhall style meeting. The super was quite willing to let this motion die for lack of a second, but she did her civic duty and asked for a second when prompted by the public. Arquette seconded the motion, and VanDolsen requested a roll call vote on the motion:
VanDolsen-NO
VanVleet-NO
Draper-YES
Arquette-YES
Fairbanks-YES
Motion passed 3-2 to have a public hearing in an open forum with question and answer time for the frustrated public.
The only other business to come before the board was a decision to purchase a new copy machine. Wonder if they got competitive bids?

Will try to keep you informed of the date of the hopefully upcoming public meeting, but it was overheard out of the super's mouth, that her calendar is too busy until after the holidays, so rest easy, we'll see...

November 2010

Proposed office bldg: Special Board Mtg. on Thursday, Nov. 18, 2010, at 2pm at the hall.
The board will review "Working Drawings" on the proposed office building.

Other business:
Toma Rd. grading done

Snowplowing with heavy equipment, 50.00 per hr. by Steve Riggs, approved.

Homestead Classification/Clairification:

Assessor charged to review list of businesses prepared by former CAC to see if revisions are needed. Report due by Feb. 2011 Board Mtg.

Board authorized $148.00 for new numbers and letters for event sign in front of hall.

"Neighborhood Watch" Mtg. scheduled for 11/30/10 at 6:30pm at Sauble Twp. Hall. People interested in setting up a neighborhood watch should attend.

Elk Township Historical Society...

Sonny Miller was introduced by Ann Chase (head of the Elk Twp Historical Society) to talk about the railroad history in and around Elk Twp/Lake County



Sonny proved to be a wealth of information and brought many artifacts and documents relative to the history of railroads...thanks for the info...and hopefully the historical society will be bringing us more speakers of like caliber.

A Pat on the Back...And a Kick in the Butt

Well, hopefully you have had a nice summer...like me! It's taken me all summer to get back in the swing of things...including this blog...so here goes:
Random thoughts, old & new, no order of importance:
Apparently the audit has been finished for Elk Twp, although there is no record of it on the michigan.gov website under lake county. (hmmm...maybe we've moved)
There will be a hazardous waste removal/pick up day on Oct 9th, down in Baldwin again for 2010, same place as 2009.
Elk Twp now has an historical society and will host an informational talk by Sonny Miller on the Railroad history of this area...Tuesday, Sept 21st.
Apparently Linda VanDolsen and Marilyn VanVleet comprise a subcommittee looking into building a new and bigger twp building...they asked for, and received, permission (by a vote this time) to request bid proposals from Steve Riggs (who will canvas local contractors)...there is NO floor plan as of yet, and there are NO parameters to be shared with the public...VanDolsen mentioned that they will be going off a previous floor plan drawn by Peterson "with the counter." (apparently that means a kitchen-type counter somewhere)
Granger Road project is going forward as planned.
A new twp hall furnace will go in this week.
Lighting was put in at Turner Rd & 11 Mile Rd.
The Citizen's Advisory Committee was disbanded by a vote of the board after turning in a detailed map of land usage for our township, hence the title, "A Pat on the Back...And a Kick in the Butt." They were thanked for their help on this and previous projects, but the board does not believe they can assist the board in any way in the future.
What do you think?????