Strong police showing at McClendon hearing

Saugatuck Township Fire District Chief Brian Florey, center in white shirt, and Saugatuck Douglas Police Department Chief Ken Giles, right of Florey, talk to officers and emergency personnel after the Wednesday, March 21, Saugatuck Township-Aubrey McClendon hearing at Saugatuck High School.

Did you notice all the police officers around the Saugatuck High School gym during last Wednesday’s hearing on the proposed settlement in the lawsuit between Saugatuck Township and Aubrey McClendon?

There were six Saugatuck-Douglas Police Department officers and three Michigan State Police troopers to watch over about 150 people. That’s an officer for almost every 17 people.

Saugatuck-Douglas Chief Ken Giles plans to bill the township for his officers’ time. The township has not received the bill yet.

Law enforcement presence at the July 22 public hearing on the first settlement proposal cost more than $1,400. The township and McClendon split the bill, paying $710.46 each for the protection.

Meetings over the lawsuit have gotten rowdy in the past.

Police shut down a meeting on July 18 due to overcrowding and one man was arrested for disorderly conduct. Saugatuck Douglas Police Department officers also monitored a meeting at the high school library March 5 that was attended by more than 100 people.

Michigan State Police stepped into a standing-room-only meeting last March when protesters honked car horns outside the township hall. Troopers searched the hall in May after a bomb threat was made against the township board and attorneys. Nothing was found.

And the rumors about a bomb-sniffing dog going through the high school before last week’s meeting? Not true, Giles said.

Consolidation Q&A

Spectators at the January information meeting about consolidation.

Members of the State Boundary Commission met with about 70 residents in January to discuss the process of Saugatuck and Douglas cities merging with Saugatuck Township. Officials took questions from audience members. Here are the questions and answers:


QUESTION #1: SUBMITTED BY DICK WASKIN
I want to thank you for the very informative meeting last night in Saugatuck. I apologize for some in the audience that seemed to be on the “attack.” We really are not all that mean.
I have a question as it pertains to the process. Many people believe that it makes complete sense for the current cities of Saugatuck and Douglas to consolidate but believe the needs of the Township are very different then those of the cities. If there was a referendum on the Tri Community Consolidation and it fails in the Township, could there be a petition submitted for just the Consolidation of Saugatuck and Douglas without the Township? Could this be done without having to wait the 2 to 3 year period since it would be a different request?
ANSWER #1
The scenario you have described would allow for a new petition to be filed at anytime after a vote denying the proposed consolidation. The 2-year timeframe would not apply since the new petition would not propose to consolidate the “identical municipalities” originally voted on. R 123.24 Rejected petitions or resolutions. Rule 24 (2) The commission shall reject a consolidation petition if a proposition to consolidate the IDENTICAL MUNICIPALITIES has been voted on within the 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the later petition.
The entire rule and other pertinent laws can be found at: www.michigan.gov/sbc

QUESTION #2 SUBMITTED BY LISA GREENWOOD
Thank you for presenting at the public meeting last night to educate us on the consolidation process followed by the State Boundary Commission.
I was the person in the audience (a.k.a., woman in black) who asked a question on how the millage rates would be determined should the tri-communities of Douglas, Saugatuck, and Saugatuck Township be consolidated. I remain very interested in learning more on this topic.
My specific questions are if the tri-communities are consolidated into one city:
1) Is it a requirement that all the millage rates for city services be equally shared or can a city charter include provisions to create different tax assessment districts within the city?
2) If it is legal for a city to create different tax assessment districts, what is the process followed to determine the various millage rates imposed?
I have copied Jim Wiley, Mayor of the City of Douglas, and William LeFevere, City Manager of the City of Douglas, and respectfully ask that you respond to me and copy them on your response. I will ask them to share the information with their counterparts in the City of Saugatuck and Saugatuck Township.
This question on taxes I believe is on many people’s minds given that the millage rates for the City of Douglas and Saugatuck currently include services (e.g., Police) not currently paid by the township. This results in a significantly lower millage rates for township property owners.
ANSWER #2
Section 3 of the Home Rule City Act, 1909 PA 279, MCL 117.3, states that the city charter must govern how taxes are levied. Section 3(g) of the Act sets a limit on millage rates levied for municipal purposes. The Act makes no reference to various rates for different areas of a city. A copy of the Home Rule City Act may be found at www.michigan.gov/sbc.

QUESTIONS 3-9 WERE SUBMITTED BY BILL HESS
QUESTION #3
Consolidation Petition Withdrawal: Can the petitioners withdraw the petition? At what steps in the process?
ANSWER #3
There is no legal provision for the withdrawal of a consolidation petition.

QUESTION #4
Referendum Petition: Am I correct that the Referendum Petition must have the signatures of 5% of the total registered voters in the three municipalities?
ANSWER #4
A valid referendum petition requires signatures from no less than 5 percent of the total registered voters within the area proposed to be consolidated. If a consolidation proposal is approved with or without a revision of the boundaries the commission's order becomes final 45 days after the date of the order unless within that 45 days a petition for a referendum is filed with the commission which contains the signatures of at least 5% of the registered electors residing in the area to be consolidated as approved by the commission. [1968 PA 191, MCL 123.1012(a)(3)]

QUESTION #5
Charter Commission Elected or Appointed: When and who decides if the Charter Commission is elected (proportional to population) or appointed (equal number of members from each municipality)?
ANSWER #5
The municipalities are responsible for deciding if they want the charter commission elected or appointed. If they want the ability to appoint the charter commissioners each municipality will need to pass a resolution stating that they wish to appoint the charter commissioners. The resolutions will need to be provided to the State Boundary Commission prior to its adjudicative hearing on the consolidation. If each municipality is unable to provide a resolution the State Boundary will order an election take place in accordance with section 13(1) of the State Boundary Commission Act, 1968 PA 191, MCL 123.13(1).

QUESTION #6
Charter Commission Timeline: What is the timing that the Commission must present a charter or revised charter to the voters? Is the total time three years?
ANSWER #6
The charter must be adopted by the voters in each municipality, voting separately, within three years of the effective date of the final order by the Director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.
If a charter has not been adopted within 3 years following the date the commission's order became final, or if within the 3-year period the charter commission does not reconvene within 90 days after the election at which the first proposed charter was defeated, the consolidation proceedings shall end. [1968 PA 191, MCL 123.1017(4)]

QUESTION #7
Charter Commission Support and Resources: Since the consolidation was not initiated by any municipality, who provides support and funding for the Charter Commission? For example, who provides staff, "notices" meetings, secures municipality attorneys, finds meeting space, etc.
ANSWER #7
That is not within the purview of the State Boundary Commission.

QUESTION #8
Status of Current Governments During Period Charter is Being Written: Do the current three governments operate as "business as usual" or is there some type of interim government?
ANSWER #8
The municipalities continue to operate as "business as usual" until the new charter takes effect. Sec 17 (1) The corporate status of the cities and villages proposed for consolidation shall not be changed or in any way affected until the charter takes effect. [1968 PA 191, MCL 123.1017(1)]

QUESTION #9
Area of Consolidation: Can the area of consolidation be reduced, for example the Township removed and just the two cities consolidated?
ANSWER #9
The proposed area of consolidation may be revised, expanded or contracted, by recommendation of the State Boundary Commission and order of the Director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. Sec. 12a. (1) After the public hearing on a proposed consolidation and review by the commission, the commission may deny the proposed consolidation, revise the boundaries of the territory to be consolidated and approve the proposal, or approve the consolidation without any change. [1968 PA 191, MCL 123.1012a(1)]

QUESTIONS 10-12 WERE SUBMITTED BY WILLIAM LEFEVERE
QUESTION #10
Thank you for the meeting last night it was helpful and informative to all those in attendance. In follow up, no one ask and your presentation did not cover the timing or appointment of the two local members by the Probate Court to sit as Boundary Commissioners. Could you please describe when this occurs and how that process works?
ANSWER #10
The local commissioners from Allegan County serve for three year terms. They are already in place from previous Boundary Commission filings in Allegan County. Section 5 of the State Boundary Commission Act, 1968 PA 191, MCL 123.1005, specifically addresses this topic.

QUESTION #11
MCL 123.1012a Sec. 12a. (1) specifically states that it is the Boundary Commission that denies or approves the proposed consolidation. I was not aware that an executive order could trump a statute. Could you please clarify how that is possible? Procedurally, if the Boundary Commission is not the decision making body wouldn’t any referendum petition have to specifically address whose decision is being challenged?
ANSWER #11
A referendum petition must state clearly what is being petitioned for so that a person signing the petition has full knowledge of what they are agreeing to support. The Executive Reorganization Act PA 380 of 1965, in conjunction with Michigan Attorney General Opinion #4479A issued May 2, 1966 and Executive Reorganization Order 1996-2 address, how the decision making powers of the State Boundary Commission were transferred to the Director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

QUESTION #12
After the meeting you and I also discussed procedurally “when and how” the Commission would act if it was their intent to make revisions to the size of the area to be consolidated from the petition that has been submitted. I came away from that discussion with the understanding that any action by the Commission to revise the area to be consolidated would occur at or during the meeting at which the legal sufficiency of the petitions is taken up. The statute, as well as your rules, appears to provide ample opportunity for the Commission or the final decision maker to revise the area to be consolidated even after the opportunity for any further all public input has occurred. As this didn’t come up during the meeting and your only slide covered just the expansion of the boundaries, could you please restate when and how the Commission would make adjustments to reduce the size the area to be consolidated.
ANSWER #12
The proposed area of consolidation may be revised, expanded or contracted, by recommendation of the State Boundary Commission and order of the Director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. Sec. 12a. (1) After the public hearing on a proposed consolidation and review by the commission, the commission may deny the proposed consolidation, revise the boundaries of the territory to be consolidated and approve the proposal, or approve the consolidation without any change. [PA 191, MCL 123.1012a (1)]

McClendon hearing: What people said

A Michigan State Police trooper watches the crowd Wednesday night.

The hearing Wednesday night at Saugatuck High School drew about 150 people. Of the 39 people who spoke, 31 were against Saugatuck Township accepting the proposed legal settlement with Aubrey McClendon; eight supported the plan to end the 2-year-old federal lawsuit.


Read the main news story at: http://www.hollandsentinel.com/topstories/x271614177/Saugatuck-Township-OKs-McClendon-deal

See Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance President David Swan speak at: http://www.hollandsentinel.com/videos/x271614028/David-Swan-at-McClendon-Hearing?page=0

Following are some quotes and phrases from the meeting. Not all speakers are identified (I wasn’t able to get all the names and many times people did not speak clearly into the microphone) and some are not included (I was tracking down other names when they spoke or was filing online updates, taking photos or video while they spoke).

• John Huyge supported the settlement, hoping it would end “un-Saugatuck-like behavior” by people on both sides.

• P.G. Walter said the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance wants to stop development of the duneland north of the Kalamazoo River by turning Aubrey McClendon into a “billionaire boogeyman.”

• Cynthia McKean described the $429,000 spent by the township on legal fees: “It’s ludicrous to waste taxpayers’ money,” adding the planning commission should handle the zoning issues.

• A Laketown Township resident addressed township attorney Ron Bultje: “He is a waste of taxpayer money and should be replaced.” She also said McClendon has “put one over on us.”

• Jane Dickie said the proposal treats McClendon differently than other land owners and  supports “harassment and bullying.”

• Dick Waskin said the plan is not a backroom deal. He said this is “an opportunity to press the reset button.”

• Vicki Rosenburg called the July meeting “a sham.” A nine-story hotel, she said, is “not the legacy we want to leave.”

• Doug Gritter said the south side property is now in public hands and it’s time for development of the north land. “Stop the bleeding and get this thing behind us,” he said. “It’s the right thing to do.”

• Fran Mervau said the township should not blame its opponents for the problems it now faces. If the township did its job properly, “We would not be here tonight,” Mervau said.

• Steve McKown called the latest proposal “more subtle” than the earlier one rejected by the federal judge.  This agreement, he said, “Allows the property owner to overwhelm the ZBA” and “There’s no possible way the ZBA can handle this.” He said the agreement is set up to fail.

• Fritz Royce expects the judge to turn down the proposal. “This is going to come right back from the judge,” he said, because the planning commission should be handling it.

• Kathy Roper: “The ZBA will be given a nearly impossible task.”

• Scott Howard, land use attorney for Olson, Bzdok and Howard of Traverse City: “I recognize and uphill battle when I see one.” The ZBA has been put in a position it should not be in.

• Larry Sybesma said the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance has “cost us and the school system a lot of money” but opposing development on McClendon’s land.

• R.J. Peterson said the proposal is a “win, win, win, win,” allowing the community to focus on harbor improvement; for local governments who will get more money for improvements that will benefit taxpayers; for the community to repair social damage; and for McClendon who will work through the legal process.

• A woman who has lived near McClendon’s land for 25 years called it a “lose, lose, lose, lose” for the community because the area will lose its character.

• A woman said, “These are our dunes” and the development will pollute the environment. “Please think what it might look like for the next generation,” she said.

• Janet Rund: “Much of the development makes me feel sick to my stomach. ... I speak from my heart and for the wild heart of Saugatuck.”

• Marcia Perry: “There’s been an incredible lack of dialogue,” she said. She plans to submit 147 serious questions to the township attorney about the settlement proposal.

• John Latini said that the property has seen other variances in the past, such as the one allowing the boat factory.

• James Cook: “This settlement is a backroom deal.”

• Steve Darpel: “If we weren’t facing a $400,000 legal bill, we wouldn’t be throwing our zoning out the window.” He called the proposal a “travesty of American justice,” saying, “We need to slow down and listen to some other opinions.”

• Dayle Harrison said 2 minutes was not enough time to talk. “You’ve got to give us time and listen more closely to what we say.”

Russ Harris address the Saugatuck Township board on Wednesday night.

• Russ Harris said the meeting was a repeat of last summer’s hearing on the first settlement plan. “I hope we can all walk out as friends again,” he said.

• Dave Burdick said a 90-foot tall hotel would be equivalent to building three or four Big Pavilions at the mouth of the river. The Big Pavilion was 70 feet tall, he said.

• Keith Charak said the proposed hotel would be bad for the area’s lodging community.

On the air in Saugatuck talking McClendon

At the Morning Grind radio show Saturday, March 17, 2012. From left: Kristin Armstrong of the Saugatuck Center for the Arts, Mike Johnson and Tom Roady.

You never know what’s going to be on the Morning Grind radio show 7:30-9 a.m. Saturdays on WYVN 92.7 FM. The show is broadcast from the Annex coffee shop at Coral Gables, 220 Water St., with hosts Mike Johnson and Tom Roady.

Here’s a sample video: http://www.hollandsentinel.com/news_videos/x872946430/Morning-Grind-on-the-air

Besides Kristin Armstrong who spoke about the Saugatuck Center for the Arts and Al Weener who talked about sturgeon preservation efforts,  I was a guest this morning to talk about the proposed settlement of the Aubrey McClendon lawsuit against Saugatuck Township. I quickly realized the chasm between presenting a topic for print and web vs. broadcast. I left the radio broadcast with half-finished thoughts and awkward silences.

Here’s a quick summary of the key points I stammered through:

• The public hearing is 5 p.m. Wednesday at Saugatuck High School. The township board will listen to comments then could make a decision on whether or not to accept the proposed settlement. If accepted, the agreement goes to a federal judge who could OK it or dismiss it.

• Read the proposal yourself at saugatucktownship.org. It’s about 45 pages.

Radio host Mike Johnson talks Saturday morning.

• Basically, the proposal says:

The disputed zoning — called R-4 Lakeshore Open Space District that was adopted in 2006 — will change on McClendon’s land only. It would go back to the previous categories called R1 Residential, R-2 Riverside Residential and R-3B Lakeshore Transition. In the lawsuit, McClendon said he was not properly noticed of the 2006 zoning change and his property was singled out by that designation.

All development plans will follow the proper township channels, including the planning commission and zoning board of appeals. “We have to go to the institutions like any other property owner,” said Stephen Neumer, McClendon’s local representative. “This is not a special deal.”

McClendon will ask for a variance — in essence, an approval to violate zoning rules — from the zoning board of appeals to build a 25-suite inn up to 90 feet tall and construct other buildings taller than the ordinances allow. The rules allow structures 35 feet high. He would also ask to build a nine-hole golf course and 66-slip marina.

Dugout Road would be turned into a pedestrian walkway.

• The Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance does not support the settlement proposal because the variances are not just minor alterations, but instead actually change the underlying zoning itself. “This settlement tries to fit a square peg in a round hole,” said Scott Howard, a land use attorney for Olson, Bzdok and Howard of Traverse City.

The dunes alliance recommends changing the zoning not through court action but through the traditional method of having the planning commission study the issue, hold public hearings then have changes approved by the township board.

• The township has spent more than $429,000 on this lawsuit. McClendon has spent more than $1 million, according to Neumer.

If the settlement proposal is accepted and approved by the judge, the township pays its own legal fees and McClendon pays his. McClendon would also pay $75,000 to the township to cover costs linked to the variance applications.

Al Weener talks about sturgeon in the Kalamazoo River while Mike Johnson, front, prepares his next question on Saturday, March 17, 2012, during the Morning Grind radio show.

Longtime city supporter Harold Thieda dies

Saugatuck resident Harold Thieda, right, speaks with Sig Steiger about the history of the Saugatuck Chain Ferry on Saturday, July 17, 2010. Thieda rode the ferry to get his mail at the post office across the river from his home.

Saugatuck Mayor Jane Verplank started the city council meeting with a heavy heart on Monday.

“Sunday was not a good day in Saugatuck,” she said.

Harold Thieda, 69, died in Grace of Douglas after a battle with a cancer.

Harold was a member of the city planning commission for 10 years, was a member of the historical society and was chairman of the Kalamazoo Harbor Master Plan Committee, the predecessor of the new harbor authority.

Harold also regularly sat in on city council workshops and meetings.

“He was always there when you needed him,” Verplank said.

He was a member of St. Peter’s Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus and, as Verplank noted, he often sold Tootsie Rolls in front of the post office to raise money for children with special needs.

“I will forever miss him,” she said.

Arrangements will be announced by the Saugatuck Chapel, Dykstra Funeral Homes, 520 Lake St..

For more information, visit dykstrafuneralhome.com.

A referendum on McClendon settlement?

Voters might have a say in a settlement agreement between Saugatuck Township and developer Aubrey McClendon.

Township Supervisor Bill Wester told about 30 people Wednesday night that he supports the idea of a referendum on the zoning issue that has cost the township hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

“I would love to see a referendum,” he said. “I think it’s wonderful.”

Some area residents have been demanding more access to the recent negotations between McClendon and the township. About 30 people attended the Wednesday meeting to ask for more input into the settlement negotiations they feel are being conducted behind closed doors.

“We must be part of this discussion,” said a tearful Janet Rund, who said she has no fondness or affection for McClendon, adding, “No tyrant should be rewarded.”

Steve Darpel, a former township planning commissioner, said more public input is needed in the negotiations.

“It feels like democracy has been hijacked in this township,” he said.

Residents have said the process that led to a first settlement proposal was closed and did not involve the community. A judge threw out that plan in November. A second settlement agreement is possible by April after the township and its attorneys have met in closed sessions.

McClendon’s company Singapore Dunes LLC sued the township in fedeal court in 2010 alleging McClendon’s property had been singled out for spot zoning in 2006.

Many residents at the Wednesday meeting, and an earlier meeting Monday sponsored by the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance, a group opposed to McClendon’s development plans, want the zoning returned to what it was before McClendon purchased the land. The planning commission would then work with McClendon on how to develop the 320 acres of duneland north of the Kalamazoo River.

Voting on zoning issues happened recently in Van Buren County.

South Haven voters upheld their city’s rezoning of almost 20 acres to allow a Meijer store at the corner of Phoenix Road and Blue Star Highway.

Getting ready to fight cancer

Participants in the 2012 Allegan County Lakeshore Relay for Life Kick Off Party put luminaries on their tables Wednesday, Feb. 29, at Fenn Valley Winery and Vineyards, 6130 122nd Ave.

 Pink ribbons for breast cancer awareness. Purple ribbons for pancreatic cancer. Teal for ovarian cancer. Black for melanoma.

Volunteers for Relay for Life will bring the rainbow of colors together June 9-10 in Fennville to help bring awareness to cancer research and raise money to find a cure.

Organizers of the event met Wednesday night, Feb. 29, at Fenn Valley Winery and Vineyards, 6130 122nd Ave., to kick off the event.

“There are so many people aware of cancer, but they’re not aware of how many types there are,” said Relay for Life Chairwoman Hedy Morse.

Alan Kort talks Wednesday about being diagnosed with cancer.

Organizers are aiming for 25 teams to spend 24 hours at the Fennville High School track in June to raise $76,000 to fight cancer.

Last year, the event brought in about $73,382.

In its first year in 2009, the event raised $53,600.

“Every year, we think we can’t get anymore, but we do,” Morse said. “We work a little harder.”

Cancer survivor Alan Kort told volunteers Feb. 29 that he will be celebrating during the walk his first year since being diagnosed and treated for cancer.

He discovered a lump on his leg while bicycling last July and had it examined on a Monday. Within days, he was in treatment for cancer.

“This was my struggle. Life ebbs and flows,” he said. “Cancer is a strange thing, seemingly simple, but it is so complex in the confines of the human psyche.”

Teams will be raising funds throughout the spring before the June event.

At 6 p.m. March 10, the Seeds of Hope team has a bowling fundraiser set at Lakeview Lanes, 229 Center St. in Douglas.

At 7 p.m. April 28, Team Forever Friends is holding its second Bras for a Cause auction at the Saugatuck Brewing Company, 2948 Blue Star Highway. People bid on handmade bras modeled by men. The first event last year brought in almost $1,500.

For more information on June’s Relay for Life, visit relayforlife.org/allegancountylakeshoremi.

For more pictures from the kick-off party, visit: http://www.hollandsentinel.com/photo/x186778116/Relay-for-Life-Getting-Ready

For a video, visit: http://www.hollandsentinel.com/videos